Year : 2019  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 208-214

Hemodynamic effects of low-dose bupivacaine spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial

1 Department of Anesthesia, Queens University, Canada
2 Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Canada
3 Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, Department of Anesthesia, King Saud University, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Duane Funk
Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Manitoba, 2nd Floor Harry Medovy House, 671 William Avenue, Winnipeg, MB
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_799_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Spinal anesthesia is the most common technique for cesarean section. The conventional local anesthetic dose has been decreasing over time to 8–12.5 mg of bupivacaine. Lower doses of bupivacaine may be associated with reduced incidence of hypotension and other complications. This low dose also may be associated with improved maternal cardiac index (CI). We hypothesized that low dose spinal anesthesia using 4.5 mg bupivacaine would result in improved maternal CI when compared with conventional dose (9 mg) intrathecal bupivacaine. Methods: This randomized controlled trial included all healthy parturients presenting for elective cesarean section. In addition to standard monitors, an arterial line was placed for pulse contour cardiac output measurement. Due to limited data on maternal cardiac output during cesarean section, we had to power our study on recovery room length of stay. Secondary outcomes included the change in maternal CI, fluid administration, vasopressor usage, maternal satisfaction, and adequacy of surgical blockade and recovery time from motor and sensory blockade. Results: The low dose group had significantly faster motor recovery times (132 [122–144] versus. 54 [48–66] min conventional versus. low-dose, respectively, P < 0.01), and a shorter recovery room stay (92 ± 21 vs 70 ± 11 min, conventional vs. low-dose, respectively, P < 0.01, 95% CI -35 to -10 min). There was no difference in CI between the conventional dose and low dose spinal groups. Both groups had a drop in CI with spinal anesthesia. The low-dose group demonstrated equivalent surgical anesthesia and block onset times compared to the conventional group. Conclusions: Low-dose spinal anesthesia provides adequate surgical anesthesia, improved recovery time, but no difference in maternal cardiac index when compared to conventional dose spinal anesthesia. NCT02046697

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded158    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal