These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Combined spinal-epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
    Author: Simmons SW, Dennis AT, Cyna AM, Richardson MG, Bright MR.
    Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2019 Oct 10; 10(10):CD008100. PubMed ID: 31600820.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Single-shot spinal anaesthesia (SSS) and combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia are both commonly used for caesarean section anaesthesia. Spinals offer technical simplicity and rapid onset of nerve blockade which can be associated with hypotension. CSE anaesthesia allows for more gradual onset and also prolongation of the anaesthesia through use of a catheter. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of CSE anaesthesia to single-shot spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (search date: 8 August 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE anaesthesia with single-shot spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We further subgrouped spinal anaesthesia as either high-dose (10 or more mg bupivacaine), or low-dose (less than 10 mg bupivacaine). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 trials including 1272 women, but almost all comparisons for individual outcomes involved relatively small numbers of women. Two trials did not report on this review's outcomes and therefore contribute no data towards this review. Trials were conducted in national or university hospitals in Australia (1), Croatia (1), India (1), Italy (1), Singapore (3), South Korea (4), Spain (1), Sweden (1), Turkey (2), UK (1), USA (2). The trials were at a moderate risk of bias overall.CSE versus high-dose spinal anaesthesiaThere may be little or no difference between the CSE and high-dose spinal groups for the number of women requiring a repeat regional block or general anaesthetic as a result of failure to establish adequate initial blockade (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 1.97; 7 studies, 341 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether having CSE or spinal makes any difference in the number of women requiring supplemental intra-operative analgesia at any time after CSE or spinal anaesthetic insertion (average RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.43; 7 studies, 390 women; very low-quality evidence), or the number of women requiring intra-operative conversion to general anaesthesia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.95; 7 studies, 388 women; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the results for the number of women who were satisfied with anaesthesia, regardless of whether they received CSE or high-dose spinal (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.73 to 1.19; 2 studies, 72 women; very low-quality evidence). More women in the CSE group (13/21) experienced intra-operative nausea or vomiting requiring treatment than in the high-dose spinal group (6/21). There were 11 cases of post-dural puncture headache (5/56 with CSE versus 6/57 with SSS; 3 trials, 113 women) with no clear difference between groups. There was also no clear difference in intra-operative hypotension requiring treatment (46/86 with CSE versus 41/76 with SSS; 4 trials, 162 women). There were no babies with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (4 trials, 182 babies).CSE versus low-dose spinal anaesthesiaThere may be little or no difference between the CSE and low-dose spinal groups for the number of women requiring a repeat regional block or general anaesthetic as a result of failure to establish adequate initial blockade (RR 4.81, 95% CI 0.24 to 97.90; 3 studies, 224 women; low-quality evidence). Similarly, there is probably little difference in the number of women requiring supplemental intra-operative analgesia at any time after CSE or low-dose spinal anaesthetic insertion (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.92; 4 studies, 298 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of CSE or low-dose spinal on the need for intra-operative conversion to general anaesthesia, because this was not required by any of the 222 women in the three trials (low-quality evidence). None of the studies examined whether women were satisfied with their anaesthesia.The mean time to effective anaesthesia was faster in women who received low-dose spinal compared to CSE, although it is unlikely that the magnitude of this difference is clinically meaningful (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.85 minutes, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.18 minutes; 2 studies, 160 women).CSE appeared to reduce the incidence of intra-operative hypotension requiring treatment compared with low-dose spinal (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; 4 studies, 336 women). Similar numbers of women between the CSE and low-dose spinal groups experienced intra-operative nausea or vomiting requiring treatment (3/50 with CSE versus 6/50 with SSS; 1 study, 100 women), and there were no cases of post-dural puncture headache (1 study, 138 women). No infants in either group had an Apgar score of less than seven at five minutes (1 study; 60 babies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, the number of studies and participants for most of our analyses were small and some of the included trials had design limitations. There was some suggestion that, compared to spinal anaesthesia, CSE could be associated with a reduction in the number of women with intra-operative hypotension, but an increase in intra-operative nausea and vomiting requiring treatment. One small study found that low-dose spinal resulted in a faster time to effective anaesthesia compared to CSE. However, these results are based on limited data and the difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Consequently, there is currently insufficient evidence in support of one technique over the other and more evidence is needed in order to further evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of CSE and spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.More high-quality, sufficiently-powered studies in this area are needed. Such studies could consider using the outcomes listed in this review and should also consider reporting economic aspects of the different methods under investigation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]