Hemodynamic effects of ephedrine and phenylephrine bolus injection in patients in the prone position under general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery

10Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Ephedrine and phenylephrine (PE) are vasoconstrictors commonly used to restore the blood pressure (BP) to normal values. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of ephedrine and PE bolus administration on intra-arterial systolic BP (ISBP), intra-arterial diastolic BP (IDBP) and cardiac output (CO) in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in the prone position under general anesthesia (GA). In this prospective, randomized, and double-blind study, a total of 60 patients aged 20-60 years and undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery were administered either a single dose of ephedrine (0.1 mg/kg) or PE (1 μg/kg) through a central venous catheter as a bolus injection following the achievement of a stable hemodynamic status for ≥10 min. Following bolus injection of ephedrine or PE, a significant increase in ISBP was observed in the two experimental groups compared with pre-ephedrine and pre-PE values. The duration of the increment in ISBP however was significantly longer in the ephedrine group compared with the PE group. A similar response was observed in IDBP. A significant increase in CO began 1 min following ephedrine injection and lasted for the entire observation period, whereas the increase was only sustained for 3 min following bolus injection in the PE group. The results of the present study demonstrated that bolus ephedrine produces a more persistent pressor response and durable increase in CO and CI compared with PE when patients are in the prone position with GA for spine surgery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Xia, J., Sun, Y., Yuan, J., Lu, X., Peng, Z., & Yin, N. (2016). Hemodynamic effects of ephedrine and phenylephrine bolus injection in patients in the prone position under general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 12(2), 1141–1146. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2016.3432

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