Nalbuphine versus Midazolam as an Adjuvant to Intrathecal Bupivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section

Olfat Abdelmoniem Ibrahem Amin, Mohamed Abdel-Moniem Ibrahem, Dina Abdelhameed Elsadek Salem, Olfat Abdelmoniem Ibrahem Amin, Mohamed Abdel-Moniem Ibrahem, Dina Abdelhameed Elsadek Salem

Abstract

Background and purpose: Adding adjuvants to intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine provides long analgesic duration with less adverse effects. The aim of this study was to compare intrathecal nalbuphine versus midazolam in patients undergoing cesarean section.

Clinical trial id: NCT03918187.

Patients and methods: This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted on 90 females undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia who were randomly allocated to three equal groups of 30 patients each: group C received hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg plus 0.5 mL saline, group N received hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg plus 1 mg nalbuphine, group M received hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg plus 2.5 mg midazolam. The onset and duration of sensory and motor block, effective analgesic time, analgesic requirements, adverse effects, sedation, and Apgar scores were recorded.

Results: There was significant rapid onset of sensory and motor block (1.95±.44 and 3.50±0.43 min) with slower regression of sensory block and time to bromage I (211.6±13.2 and 219.8±20.2 min) in group N compared to groups M, C (p < 0.001), with statistically significant rapid onset and long duration of both blocks in group M compared to C (p<0.001). The effective analgesic time was significantly prolonged in group N (263.7±16.3) compared to groups M and C (224.2 ± 18.6, 185.5±17.45), respectively, (p<0.001) and prolonged in group M compared to C (p<0.001), with increase in analgesic requirement in group C compared to groups N and M (p<0.001) and no significant difference between groups N and M. There was higher sedation score in groups N, M (1.78±0.63, 2.75±0.54), respectively, compared to group C (0.61±0.12) (p<0.001) with lower Apgar score in group M (6.9±0.73) at one minute than in groups N, C (7.1±0.91, 7.7±0.84) (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the adverse effects.

Conclusion: Adding 1 mg nalbuphine to 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine provided more effective postoperative analgesia than adding 2.5 mg midazolam, with less non-significant adverse effects in midazolam group in patients undergoing elective cesarean section.

Keywords: cesarean section; midazolam; nalbuphine; postoperative analgesia; spinal anesthesia.

Conflict of interest statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

© 2020 Amin et al.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort diagram of the study.

