Hyperbaric prilocaine vs. hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in women undergoing elective caesarean section: a comparative randomised double-blind study

K Chapron, J-C Sleth, X Capdevila, S Bringuier, C Dadure, K Chapron, J-C Sleth, X Capdevila, S Bringuier, C Dadure

Abstract

Hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anaesthesia remains the gold standard for elective caesarean section, but the resultant clinical effects can be unpredictable. Hyperbaric prilocaine induces shorter motor block but has not previously been studied in the obstetric spinal anaesthesia setting. We aimed to compare duration of motor block after spinal anaesthesia with prilocaine or bupivacaine during elective caesarean section. In this prospective randomised, double-blind study, women with uncomplicated pregnancy undergoing elective caesarean section were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included: patients aged < 18 years; height < 155 cm or > 175 cm; a desire to breastfeed; or a contra-indication to spinal anaesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: the prilocaine group underwent spinal anaesthesia with 60 mg intrathecal prilocaine; and the bupivacaine group received 12.5 mg intrathecal heavy bupivacaine. Both 2.5 µg sufentanil and 100 µg morphine were added to the local anaesthetic agent in both groups. The primary outcome was duration of motor block, which was assessed every 15 min after arriving in the post-anaesthetic care unit. Maternal haemodynamics, APGAR scores, pain scores, patient satisfaction and side-effects were recorded. Fifty patients were included, with 25 randomly allocated to each group. Median (IQR [range]) motor block duration was significantly shorter in the prilocaine group, 158 (125-188 [95-249]) vs. 220 (189-250 [89-302]) min, p < 0.001. Median length of stay in the post-anaesthetic care unit was significantly shorter in the prilocaine group, 135 (120-180 [120-230]) vs. 180 (150-195 [120-240]) min, p = 0.009. There was no difference between groups for: maternal intra-operative hypotension; APGAR score; umbilical cord blood pH; maternal postoperative pain; and patients' or obstetricians' satisfaction. We conclude that hyperbaric prilocaine induces a shorter and more reliable motor block than hyperbaric bupivacaine for women with uncomplicated pregnancy undergoing elective caesarean section.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03433976.

Keywords: caesarean section; motor block; prilocaine; spinal anaesthesia.

© 2021 Association of Anaesthetists.

References

    1. Caughey AB, Wood SL, Macones GA, et al. Guidelines for intraoperative care in cesarean delivery: enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations (part 2). American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2018; 219: 533-44.
    1. Hawkins JL, Koonin LM, Palmer SK, Gibbs CP. Anesthesia-related deaths during obstetric delivery in the United States, 1979-1990. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 277-84.
    1. Fuchs F, Benhamou D. Post-partum management after cesarean delivery. Guidelines for clinical practice. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 2015; 44: 1111-7.
    1. Brill S, Gurman GM, Fisher A. A history of neuraxial administration of local analgesics and opioids. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2005; 20: 682-9.
    1. Ginosar Y, Cohen SE. ED50 and ED95 of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine coadministered with opioids for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology 2004; 100: 672-82.
    1. Liu SS, Ware PD, Allen HW, Neal JM, Pollock JE. Dose-response characteristics of spinal bupivacaine in volunteers: clinical implications for ambulatory anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 729-36.
    1. Calthorpe N. Inadequate spinal anaesthesia with 0.5% marcain heavy. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 2004; 13: 131.
    1. Harris RW, McDonald P. Inadequate spinal anaesthesia with 0.5% marcain heavy (batch DK-1961). International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 2004; 13: 130.
    1. Smiley RM, Redai I. More failed spinal anesthetics with hyperbaric bupivacaine. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 2004; 13: 132-4.
    1. Capdevila X, Aveline C, Delaunay L, et al. Factors determining the choice of spinal versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery: results of a multicenter observational study. Advances in Therapy 2020; 37: 527-40.
    1. Black AS, Newcombe GN, Plummer JL, McLeod DH, Martin DK. Spinal anaesthesia for ambulatory arthroscopic surgery of the knee: a comparison of low-dose prilocaine and fentanyl with bupivacaine and fentanyl. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011; 106: 183-8.
    1. Manassero A, Fanelli A. Prilocaine hydrochloride 2% hyperbaric solution for intrathecal injection: a clinical review. Local and Regional Anesthesia 2017; 10: 15-24.
    1. Sleth J-C, Saizy C. Prilocaïne hyperbare et césarienne: étude prospective de faisabilité. Anesthésie et Réanimation 2015; 1: A152-A153.
    1. Bromage PR. A comparison of the hydrochloride and carbon dioxide salts of lidocaine and prilocaine in epidural analgesia. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1965; 9: 55-69.
    1. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2015; 120: 1056-9.
    1. Maes S, Laubach M, Poelaert J. Randomised controlled trial of spinal anaesthesia with bupivacaine or 2-chloroprocaine during caesarean section. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2016; 60: 642-9.
    1. Wasan EK, Sacevich C, El-Aneed A, et al. Investigation into spinal anesthetic failure with hyperbaric bupivacaine: the role of cold exposure on bupivacaine degradation. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 2019; 66: 803-12.
    1. Xiao F, Xu W-P, Zhang X-M, Zhang Y-F, Wang L-Z, Chen X-Z. ED50 and ED95 of intrathecal bupivacaine coadministered with sufentanil for cesarean delivery under combined spinal-epidural in severely preeclamptic patients. Chinese Medical Journal 2015; 128: 285-90.
    1. Cuypers V, Van de Velde M, Devroe S. Intracranial subdural haematoma following neuraxial anaesthesia in the obstetric population: a literature review with analysis of 56 reported cases. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 2016; 25: 58-65.
    1. Onishi E, Murakami M, Hashimoto K, Kaneko M. Optimal intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine dose with opioids for cesarean delivery: a prospective double-blinded randomized trial. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 2017; 31: 68-73.
    1. Helwig JT, Parer JT, Kilpatrick SJ, Laros RK. Umbilical cord blood acid-base state: What is normal? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996; 174: 1807-14.
    1. Guay J. Methemoglobinemia related to local anesthetics: a summary of 242 episodes. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2009; 108: 837-45.
    1. Dollery C, Boobis AR. Therapeutic Drug, 2nd edn, Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1999: 198-201.
    1. Figueiredo Pereira Cherobin AC, Tassara TG. Safety of local anesthetics. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2020; 95: 82-90.
    1. Juhlin L, Hägglund G, Evers H. Absorption of lidocaine and prilocaine after application of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) on normal and diseased skin. Acta Dermato-Venereologica 1989; 69: 18-22.
    1. Vagts DA, Bley CH, Mutz CW. Use of 2% hyperbaric prilocaine for spinal anesthesia. Sensitivity analysis in outpatient surgery. Der Anaesthesist 2013; 62: 271-7.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir