剖腹产神经麻醉后运动阻滞消退的时间:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1111/anae.16400
William Shippam, Simon Massey, Kathyrn Clark, Luc Saulnier, Anthony Chau
{"title":"剖腹产神经麻醉后运动阻滞消退的时间:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"William Shippam,&nbsp;Simon Massey,&nbsp;Kathyrn Clark,&nbsp;Luc Saulnier,&nbsp;Anthony Chau","doi":"10.1111/anae.16400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Prolonged motor block regression following neuraxial anaesthesia should prompt careful evaluation for serious postpartum neurological injuries and complications such as vertebral column haematoma. The ability to perform straight leg raise against gravity 4 h after neuraxial anaesthesia has been recommended as a time threshold to trigger review [<span>1</span>]. However, using this time threshold, we observed a large number of our patients required review, resulting in a labour-intensive process that we found difficult to sustain [<span>2</span>]. One possible explanation for the excessive number of triggers may be related to the increased local anaesthetic doses used at our institution, a practice that began during the COVID-19 pandemic and has continued. We hypothesised that the median time to motor block regression after spinal or epidural anaesthesia is &gt; 4 h. To test this, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to characterise the duration of sensory and motor block regression following neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery (Fig. 1).</p><p>The study was deemed a quality improvement project and research ethics committee approval was not required. Data from 200 patients receiving intrathecal (n = 100, 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine with fentanyl 10–15 mcg and morphine 100 mcg) and epidural (n = 100, lidocaine 2% with adrenaline 1:200,000, fentanyl 50–100 mcg and morphine 1.5–2 mg) anaesthesia for elective or emergency caesarean deliveries were retrospectively collected from patient records between December 2021 and February 2022. Sensory and motor evaluations were performed as per our standard institutional protocol. The primary outcome was median time to motor block regression, defined as time of intrathecal injection or epidural top-up, to time of recovery of straight leg raising, analysed using Kaplan–Meier curves with hazard ratio obtained via the Mantel–Haenszel method. Secondary outcomes were median time to motor block regression stratified by intrathecal dose, median time to ambulation and median time to S3 dermatome recovery of sensation to cold.</p><p>Results are presented in Table 1. The maximum time to straight leg raising in outliers was greater with increasing intrathecal dose used, although this study was not powered to examine differences between groups. For sensory block regression, there were significant outliers; four patients in the intrathecal group took 15–21 h for complete motor block regression and four patients in the epidural group took 16–27 h for complete sensory block regression. There were no cases of postpartum neuropathy.</p><p>Using 12.5 mg intrathecal 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, Chapron et al. found the median (IQR [range]) time to complete motor block resolution was 3.7 (3.2–4.2 [1.5–5.0]) h [<span>3</span>]. However, the use of a different dose, concentration and motor block endpoint makes it difficult to directly compare our findings with previous studies. Additionally, there are likely other confounders such as the management of shivering using intravenous dexmedetomidine in some of our patients, that may possibly affect block regression [<span>4</span>]. Unlike intrathecal 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, we found a general lack of block regression data involving 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine, and specifically using time to straight leg raising as an endpoint in the obstetric population.</p><p>As &gt; 50% of patients continued to have significant motor block at 4 h following spinal anaesthesia, we extended the time trigger to 6 h. The proportion of patients in our cohort who met the review criteria decreased from 63% to 23% when this threshold was increased. Particularly during periods of high workload, we found excessive reviews with a 100% uneventful outcome have led providers to underestimate the importance of the review process. To raise the specificity for detection of complications, we have since updated our institutional protocol to incorporate an additional criterion: motor and sensory evaluations that have either not improved or worsened over two consecutive assessments. In our experience, this question was frequently asked during assessments to determine if further actions were required. We also found incorporating this criterion at time 0 has significantly decreased the number of reviews triggered while preserving timely review and escalation of care for those with an unusual regression course. Further study on obstetric neuraxial regression times with intrathecal 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine and the impact of various time triggers used for neurological monitoring protocols is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/anae.16400","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time to motor block regression after neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a retrospective, cohort study\",\"authors\":\"William Shippam,&nbsp;Simon Massey,&nbsp;Kathyrn Clark,&nbsp;Luc Saulnier,&nbsp;Anthony