References

    1. Shakooh S, Bhosle P. Intrathecal nalbuphine: an effective adjuvant for postoperative analgesia. Innov J Med Health Sci. 2014;4(2):79–82.
    1. Shukla D, Verma A, Agarwat A, et al. Comparative study of intrathecal dexmedetomidine with intrathecal magnesium sulfate used as adjuvants to bupivacaine. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2011;27(4):495–499. doi:10.4103/0970-9185.86594
    1. Ahmed FI. Intrathecal nalbuphine versus fentanyl as an adjuvant to bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section: a randomized double –blind study. Res Opin Anesth Intensive Care. 2019;6:112–118. doi:10.4103/roaic.roaic_109_17
    1. Naaz S, Shukla U, Srivastava S, et al. A comparative study of analgesic effect of intrathecal nalbuphine and fentanyl as adjuvant in lower limb orthopedic surgery. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(7):25–28.
    1. Bindra TK, Kumar P, Jindal G. Postoperative analgesia with intrathecal nalbuphine versus intrathecal fentanyl in cesarean section: a double – blind comparative study. Anesth Essays Res. 2018;12(2):561–565. doi:10.4103/aer.AER_41_18
    1. Vishnuvardhan V, Hemalatha S, Shetty SM, et al. Effect of adding intrathecal magnesium sulphate to bupivacaine and fentanyl in lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries. J Dent Med Sci. 2016;15:44–48. doi:10.9790/0853-150754448
    1. Das T, Ray H, Baliarsingh P. A comparative study of efficacy of intrathecal nalbuphine in different doses as an adjuvant to levobupivacaine in subarachnoid block. Sch J Appl Med Sci. 2017;5(6E):2388–2392.
    1. Rawal N, Nuutinen L, Raj PP, et al. Behavioral and histopathologic effects following intrathecal administration of butorphanol, sufentanil and nalbuphine in sheep. Anesthesiology. 1991;75:1025–1034. doi:10.1097/00000542-199112000-00015
    1. Culebras X, Gaggero G, Jiri Z, et al. Advantages of intrathecal nalbuphine, compared with intrathecal morphine, after cesarean delivery: an evaluation of postoperative analgesia and adverse effects. Anesth Analg. 2000;91(3):601–605. doi:10.1213/00000539-200009000-00019
    1. Dodawad R, GB. S, Pandarpurkar S, et al. Intrathecal midazolam as an adjuvant in pregnancy induced hypertensive patients undergoing an elective caesarean section. A clinical comparative study. Anesth Pain Med. 2016;6(5):e 38550. doi:10.5812/aapm.38550
    1. Kulkarni M, Kurdi M, Itagimath S, et al. The role of intrathecal midazolam as an adjuvant to bupivacaine in providing post-operative pain relief. Int J Health Allied Sci. 2012;1:231–234.
    1. Child JD, Piva SR, Fritz M. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2005;30(11):1331–1334. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29
    1. Bromage PR. A comparison of the hydrochloride and carbon dioxide salts of lidocaine and prilocaine in epidural analgesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl. 1978;75:193–200.
    1. Carlo WA. The newborn infant In: Kliegman RM, Stanton BF, St.Geme JW, Schor NF, editors. Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics. 20th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2016:chap 94.
    1. Abdelhamid SA, El-lakany MH. Intrathecal dexmedetomidine: useful or not? Anesth Clin Res. 2013;4(9):351–356.
    1. Gupta R, Verma R, Bogra J, et al. A comparative study of intrathecal dexmedetomidine and fentanyl as adjuvants to bupivacaine. J Anesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2011;27(3):339–343. doi:10.4103/0970-9185.83678
    1. Tiwari AK, Tomar GS, Agrawal J. Intrathecal bupivacaine in comparison with a combination of nalbuphine and bupivacaine for subarachnoid block: a randomized prospective double – blind clinical study. Am J Ther. 2013;20(6):592–595. doi:10.1097/MJT.0b013e31822048db
    1. Gomaa H, Mohamed NN, Zoheir HAH, et al. A comparison between postoperative analgesia after intrathecal nalbuphine with bupivacaine and intrathecal fentanyl with bupivacaine after cesarean section. Egypt J Anaesth. 2014;30:405–410. doi:10.1016/j.egja.2014.03.008
    1. Mukherjee A, Pal A, Agarwal J, et al. Intrathecal nalbuphine as an adjuvant to subarachnoid block: what is the most effective dose ? Anesth Essays Res. 2011;5:171–175. doi:10.4103/0259-1162.94759
    1. Gupta K, Rastogi B, Gupta PK, et al. Intrathecal nalbuphine versus intrathecal fentanyl as adjuvant to 0.5 % hyperbaric bupivacaine for orthopedic surgery of lower limbs under subarachnoid block: a comparative evaluation. Indian J Pain. 2016;30:90–95. doi:10.4103/0970-5333.186463
    1. Kohno T, Wakai A, Ataka T, et al. Action of midazolam on excitatory transmission in dorsal horn neurons of adult rat spinal cord. J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 2006;104:338–343. doi:10.1097/00000542-200602000-00020
    1. Good Child CS, Guo Z, Musgreave A, et al. Antinociception by intrathecal midazolam involves endogenous neurotransmitters acting at spinal cord delta opioid receptors. Br J Anaesth. 1996;77:758–763. doi:10.1093/bja/77.6.758
    1. Gupta A, Kamat H, Kharod U. Efficacy of intrathecal midazolam in potentiating the analgesic effect of intrathecal fentanyl in patients undergoing lower limb surgery. Anesth Essays Res. 2015;9:379–383. doi:10.4103/0259-1162.164650
    1. Mansour HS, Mohamad H. Effects of intrathecal midazolam in potentiating the analgesic effect of intrathecal dexmedetomidine in elderly patient undergoing hip repair surgeries. Res Opin Anesth Intensive Care. 2018;5:58–66.
    1. Bharti N, Madan R, Mohanty PR, et al. Intrathecal midazolam added to bupivacaine improves the duration and quality of spinal anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003;47:1101–1105. doi:10.1034/j.1399-6576.2003.00186.x
    1. Agrawal N, Usmami A, Sehgal R, et al. Effect of intrathecal midazolam bupivacaine combination on postoperative analgesia. Indian J Anaesth. 2005;49:37–39.
    1. Kim MH, Lee YM. Intrathecal midazolam increases the analgesic effects of spinal blockade with bupivacaine in patients undergoing haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86(1):77–79. doi:10.1093/bja/86.1.77
    1. Sanwal MK, Baduni N, Jain A. Bupivacaine sparing effect of intrathecal midazolam in subarachnoid block for cesarean section. J Obstet Anaesth Crit Care. 2013;3(1):27–31. doi:10.4103/2249-4472.114288
    1. Rodola F. Midazolam as an anti-emetic. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2006;10(3):121–126.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi