Current Practice in Obstetric Anaesthesia.
Part III. Regional anaesthesia for caesarean section

Czech version

Authors: Bláha Jan ^1,2; Nosková Pavlína ^1,2; Klozová Radka ^1,3; Seidlová Dagmar ^1,4; Štourač Petr ^1,5; Pařízek Antonín ⁶
Authors‘ workplace: Expertní skupina pro porodnickou anestezii a analgezii ČSARIM ¹; Klinika anesteziologie, resuscitace a intenzivní medicíny, 1. LF UK v Prazea Všeobecná fakultní nemocnice v Praze ²; Klinika anesteziologie a resuscitace, 2. LF UK v Praze a Fakultní nemocnice v Motole ³; II. anesteziologicko-resuscitační oddělení Fakultní nemocnice Brno ⁴; Klinika anesteziologie, resuscitace a intenzivní medicíny, LF MU a Fakultní nemocnice Brno ⁵; Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika, 1. LF UK v Praze a Všeobecná fakultní nemocnice v Praze ⁶
Published in: Anest. intenziv. Med., 25, 2014, č. 1, s. 29-39
Category: Postgraduate Education - Expert group of obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia

Overview

Nearly a quarter of all births in the Czech Republic end by caesarean section in the recent years. With the increasing age of mothers, number of comorbidities, deliveries after previous caesarean section and many other causes, it can be assumed that this trend will continue to rise despite all the efforts to change it. This negative trend is also influenced by the decreasing willingness of obstetricians to “risk“ spontaneous labour in borderline obstetric situations. The growing number of caesarean sections increases the importance and influence of anaesthesia. As well as elsewhere in the world, we register the rise of regional anaesthesia in comparison to general anaesthesia in the past 20 years, so at present regional anaesthesia in caesarean delivery prevails. A review of the actual numbers however shows the alarming gap between the Czech Republic and the rest of the world. In 2011 regional anaesthesia for caesarean section was administered in 53% of cases and general anaesthesia in 47% in the Czech Republic. For comparison, general anaesthesia for caesarean section does not exceed 10–15% in most of the developed world. The causes include the conservatism of Czech obstetrics and the reluctance of obstetricians in many departments to regional anaesthesia techniques, but perhaps also the lack of availability of “local“ experiences published in the Czech medical journals. Therefore ESPAA in this article aims to summarize the current experience and recommendations for caesarean section under regional anesthesia to support the sites where some concerns to regional techniques still remain.

Keywords:
caesarean section – general anaesthesia – regional anaesthesia – choice of anaesthesia

Sources

1. Bucklin, B. A., Hawkins, J. L., Anderson, J. R., Ullrich, F. A. Obstetric anesthesia workforce survey: twenty-year update. Anesthesiology, 2005, 103, 3, p. 645–653.

2. Pařízek, A., Bláha, J., Dolenská, S., Nosková, P. Aktuální vývoj porodnické analgezie v ČR. In XVII národní kongres ČSARIM: 10.9.2010; Zlín 2010.

3. Štourač, P. Obstetric Anaesthesia and Analgesia Month Attributes – reálná zpráva o anesteziologické praxi na českých porodních odděleních. Anest. intenziv. Med., 2013, 24, 2, p. 81–82.

4. Pařízek, A., Bláha, J., Nosková, P. Porodnická analgezie a anest-ezie v České republice v roce 2012. 20. výročí programu postgraduálního vzdělávání. Česká gynekologie, 2012, 77, 4, p. 246–249.

5. Nosková, P., Bláha, J., Klozová, R., Seidlová, D., Štourač, P., Zelinková, H. Mýty a realita porodní analgezie ČR: OBAAMA-CZ projekt 2012. Bolest, 2012, 15, Suppl. 1, p. 18.

6. Marcus, H. E., Behrend, A., Schier, R., Dagtekin, O., Teschen-dorf, P., Bottiger, B. W., Spohr, F. Anesthesiological management of Caesarean sections : nationwide survey in Germany. Der Anaesthesist, 2011, 60, 10, p. 916–928.

7. Betran, A. P., Merialdi, M., Lauer, J. A., Bing-Shun, W., Tho-mas, J., Van Look, P., Wagner, M. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2007, 21, 2, p. 98–113.

8. Wilkins, K. K., Greenfield, M. L., Polley, L. S., Mhyre, J. M. A survey of obstetric perianesthesia care unit standards. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 2009, 108, 6, p. 1869–1875.

9. Tsai, P. S., Hsu, C. S., Fan, Y. C., Huang, C. J. General anaesthesia is associated with increased risk of surgical site infection after Caesarean delivery compared with neuraxial anaesthesia: a population-based study. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2011, 107, 5, p. 757–761.

10. Van Houwe, P., Heytens, L., Vercruysse, P. A survey of obstetric an anesthesia practice in Flanders. Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica, 2006, 57, 1, 29–37.

11. Weiniger, C. F., Ivri, S., Ioscovich, A., Grimberg, L., Evron, S., Ginosar, Y. Obstetric anesthesia units in Israel: a national questionnaire-based survey. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 2010, 19, 4, p. 410–416.

12. Benhamou, D., Bouaziz, H., Chassard, D., Ducloy, J. C., Fu-zier, V., Laffon, M., Mercier, F., Raucoules, M., Samii, K. Anaesthetic practices for scheduled caesarean delivery: a 2005 French national survey. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 2009, 26, 8, p. 694–700.

13. Bláha, J., Nosková, P., Klozová, R., Seidlová, D., Štourač, P., Pařízek, A. Současné postupy v porodnické anestezii I. – peroperační péče u císařského řezu. Anest. intenziv. Med., 2013, 24, 2, p. 91–101.

14. Schewe, J. C., Komusin, A., Zinserling, J., Nadstawek, J., Hoeft, A., Hering, R. Effects of spinal anaesthesia versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section on postoperative analgesic consumption and postoperative pain. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 2009, 26, 1, p. 52–59.

15. Chiu, C. L., Mansor, M., Ng, K. P., Chan, Y. K. Retrospective review of spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section in preeclamptic patients. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 2003, 12, 1, p. 23–27.

16. Ng, K., Parsons, J., Cyna, A. M., Middleton, P. Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2004, 2, p. CD003765.

17. Garry, M., Davies, S. Failure of regional blockade for caesarean section. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth., 2002, 11, 1, p. 9–12.

18. Pan, P. H., Bogard, T. D., Owen, M. D. Incidence and characteristics of failures in obstetric neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia: a retrospective analysis of 19,259 deliveries. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth., 2004, 13, 4, P. 227–233.

19. Fettes, P. D., Jansson, J. R., Wildsmith, J. A. Failed spinal anaesthesia: mechanisms, management, and prevention. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2009, 102, 6, P. 739–748.

20. Burns, S. M., Cowan, C. M. Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: current clinical practice. Hosp. Med., 2000, 61, 12, p. 855–858.

21. Russell, I. F. A comparison of cold, pinprick and touch for assessing the level of spinal block at caesarean section. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth., 2004, 13, 3, p. 146–152.

22. Russell, I. F. Levels of anaesthesia and intraoperative pain at caesarean section under regional block. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth., 1995, 4, 2, p. 71–77.

23. Bourne, T. M., deMelo, A. E., Bastianpillai, B. A., May, A. E.A survey of how British obstetric anaesthetists test regional anaesthesia before caesarean section. Anaesthesia, 1997, 52, 9, p. 901–903.

24. Rollins, M., Lucero, J. Overview of anesthetic considerations for Cesarean delivery. British medical bulletin, 2012, 101, p. 105–125.

25. Ayad, S., Demian, Y., Narouze, S. N., Tetzlaff, J. E. Subarachnoid catheter placement after wet tap for analgesia in labor: influence on the risk of headache in obstetric patients. Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2003, 28, 6, p. 512–515.

26. Chestnut, D. H. Obstetric Anesthesia: Principles and Practice. 4 edn. Philadelphia: Mosby, Elsevier Inc., 2009.

27. Tsen, L. C., Hepner, D. L. Needles used for spinal anesthesia. Expert Rev. Med. Devices, 2006, 3, 4, p. 499–508.

28. Lambert, D. H., Hurley, R. J., Hertwig, L., Datta, S. Role of needle gauge and tip configuration in the production of lumbar puncture headache. Reg. Anesth., 1997, 22, 1, p. 66–72.

29. Ghaleb, A. Postdural puncture headache. Anesthesiol. Res. Pract., 2010.

30. Reina, M. A., de Leon-Casasola, O. A., Lopez, A., De Andres, J.,Martin, S., Mora, M. An in vitro study of dural lesions produced by 25-gauge Quincke and Whitacre needles evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med., 2000, 25, 4, p. 393–402.

31. Saifuddin, A., Burnett, S. J., White, J. The variation of position of the conus medullaris in an adult population. A magnetic resonance imaging study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1998, 23, 13, p. 1452–1456.

32. Broadbent, C. R., Maxwell, W. B., Ferrie, R., Wilson, D. J., Gawne-Cain, M., Russell, R. Ability of anaesthetists to identify a marked lumbar interspace. Anaesthesia, 2000, 55, 11, p. 1122–1126.

33. Van Gessel, E. F., Forster, A., Gamulin, Z. Continuous spinal anesthesia: where do spinal catheters go? Anesth. Analg., 1993, 76, 5, p. 1004–1007.

34. Render, C. A. The reproducibility of the iliac crest as a marker of lumbar spine level. Anaesthesia, 1996, 51, 11, p. 1070–1071.

35. Reynolds, F. Logic in the safe practice of spinal anaesthesia. Anaesthesia, 2000, 55, 11, p. 1045–1046.

36. Gautier, P., De Kock, M., Huberty, L., Demir, T., Izydor-czic, M., Vanderick, B. Comparison of the effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for Caesarean section. Br. J. Anaesth., 2003, 91, 5, p. 684–689.

37. Kestin, I. G. Spinal anaesthesia in obstetrics. Br. J. Anaesth., 1991, 66, 5, p. 596–607.

38. Greene, N. M. Distribution of local anesthetic solutions within the subarachnoid space. Anesth. Analg., 1985, 64, 7, p. 715–730.

39. Carvalho, B., Durbin, M., Drover, D. R., Cohen, S. E., Ginosar, Y., Riley, E. T. The ED50 and ED95 of intrathecal isobaric bupivacaine with opioids for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology, 2005, 103, 3, p. 606–612.

40. Bryson, G. L., Macneil, R., Jeyaraj, L. M., Rosaeg, O. P. Small dose spinal bupivacaine for Cesarean delivery does not reduce hypotension but accelerates motor recovery. Can. J. Anaesth., 2007, 54, 7, p. 531–537.

41. Ben-David, B., Miller, G., Gavriel, R., Gurevitch, A. Low-dose bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med., 2000, 25, 3, p. 235–239.

42. Swart, M., Sewell, J., Thomas, D. Intrathecal morphine for caesarean section: an assessment of pain relief, satisfaction and side-effects. Anaesthesia, 1997, 52, 4, p. 373–377.

43. Duale, C., Frey, C., Bolandard, F., Barriere, A., Schoeffler, P. Epidural versus intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia after Caesarean section. Br. J. Anaesth., 2003, 91, 5, p. 690–694.

44. Neuroaxiální blokády u císařského řezu a vaginálního porodu. Farmakoterapeutické informace, 2007, 10, p. 1–4.

45. Carvalho, B., Drover, D. R., Ginosar, Y., Cohen, S. E.,Riley, E. T. Intrathecal fentanyl added to bupivacaine and morphine for cesarean delivery may induce a subtle acute opioid tolerance. International journal of obstetric anesthesia, 2012, 21, 1, p. 29–34.

46. Karaman, S., Gunusen, I., Uyar, M., Biricik, E., Firat, V. The effects of morphine and fentanyl alone or in combination added to intrathecal bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for cesarean sec-tion. Agri, 2011, 23, 2, p. 57–63.

47. Karaman, S., Kocabas, S., Uyar, M., Hayzaran, S., Firat, V. The effects of sufentanil or morphine added to hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 2006, 23, 4, p. 285–291.

48. Abouleish, E. I. Epinephrine improves the quality of spinal hyperbaric bupivacaine for cesarean section. Anesth. Analg., 1987, 66, 5, p. 395–400.

49. Rothschild, L., Bern, S., Oswald, S., Weinberg, G. Intravenous lipid emulsion in clinical toxicology. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med., 18, 1, p. 51.

50. Harvey, M., Cave, G. Lipid registry: intravenous lipid emulsion as antidote. Emerg. Med. Australas, 2009, 21, 6, p. 521–522.

51. Cave, G., Harvey, M. Intravenous lipid emulsion as antidote beyond local anesthetic toxicity: a systematic review. Acad. Emerg. Med., 2009, 16, 9, p. 815–824.

52. Cvachovec, K., Černý, V., Doležal, D., Herold, I., Horáček, M.,Křikava, I., Ševčík, P. Doporučení pro léčbu toxické reakce po podání lokálních anestetik. In 8.1.2012 edn: ČSARIM; 2012.

53. Hillyard, S. G., Bate, T. E., Corcoran, T. B., Paech, M. J., O'Sullivan, G. Extending epidural analgesia for emergency Caesarean section: a meta-analysis. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2011, 107, 5, p. 668–678.

54. Malhotra, S., Yentis, S. M., Lucas, N. Extending epidural analgesia for emergency Caesarean section. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2012, 108, 5, p. 879–880; author reply 880-881.

55. Sakura, S., Sumi, M., Morimoto, N., Saito, Y. The addition of epinephrine increases intensity of sensory block during epidural anesthesia with lidocaine. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med., 1999, 24, 6, p. 541–546.

56. Bernards, C. M., Shen, D. D., Sterling, E. S., Adkins, J. E., Risler, L., Phillips, B., Ummenhofer, W. Epidural, cerebrospinal fluid, and plasma pharmacokinetics of epidural opioids (part 2): effect of epinephrine. Anesthesiology, 2003, 99, 2, p. 466–475.

57. Skjoldebrand, A., Eklund, J., Lunell, N. O., Nylund, L., Sarby, B., Thornstrom, S. The effect on uteroplacental blood flow of epidural anaesthesia containing adrenaline for caesarean section. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand., 1990, 34, 2, p. 85–89.

58. Marx, G. F., Elstein, I. D., Schuss, M., Anyaegbunam, A., Fleischer, A. Effects of epidural block with lignocaine and lignocaine-adrenaline on umbilical artery velocity wave ratios. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1990, 97, 6, p. 517–520.

59. Tuleu, C., Allam, J., Gill, H., Yentis, S. M. Short term stability of pH-adjusted lidocaine-adrenaline epidural solution used for emergency caesarean section. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth., 2008, 17, 2, p. 118–122.

60. Allam, J., Malhotra, S., Hemingway, C., Yentis, S. M. Epidural lidocaine-bicarbonate-adrenaline vs levobupivacaine for emergency Caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia, 2008, 63, 3, p. 243–249.

61. Coda, B. A., Brown, M. C., Schaffer, R. L., Donaldson, G., Shen, D. D. A pharmacokinetic approach to resolving spinal and systemic contributions to epidural alfentanil analgesia and side-effects. Pain, 1995, 62, 3, p. 329–337.

62. Miguel, R., Barlow, I., Morrell, M., Scharf, J., Sanusi, D., Fu, E. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of epidural and intravenous sufentanil infusions. Anesthesiology, 1994, 81, 2, p. 346–352; discussion p. 325A–326A.

