362
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Critical Care

Retrospective comparison of ephedrine and phenylephrine for the treatment of spinal anesthesia induced hypotension in pre-eclamptic patients

, &
Pages 1083-1086 | Received 09 Dec 2015, Accepted 24 Feb 2016, Published online: 29 Mar 2016
 

Abstract

Objective: To compare neonatal acid base status in parturients who underwent cesarean delivery and received either ephedrine or phenylephrine boluses for the treatment of spinal anesthesia induced hypotension. Research design and methods: After institutional review board approval, the perioperative database of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics was used to identify all women diagnosed with pre-eclampsia and had cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia for the period 1 January 2005 to 31 July 2014. Data retrieved included patient demographics, indication for cesarean delivery, severity of pre-eclampsia, dose of vasopressor, neonatal umbilical artery pH and Apgar scores. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was umbilical artery pH. Results: Data for 146 patients was included in the analysis. Ephedrine was used in 57 patients (group E) and phenylephrine in 89 (group PE) patients. The median umbilical artery pH was 7.30 (IQR 7.20–7.30) and 7.30 (IQR 7.20–7.30) in the ephedrine and phenylephrine groups respectively (P = 0.41). Non-reassuring fetal heart trace was the only factor significantly associated with lower umbilical artery pH on multivariable regression analysis (β = −0.09, P = 0.002). Conclusions: We found no difference in neonatal umbilical artery pH between ephedrine and phenylephrine when used to treat spinal anesthesia induced hypotension during cesarean delivery in pre-eclamptic patients. Limitations of the study include its retrospective single center design and the fact that the choice of vasopressor was not randomized.

Declaration of funding

This study was supported solely by departmental funding.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

U.S.I., M.C. and A.S.H. have disclosed that they have no significant relationships with or financial interests in any commercial companies related to this study or article.

CMRO peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Acknowledgments

We express our thanks to Katherine M. Blaser who assisted us in the retrieval of data used in the study.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 681.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.