Efficacy of low-dose bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean delivery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Spinal anaesthesia is the preferred anaesthetic technique for elective Caesarean deliveries. Hypotension is the most common side-effect and has both maternal and neonatal consequences. Different strategies have been attempted to prevent spinal-induced hypotension, including the use of low-dose bupivacaine. We conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of spinal bupivacaine in low dose (LD ≤8 mg) with conventional dose (CD >8 mg) for elective Caesarean delivery. Thirty-five trials were identified for eligibility assessment, 15 were selected for data extraction, and 12 were finally included in the meta-analysis. We investigated sources of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression for confounding variables (baricity, intrathecal opioids, lateral vs sitting position, uterine exteriorization, and study population). Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the results. In the LD group, the need for analgesic supplementation during surgery was significantly higher [risk ratio (RR)=3.76, 95% confidence interval (95% CI)=2.38-5.92] and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 4 (95% CI=2-7). Furthermore, the LD group exhibited a lower risk of hypotension (RR=0.78, 95% CI=0.65-0.93) and nausea/vomiting (RR=0.71, 95% CI=0.55-0.93). Conversion to general anaesthesia occurred only in the LD group (two events). Neonatal outcomes (Apgar score, acid-base status) and clinical quality variables (patient satisfaction, surgical conditions) showed non-significant differences between LD and CD. This meta-analysis demonstrates that low-dose bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia compromises anaesthetic efficacy (risk of analgesic supplementation: high grade of evidence), despite the benefit of lower maternal side-effects (hypotension, nausea/vomiting: moderate grade of evidence).

Breastfeeding success rate after vaginal delivery can be high despite the use of epidural fentanyl: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Epidural labor analgesia inclusive of high-dose fentanyl has been thought to affect breastfeeding in multiparous patients. In our experience, this effect is not as significant as quoted in the literature. This study was designed to evaluate breastfeeding success in women receiving epidural analgesia with fentanyl-containing solutions at our institution. METHODS: Term multiparous women who received epidural analgesia for labor, had previously breastfed, and who intended to breastfeed, were recruited. Baseline demographics, as well as detailed epidural, obstetric and neonatal data, were collected. Epidural analgesia was achieved with a mixture of bupivacaine and fentanyl. Subjects were telephoned both 1 and 6 weeks after delivery, and a breastfeeding questionnaire was completed. Our primary outcome was breastfeeding cessation at 6 weeks. RESULTS: One hundred and five women were recruited, with 18 exclusions. The median cumulative epidural fentanyl dose was 151.4 microg (30-570 microg). No neonates developed complications attributable to labor analgesia. Four women stopped breastfeeding because of issues related to the baby (4.6%); only one of them received a fentanyl dose >150 microg. The breastfeeding success rate was therefore >95%. The women had a median maternity leave of 12 months, and 69% received post-partum lactation support. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of successful breastfeeding in multiparous women who undergo vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia inclusive of fentanyl is much greater at our institution than previously reported in the literature. This may be due to favorable conditions such as time off work and post-natal support.

Atomised lidocaine for airway topical anaesthesia in the morbidly obese: 1% compared with 2%.

Airway anaesthesia using atomised lidocaine for awake oral fibreoptic intubation in morbidly obese patients was evaluated using two doses of local anaesthetic. In this randomised, blinded prospective study, 40 ml of atomised 1% (n = 11) or 2% (n = 10) lidocaine was administered with high oxygen flow as carrier. Outcomes included time for intubation, patient tolerance to airway manipulation, haemodynamic parameters, the bronchoscopist's overall satisfaction, and serial serum lidocaine concentrations. Patients receiving lidocaine 1% had a longer mean (SD) time from the start of topicalisation to tracheal tube cuff inflation than those receiving lidocaine 2% (8.6 (0.9) min vs 6.9 (0.5) min, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients in the 1% cohort demonstrated increased responses to airway manipulation (p < 0.0001), reflecting lower bronchoscopist's satisfaction scores (p < 0.03). Haemodynamic responses to topicalisation and airway manipulation were similar in both groups. Peak plasma concentration was lower in the 1% group (mean (SD) 1.4 (0.3) and 3.8 (0.5) microg.ml(-1), respectively; p < 0.001). Airway anaesthesia using atomised lidocaine for awake oral fibreoptic intubation in the morbidly obese is efficacious, rapid and safe. Compared with lidocaine 1%, the 2% dose provides superior intubating conditions.

Airway topicalisation in morbidly obese patients using atomised lidocaine: 2% compared with 4%.

We evaluated the technique of airway anaesthesia using atomised lidocaine for awake oral fibreoptic intubation in morbidly obese patients using two doses of local anaesthetic. Morbidly obese patients were allocated to receive either 2% or 4% lidocaine (40 ml) for oral airway anaesthesia using an atomiser with high oxygen flow. Patients were carefully sedated using midazolam and fentanyl. Outcomes included patient tolerance to airway manipulation, haemodynamic parameters, and serial plasma lidocaine concentrations. In all, 27 patients were enrolled in the study (2% cohort n = 14, 4% cohort n = 13). Patient characteristics and time for topicalisation and airway management were similar. Haemodynamic parameters did not change significantly. Tolerance to insertion of the Ovassapian airway, bronchoscopy, and tracheal tube positioning was excellent (12 vs 12 patients, 12 vs 12 patients, and 8 vs 12 patients had no response, respectively, 2% vs 4%). Differences did not reach statistical significance. Peak plasma lidocaine concentration was significantly lower in the 2% group (2.8 (0.8) microg.ml(-1) compared with 6.5 (1.0) microg.ml(-1), p < 0.05). Airway anaesthesia using atomised lidocaine for awake fibreoptic intubation in the morbidly obese is efficacious, rapid, and safe. Compared with 4% lidocaine, the 2% dose provides acceptable intubating conditions in most cases and produces lower plasma lidocaine levels.