63. Ginosar, Y., Riley, E. T., Angst, M. S. The site of action of epidural fentanyl in humans: the difference between infusion and bolus administration. Anesth. Analg., 2003, 97, 5, p. 1428–1438.

64. Helbo-Hansen, H. S., Bang, U., Lindholm, P., Klitgaard, N. A. Neonatal effects of adding epidural fentanyl to 0.5% bupivacaine for caesarean section. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth., 1993, 2, 1, p. 27–33.

65. Helbo-Hansen, H. S., Bang, U., Lindholm, P., Klitgaard, N. A. Maternal effects of adding epidural fentanyl to 0.5% bupivacaine for caesarean section. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth., 1993, 2, 1, p. 21–26.

66. Grass, J. A., Sakima, N. T., Schmidt, R., Michitsch, R., Zuckerman, R. L., Harris, A. P. A randomized, double-blind, dose-response comparison of epidural fentanyl versus sufentanil analgesia after cesarean section. Anesth. Analg., 1997, 85, 2, p. 365–371.

67. Palmer, C. M., Nogami, W. M., Van Maren, G., Alves, D. M. Post cesarean epidural morphine: a dose-response study. Anesth. Analg., 2000, 90, 4, p. 887–891.

68. Sarvela, J., Halonen, P., Soikkeli, A., Korttila, K. A double-blinded, randomized comparison of intrathecal and epidural morphine for elective cesarean delivery. Anesth. Analg., 2002, 95, 2, p. 436–440, table of contents.

69. Carvalho, B., Riley, E., Cohen, S. E., Gambling, D., Palmer, C., Huffnagle, H. J., Polley, L., Muir, H., Segal, S., Lihou, C. et al.Single-dose, sustained-release epidural morphine in the mana-gement of postoperative pain after elective cesarean delivery: results of a multicenter randomized controlled study. Anesth. Analg., 2005, 100, 4, p. 1150–1158.

70. Carvalho, B., Roland, L. M., Chu, L. F., Campitelli, V. A., 3rd, Riley, E. T. Single-dose, extended-release epidural morphine (DepoDur) compared to conventional epidural morphine for post-cesarean pain. Anesth. Analg., 2007, 105, 1, p. 176–183.

71. Kaufman, R. D., Gabathuler, M. L., Bellville, J. W. Potency, duration of action and pA2 in man of intravenous naloxone measured by reversal of morphine-depressed respiration. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 1981, 219, 1, p. 156–162.

72. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/020615s003lbl.pdf. In: U.S. Food and Drug Admini-stration; 2010.

73. Eisenach, J. C., D‘Angelo, R., Taylor, C., Hood, D. D. An isobolographic study of epidural clonidine and fentanyl after cesa-rean section. Anesth. Analg., 1994, 79, 2, p. 285–290.

74. Capogna, G., Celleno, D., Zangrillo, A., Costantino, P., Foresta, S. Addition of clonidine to epidural morphine enhances postoperative analgesia after cesarean delivery. Reg. Anesth., 1995, 20, 1, p. 57–61.

75. Pařízek, A. Porodnická anestezie a analgezie. 1 edn. Grada, 2002.

76. Brownridge, P. Epidural and subarachnoid analgesia for elective caesarean section. Anaesthesia, 1981, 36, 1, p. 70.

77. Ithnin, F., Lim, Y., Sia, A. T., Ocampo, C. E. Combined spinal epidural causes higher level of block than equivalent single-shot spinal anesthesia in elective cesarean patients. Anesth. Analg., 2006, 102, 2, p. 577–580.

78. McNaught, A. F., Stocks, G. M. Epidural volume extension and low-dose sequential combined spinal-epidural blockade: two ways to reduce spinal dose requirement for caesarean section. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth., 2007, 16, 4, p. 346–353.

79. Yun, E. M., Marx, G. F., Santos, A. C. The effects of maternal position during induction of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth. Analg., 1998, 87, 3, p. 614–618.