This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mhyre, J. M. Articles by Polley, L. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Mhyre, J. M. Articles by Polley, L. S. Related Collections Obstetrics Complications Patient Safety Regional Anesthesia

---

OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIOLOGY

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials That Evaluate Strategies to Avoid Epidural Vein Cannulation During Obstetric Epidural Catheter Placement

Jill M. Mhyre, MD^*, Mary Lou V. H. Greenfield, MPH, MS^*, Lawrence C. Tsen, MD, and Linda S. Polley, MD^*

From the *Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Address correspondence to Jill M. Mhyre, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Health System, Obstetric Anesthesiology Room L3622 Women's Hospital, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr. SPC 5278, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5278. Address e-mail to jmmhyre{at}umich.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In this systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for seven strategies which have been proposed to minimize the incidence of epidural vein cannulation during lumbar epidural catheter placement in pregnant women.

METHODS: Multiple databases were searched to identify prospective, randomized, controlled trials between December 1966 and October 2007 that evaluated methods to avoid epidural vein cannulation after lumbar epidural catheter placement in pregnant women. Published trials were evaluated using a quality assessment tool, and results were combined to evaluate efficacy to prevent epidural vein cannulation.

RESULTS: Of 90 trials screened, 30 trials were included (n = 12,738 subjects). Five strategies reduce the risk of epidural vein cannulation: the lateral as opposed to sitting position (six trials, mean (sd) quality score = 35% [11%], odds ratio (OR) 0.53 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–0.86]), fluid administered through the epidural needle before catheter insertion (8 trials, quality score 48% [18%], OR 0.49 [95% CI 0.25–0.97]), single rather than multiorifice catheter (5 trials, quality score 30% [6%], OR 0.64 [95% CI 0.45–0.91]), a wire-embedded polyurethane compared with polyamide epidural catheter (1 trial, 31%, plus 4 unscored abstracts, OR 0.14 [95% CI 0.06–0.30]) and catheter insertion depth 6 cm (2 trials, 47% [11%], OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.10–0.74]). The paramedian as opposed to midline needle approach and smaller epidural needle or catheter gauges do not reduce the risk of epidural vein cannulation.

CONCLUSION: The risk of intravascular placement of a lumbar epidural catheter in pregnancy may be reduced with the lateral patient position, fluid predistension, a single orifice catheter, a wire-embedded polyurethane epidural catheter and limiting the depth of catheter insertion to 6 cm or less. In general, low manuscript quality weakens the strength of these conclusions.