Selection of baseline blood pressure to guide management of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.G.P. Luther ◽  
S. Scholes ◽  
N. Wharton ◽  
S.M. Kinsella
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
Baseline Blood Pressure ◽  
Selection Of

scholarly journals COMPARISON OF HAEMODYNAMIC STABILITY WITH 0.5% AND 0.75% HYPERBARIC BUPIVACAINE DURING SPINAL ANAESTHESIA IN WOMEN UNDERGOING CAESAREAN SECTION

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 2078-81
Author(s):  
Hina Iftikhar ◽  
Aneel Aslam ◽  
Habib Ur Rehman ◽  
Zulfiqar Ali ◽  
Mohammad Ali Abbass ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Systolic Blood Pressure ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
P Value ◽  
Hyperbaric Bupivacaine ◽  
Haemodynamic Stability ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference

Objective: To compare the effect of 0.5% and 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine on haemodynamic stability in terms of mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate recorded at 4 min in patients undergoing caesarian section in spinal anesthesia. Study Design: Quasi experimental study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Anaesthesiology, Combined Military Hospital, Malir, from Jul to Dec 2018. Methodology: The patients were assigned in two groups (A and B) using lottery method. Group A received 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution. Group B received 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution. Spinal anaesthesia was given, blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. Data were analyzed in SPSS version 23. Both groups were compared for mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate by using independent sample t-test. Results: The mean age of patients was 29.62 ± 6.21 years in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 29.31 ± 6.20 years in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The mean systolic blood pressure of patients was 111.63 ± 5.96 mmHg in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 117.16 ± 7.12 mmHg in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The difference was significant in both groups (p-value <0.05). The mean heart rate of patients was 92.27 ± 4.71 beats per min (bpm) in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 97.68 ± 4.58 bpm in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The difference was significant in both groups (p-value <0.05). Conclusion: 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine was better than 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution in spinal anaesthesia during caesarean section.

EFFICACY OF PHENYLEPHRINE AND EPHEDRINE IN MAINTAINING MATERNAL BLOOD PRESSURE INTRA OPERATIVELY DURING SPINAL ANESTHESIA FOR CAESAREAN SECTION

2021 ◽  
pp. 25-28
Author(s):  
Anant Prakash ◽  
Rahul Kumar ◽  
Chandeshwar Choudhary ◽  
Debarshi Jana
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
Rapid Onset ◽  
Maternal Blood ◽  
Emergency Caesarean Section ◽  
Singleton Pregnancy ◽  
Duration Of Action ◽  
Arterial Blood ◽  
Maternal Blood Pressure

Introduction: Spinal anaesthesia has become a popular technique for caesarean section. It however has the potential to cause rapid onset of maternal hypotension which may have detrimental maternal and neonatal effects. Thus, a number of strategies for treating hypotension have been investigated. Careful positioning and volume preloading with crystalloid or colloids have been used to prevent it, but these are not complete measures and vasopressor is required to correct hypotension quickly . Methodology: 100 parturients ASA I and II scheduled for elective as well as emergency Caesarean section under sub arachnoid block (SAB) were studied. All parturients were at term, had uncomplicated singleton pregnancy with cephalic presentation. Results: Phenylephrine and Ephedrine are effective given prophylactically IV bolus followed by infusion in maintenance of arterial pressure within 15% limit of baseline. Phenylephrine has quicker and shorter duration of action effect in comparison to Ephedrine. Conclusion: Vasopressor drugs Phenylephreine and Ephedrine, effectively maintained arterial blood pressure during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

scholarly journals Accuracy and trending abilities of finger plethysmographic blood pressure and cardiac output compared with invasive measurements during caesarean delivery in healthy women. An observational study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivar Nagelgaard Omenås ◽  
Christian Tronstad ◽  
Leiv Arne Rosseland
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
Caesarean Delivery ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Polar Plot ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Healthy Women ◽  
Cardiac Output Measurements

Abstract Background: In women presenting for caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, continuous measurement of circulatory aspects, such as blood pressure and cardiac output, is often needed. At present, invasive techniques are used almost exclusively. Reliable non-invasive monitors would be welcome, as they could be safer and less uncomfortable, while easy and quick to apply. We aimed to evaluate whether a non-invasive, finger plethysmographic device, the ccNexFin monitor, can replace invasively measured blood pressure in the radial artery, and whether cardiac output measurements from this device can be used interchangeably with measurements from the mini-invasive LiDCO monitor, currently in use at our institution. Methods: Simultaneous invasive measurements were compared with ccNexFin in 23 healthy women during elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. We used Bland Altman statistics for assessing agreement, and polar plot methodology for judging trending abilities with pre-defined limits. Results: Mean arterial and systolic pressures showed biases (invasive – ccNexFin) of -4.3 and 12.2 mmHg, with limits of agreement of -15.9 – 7.4 and -11.1 – 35.6, respectively. The ccNexFin trending abilities were within suggested limits for mean pressure, but insufficient for systolic pressure compared with invasive measurements. Cardiac output had a small bias of 0.2 L/min, but wide limits of agreement of -2.6 – 3.0. The ccNexFin trending abilities compared with the invasive estimated values (LiDCO) were unsatisfactory. Conclusions: We consider the ccNexFin monitor to have sufficient accuracy in measuring mean arterial pressures. The limits of agreement for systolic measurements were wider, and the trending ability, compared with invasive measurements, was outside the recommended limit. The ccNexFin is not reliable for cardiac output measurements or trend in pregnant women for caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document