The effectivess of DEX via intrathecal administration for expectants/parturients undergoing CS has been examined in this study.
Evading the maternal
risk of general anesthesia is of utmost importance during cesarean section
(CS). As observed from this double-blind
randomized controlled study, the
combination of 5 μg of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for CS could considerably prolong
the extent of sensory block by 40 minutes alongwith better recovery and no
neonatal adverse effects or maternal neurotoxicity in the short term than bupivacaine
(BUP) 9 mg alone. The use of DEX can also decrease the occurence of shivering
in expectants enduring spinal anesthesia.
The effectivess of DEX via intrathecal
administration for expectants/parturients undergoing CS has been examined
in this study.
On the whole, 300 expectants undergoing CS via spinal anesthesia were
randomized into 3 groups in specific concentrations:
The features of intraoperative block, recovery
quality, maternal and neonatal outcomes and plasma concentrations were all
calculated. A 30 days follow-up helped to provide a clear view regarding
occurence of nerve injury (if any).
The period of sensory block protracted in group FB and group DB compared to group B. In group DB, the total score of quality recovery was significantly higher than that in group FB and group B. A detail of the block characteristics of expectants has been displayed in following figure:
Figure: Block characteristics of expectants
Amid 3 groups, no statistically significant difference for PH, PaO2, and PaCO2 of newborn was observed. Plasma concentration of DEX in umbilical artery and vein was almost negligible and cannot be perceived. After 30 days, no new inception of back, buttock or leg pain or paresthesia was witnessed in these women.
The use of intrathecal
combination of 5 μg DEX can safely display a facilitatory block outcome and
better the recovery quality after childbirth.
BMC Anesthesiology
The efficacy and safety of intrathecal dexmedetomidine for parturients undergoing cesarean section: a double-blind randomized controlled trial
Xiao-xiao Li et al.
Comments (0)