JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (58)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gin, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lee, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gin, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiovascular
Right arrow Obstetrics
Anesth Analg 2002;94:920-926
© 2002 International Anesthesia Research Society

OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA

A Quantitative, Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Ephedrine Versus Phenylephrine for the Management of Hypotension During Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery

Anna Lee, MPH, PhD, Warwick D. Ngan Kee, MBChB, MD, FANZCA, and Tony Gin, MBChB, MD, FANZCA, FRCA

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, China

Address correspondence to Anna Lee, PhD, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong, China. Address e-mail to annalee{at}cuhk.edu.hk

This quantitative systematic review compared the efficacy and safety of ephedrine with phenylephrine for the prevention and treatment of hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Seven randomized controlled trials (n = 292) were identified after a systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry), published articles, and contact with authors. Outcomes assessed were maternal hypotension, hypertension and bradycardia, and neonatal umbilical cord blood pH values and Apgar scores. For the management (prevention and treatment) of maternal hypotension, there was no difference between phenylephrine and ephedrine (relative risk [RR] of 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96–1.06). Maternal bradycardia was more likely to occur with phenylephrine than with ephedrine (RR of 4.79; 95% CI, 1.47–15.60). Women given phenylephrine had neonates with higher umbilical arterial pH values than those given ephedrine (weighted mean difference of 0.03; 95% CI, 0.02–0.04). There was no difference between the two vasopressors in the incidence of true fetal acidosis (umbilical arterial pH value of <7.2; RR of 0.78; 95% CI, 0.16–3.92) or Apgar score of <7 at 1 and 5 min. This systematic review does not support the traditional idea that ephedrine is the preferred choice for the management of maternal hypotension during spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery in healthy, nonlaboring women.

IMPLICATIONS:Phenylephrine and ephedrine to manage hypotension during spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery were compared in this systematic review. Women given ephedrine had neonates with lower umbilical cord blood pH values compared with those given phenylephrine. However, no differences in the incidence of fetal acidosis (pH value of <7.2) or neonatal Apgar scores were found.






Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2002 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.