Khaw K S, Lee S W Y, Ngan Kee W D, Law L W, Lau T K, Ng F F, Leung T Y
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Department of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Jun;114(6):944-50. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev107. Epub 2015 May 10.
Successful external cephalic version (ECV) for breech presenting fetus reduces the need for Caesarean section (CS). We aimed to compare the success rate of ECV with either spinal anaesthesia (SA) or i.v. analgesia using remifentanil.
In a double-phased, stratified randomized blinded controlled study we compared the success rates of ECV, performed under spinal anaesthesia (SA), i.v. analgesia (IVA) using remifentanil or no anaesthetic interventions. In phase I, 189 patients were stratified by parity before randomization to ECV, performed by blinded operators, under SA using either hyperbaric bupivacaine 9 mg with fentanyl 15 µg, i.v. remifentanil infusion 0.1 µg kg min(-1), or Control (no anaesthetic intervention). Operators performing ECV were blinded to the treatment allocation. In phase 2, patients in the Control group in whom the initial ECV failed were further randomized to receive either SA (n=9) or IVA (n=9) for a re-attempt. The primary outcome was the incidence of successful ECV.
The success rate in Phase 1 was greatest using SA [52/63 (83%)], compared with IVA [40/63 (64%)] and Control [40/63 (64%)], (P=0.027). Median [IQR] pain scores on a visual analogue scale (range 0-100), were 0 [0-0] with SA, 35 [0-60] with IVA and 50 [30-75] in the Control group (P<0.001). Median [IQR] VAS sedation scores were highest with IVA [75 (50-80)], followed by SA, [0 (0-50)] and Control [0 (0-0)]. In phase 2, 7/9 (78%) of ECV re-attempts were successful with SA, whereas all re-attempts using IVA failed (P=0.0007). The incidence of fetal bradycardia necessitating emergency CS within 30 min, was similar among groups; 1.6% (1/63) in the SA and IVA groups and 3.2% (2/63) in the Control group.
SA increased the success rate and reduced pain for both primary and re-attempts of ECV, whereas IVA using remifentanil infusion only reduced the pain. There was no significant increase in the incidence of fetal bradycardia or emergency CS, with ECV performed under anaesthetic interventions. Relaxation of the abdominal muscles from SA appears to underlie the improved outcomes for ECV.
对于臀位胎儿,成功实施外倒转术(ECV)可减少剖宫产(CS)的需求。我们旨在比较脊髓麻醉(SA)或使用瑞芬太尼的静脉镇痛(i.v.)用于ECV的成功率。
在一项双阶段、分层随机双盲对照研究中,我们比较了在脊髓麻醉(SA)、使用瑞芬太尼的静脉镇痛(IVA)或不进行麻醉干预的情况下实施ECV的成功率。在第一阶段,189例患者在随机分配接受ECV之前按产次分层,由 blinded 操作者在 SA 下进行,使用 9 mg 重比重布比卡因加 15 μg 芬太尼、静脉输注瑞芬太尼 0.1 μg·kg·min⁻¹或对照组(不进行麻醉干预)。实施 ECV 的操作者对治疗分配不知情。在第二阶段,初始 ECV 失败后的对照组患者被进一步随机分组,分别接受 SA(n = 9)或 IVA(n = 9)进行再次尝试。主要结局是 ECV 成功的发生率。
在第一阶段,使用 SA 时成功率最高[52/63(83%)],相比之下,IVA 组为[40/63(64%)],对照组为[40/63(64%)],(P = 0.027)。视觉模拟量表(范围 0 - 100)上的中位[IQR]疼痛评分,SA 组为 0[0 - 0],IVA 组为 35[0 - 60],对照组为 50[30 - 75](P < 0.001)。中位[IQR]视觉模拟量表镇静评分以 IVA 组最高[75(50 - 80)],其次是 SA 组,[0(0 - 50)],对照组为[0(0 - 0)]。在第二阶段,SA 用于 ECV 再次尝试的成功率为 7/9(78%),而使用 IVA 的所有再次尝试均失败(P = 0.0007)。30 分钟内需要紧急 CS 的胎儿心动过缓发生率在各组之间相似;SA 组和 IVA 组为 1.6%(1/63),对照组为 3.2%(2/63)。
SA 提高了 ECV 初次及再次尝试的成功率并减轻了疼痛,而使用瑞芬太尼静脉输注的 IVA 仅减轻了疼痛。在麻醉干预下进行 ECV,胎儿心动过缓或紧急 CS 的发生率没有显著增加。SA 使腹部肌肉松弛似乎是 ECV 结果改善的基础。