Efficacy of electrical stimulation on epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.
Cesarean section
Electrical stimulation
Epidural anesthesia
Journal
BMC anesthesiology
ISSN: 1471-2253
Titre abrégé: BMC Anesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968535
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 06 2020
10 06 2020
Historique:
received:
19
02
2020
accepted:
01
06
2020
entrez:
12
6
2020
pubmed:
12
6
2020
medline:
10
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Loss of resistance (LOR) technique is a widely used method to identify the epidural space. However, cases of inadequate epidural anesthesia in cesarean section were frequently reported. Also, the success rate of epidural anesthesia with LOR technique varied depending on the proficiency of the practitioner. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation to identify epidural spaces in cesarean section for novices or clinicians with recent gap in experience. Pregnant women scheduled for elective cesarean section were randomly allocated to two groups. Groups were classified based on the methods used for identifying the epidural space: the LOR group (group L) and the LOR with epidural electrical stimulation group (group E). Clinicians with less than 10 epidural cesarean section experiences in the recent year performed epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. In the group E, a RegionalStim® conductive catheter was inserted through the Tuohy needle, and the guidewire passing through the catheter was connected to a peripheral nerve stimulator. The intensity of the stimulation was gradually increased from 0.25 mA to 1.5 mA until paresthesia was elicited and radiated. We assessed the success of epidural anesthesia (complete success, partial success or failure). Other clinical parameters including maternal satisfaction, time required for epidural anesthesia, neonatal Apgar scores, pain scores and adverse events were compared between the two groups. Except for 6 patients who withdrew consent, 54 patients were enrolled in this study (28 for the group L and 26 for the group E). The demographic data showed no difference between the two groups. There was no adverse event resulted from electrical stimulation. The group E showed higher rate of complete success, sensitivity in finding epidural space and maternal satisfaction compared to the group L (21/26 vs. 15/28, p = 0.034, 0.96 vs. 0.68, p = 0.012 and 4.04 vs. 3.39, p = 0.02, respectively). The other clinical parameters showed no differences between the two groups. In addition to the conventional LOR technique, identifying epidural spaces using electrical stimulation led to better outcomes without additional risks for novices as well as clinicians with recent gap in experience. This study was retrospectively registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03443466) on February 23, 2018.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Loss of resistance (LOR) technique is a widely used method to identify the epidural space. However, cases of inadequate epidural anesthesia in cesarean section were frequently reported. Also, the success rate of epidural anesthesia with LOR technique varied depending on the proficiency of the practitioner. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation to identify epidural spaces in cesarean section for novices or clinicians with recent gap in experience.
METHODS
Pregnant women scheduled for elective cesarean section were randomly allocated to two groups. Groups were classified based on the methods used for identifying the epidural space: the LOR group (group L) and the LOR with epidural electrical stimulation group (group E). Clinicians with less than 10 epidural cesarean section experiences in the recent year performed epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. In the group E, a RegionalStim® conductive catheter was inserted through the Tuohy needle, and the guidewire passing through the catheter was connected to a peripheral nerve stimulator. The intensity of the stimulation was gradually increased from 0.25 mA to 1.5 mA until paresthesia was elicited and radiated. We assessed the success of epidural anesthesia (complete success, partial success or failure). Other clinical parameters including maternal satisfaction, time required for epidural anesthesia, neonatal Apgar scores, pain scores and adverse events were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS
Except for 6 patients who withdrew consent, 54 patients were enrolled in this study (28 for the group L and 26 for the group E). The demographic data showed no difference between the two groups. There was no adverse event resulted from electrical stimulation. The group E showed higher rate of complete success, sensitivity in finding epidural space and maternal satisfaction compared to the group L (21/26 vs. 15/28, p = 0.034, 0.96 vs. 0.68, p = 0.012 and 4.04 vs. 3.39, p = 0.02, respectively). The other clinical parameters showed no differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
In addition to the conventional LOR technique, identifying epidural spaces using electrical stimulation led to better outcomes without additional risks for novices as well as clinicians with recent gap in experience.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study was retrospectively registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03443466) on February 23, 2018.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32522156
doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01063-1
pii: 10.1186/s12871-020-01063-1
pmc: PMC7285553
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03443466']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
146Références
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 11;14(1):e0209967
pubmed: 30633755
Can J Anaesth. 1998 Jul;45(7):640-4
pubmed: 9717595
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2017 Mar;31(1):81-90
pubmed: 28625308
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2012 Oct;21(4):294-309
pubmed: 22918030
Anaesthesia. 2011 Jul;66(7):568-73
pubmed: 21539528
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012 Sep;63(3):238-44
pubmed: 23060981
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Nov;107(5):668-78
pubmed: 21997149
Anesthesiology. 1998 Jun;88(6):1495-501
pubmed: 9637642
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1999 Jan-Feb;24(1):17-23
pubmed: 9952090
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Nov-Dec;34(6):575-7
pubmed: 19916250
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019 Jun;32(3):263-267
pubmed: 30985339
Med J Armed Forces India. 2007 Jan;63(1):44-6
pubmed: 27407937
Anesth Analg. 2003 Oct;97(4):984-8, table of contents
pubmed: 14500145
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006 Sep;50(8):1014-8
pubmed: 16923099
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;32(2):152-6
pubmed: 17350527
Anaesthesia. 2008 Aug;63(8):822-32
pubmed: 18547291
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2000 Jul;9(3):160-7
pubmed: 15321087
Adv Anesth. 2018 Dec;36(1):139-162
pubmed: 30414635
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2002 Apr;11(2):81-4
pubmed: 15321557
Pain Res Treat. 2014;2014:146750
pubmed: 24839558
Reg Anesth. 1996 May-Jun;21(3):182-90
pubmed: 8744658
Anaesthesia. 2017 Jul;72(7):840-844
pubmed: 28419420
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2006 Apr;15(2):109-14
pubmed: 16488138
Anaesthesia. 2013 Jan;68(1):52-9
pubmed: 23121251
Br J Anaesth. 2012 Aug;109(2):144-54
pubmed: 22735301
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Sep;67(3):181-5
pubmed: 25302094