Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Low-dose bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The hypotension following spinal anesthesia remains commonplace in cesarean delivery. Intrathecal opioids are synergistic with local anesthetics and intensify sensory block without increasing sympathetic block. The combination makes it possible to achieve spinal anesthesia with otherwise inadequate doses of local anesthetic. We hypothesized that this phenomenon could be used to provide spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery while incurring less frequent hypotension.

METHODS: Thirty-two women scheduled for cesarean delivery were divided into 2 groups of patients who received a spinal injection of either 10 mg of isobaric (plain) bupivacaine 0.5% or 5 mg of isobaric bupivacaine with 25 microg fentanyl added. Each measurement of a systolic blood pressure less than 95 mm Hg or a decrease in systolic pressure of greater than 25% from baseline was considered as hypotension and treated with a bolus of 5 to 10 mg of intravenous ephedrine.

RESULTS: Spinal block provided surgical anesthesia in all patients. Peak sensory level was higher (T3 v T4. 5) and motor block more intense in the plain bupivacaine group. The plain bupivacaine patients were more likely to require treatment for hypotension (94% v 31%) and had more persistent hypotension (4.8 v 0.6 hypotensive measurements per patient) than patients in the minidose bupivacaine-fentanyl group. Mean ephedrine requirements were 23.8 mg and 2.8 mg, respectively, for the 2 groups. Patients in the plain bupivacaine group also complained of nausea more frequently than patients in the minidose bupivacaine-fentanyl group (69% v 31%).

CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine 5 mg + fentanyl 25 microg provided spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery with less hypotension, vasopressor requirements, and nausea than spinal anesthesia with 10 mg bupivacaine.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app