Epidural anesthesia for cesarean section with 0.125% versus 0.25% bupivacaine: An Ecuadorian prospective cohort

0Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: In a cesarean section, epidural analgesia with 0.125% bupivacaine and 1.5% lidocaine or 0.25% bupivacaine with 1.0% lidocaine concentrations can be used. A higher concentration of bupivacaine reaches better analgesia but with a higher rate of drug-related adverse events. Aim: The aim of the study was to assess analgesia and safety of 0.125% bupivacaine and 1.5% lidocaine or 0.25% bupivacaine with 1.0% lidocaine during cesarean. Materials and methods: Prospective cohort stratified following both bupivacaine concentrations. Results: One hundred women with full-term pregnancies were selected (fifty per cohort). At 20 and 30 min after epidural administration, there was a higher proportion of motor blockade cases from the 0.125% bupivacaine and 1.5% lidocaine cohort (p = 0.0229 and p = 0.0006, respectively). There was no significant difference among sensitive blockage. A 0.25% bupivacaine and 1.0% lidocaine concentration showed a tendency to hypotension (p < 0.001) and bradycardia (p = 0.4100). From 0.125% bupivacaine and 1.5% lidocaine cohort, 25 cases (50%) presented at least one adverse event; in contrast with 44/50 (88%) from 0.25% bupivacaine and 1.0% lidocaine cohort (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In epidural analgesia during cesarean, using 0.125% bupivacaine and 1.5% lidocaine presented similar analgesia than 0.25% bupivacaine and 1.0% lidocaine. However, a higher bupivacaine concentration is significantly related to more frequent drug-related adverse events (especially hypotension).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Díaz-Pérez, N., Bajaña-Chávez, C., Cañola-Cortez, R., Delgado-Intriago, Y., Álvarez-Narváez, M., Torres-Herrera, C., … Puga-Tejada, M. (2021). Epidural anesthesia for cesarean section with 0.125% versus 0.25% bupivacaine: An Ecuadorian prospective cohort. Cirugia y Cirujanos (English Edition), 89(4), 476–483. https://doi.org/10.24875/CIRU.20000567

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free