Chau\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/anae.16400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Prolonged motor block regression following neuraxial anaesthesia should prompt careful evaluation for serious postpartum neurological injuries and complications such as vertebral column haematoma. The ability to perform straight leg raise against gravity 4 h after neuraxial anaesthesia has been recommended as a time threshold to trigger review [<span>1</span>]. However, using this time threshold, we observed a large number of our patients required review, resulting in a labour-intensive process that we found difficult to sustain [<span>2</span>]. One possible explanation for the excessive number of triggers may be related to the increased local anaesthetic doses used at our institution, a practice that began during the COVID-19 pandemic and has continued. We hypothesised that the median time to motor block regression after spinal or epidural anaesthesia is &gt; 4 h. To test this, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to characterise the duration of sensory and motor block regression following neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery (Fig. 1).</p><p>The study was deemed a quality improvement project and research ethics committee approval was not required. Data from 200 patients receiving intrathecal (n = 100, 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine with fentanyl 10–15 mcg and morphine 100 mcg) and epidural (n = 100, lidocaine 2% with adrenaline 1:200,000, fentanyl 50–100 mcg and morphine 1.5–2 mg) anaesthesia for elective or emergency caesarean deliveries were retrospectively collected from patient records between December 2021 and February 2022. Sensory and motor evaluations were performed as per our standard institutional protocol. The primary outcome was median time to motor block regression, defined as time of intrathecal injection or epidural top-up, to time of recovery of straight leg raising, analysed using Kaplan–Meier curves with hazard ratio obtained via the Mantel–Haenszel method. Secondary outcomes were median time to motor block regression stratified by intrathecal dose, median time to ambulation and median time to S3 dermatome recovery of sensation to cold.</p><p>Results are presented in Table 1. The maximum time to straight leg raising in outliers was greater with increasing intrathecal dose used, although this study was not powered to examine differences between groups. For sensory block regression, there were significant outliers; four patients in the intrathecal group took 15–21 h for complete motor block regression and four patients in the epidural group took 16–27 h for complete sensory block regression. There were no cases of postpartum neuropathy.</p><p>Using 12.5 mg intrathecal 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, Chapron et al. found the median (IQR [range]) time to complete motor block resolution was 3.7 (3.2–4.2 [1.5–5.0]) h [<span>3</span>]. However, the use of a different dose, concentration and motor block endpoint makes it difficult to directly compare our findings with previous studies. Additionally, there are likely other confounders such as the management of shivering using intravenous dexmedetomidine in some of our patients, that may possibly affect block regression [<span>4</span>]. Unlike intrathecal 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, we found a general lack of block regression data involving 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine, and specifically using time to straight leg raising as an endpoint in the obstetric population.</p><p>As &gt; 50% of patients continued to have significant motor block at 4 h following spinal anaesthesia, we extended the time trigger to 6 h. The proportion of patients in our cohort who met the review criteria decreased from 63% to 23% when this threshold was increased. Particularly during periods of high workload, we found excessive reviews with a 100% uneventful outcome have led providers to underestimate the importance of the review process. To raise the specificity for detection of complications, we have since updated our institutional protocol to incorporate an additional criterion: motor and sensory evaluations that have either not improved or worsened over two consecutive assessments. In our experience, this question was frequently asked during assessments to determine if further actions were required. We also found incorporating this criterion at time 0 has significantly decreased the number of reviews triggered while preserving timely review and escalation of care for those with an unusual regression course. Further study on obstetric neuraxial regression times with intrathecal 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine and the impact of various time triggers used for neurological monitoring protocols is required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/anae.16400\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16400\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16400","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

神经轴麻醉后运动阻滞时间延长,应立即仔细评估是否存在严重的产后神经损伤和并发症,如椎体血肿。有人建议将神经麻醉后 4 小时能逆重力进行直腿抬高作为引发复查的时间阈值[1]。然而,我们观察到,在使用该时间阈值的情况下,大量患者需要复查,这导致了我们发现难以维持的劳动密集型流程[2]。触发次数过多的一个可能原因可能与本机构使用的局麻药剂量增加有关,这种做法始于 COVID-19 大流行期间,并一直持续至今。我们假设脊髓或硬膜外麻醉后运动阻滞消退的中位时间为 4 小时。为了验证这一假设,我们开展了一项回顾性队列研究,以了解剖腹产神经轴麻醉后感觉和运动阻滞消退的持续时间(图 1)。研究人员在2021年12月至2022年2月期间从病历中回顾性收集了200名接受鞘内麻醉(n = 100,0.75%高压布比卡因,芬太尼10-15微克,吗啡100微克)和硬膜外麻醉(n = 100,2%利多卡因,肾上腺素1:200,000,芬太尼50-100微克,吗啡1.5-2毫克)的择期或紧急剖腹产患者的数据。感官和运动评估按照本机构的标准方案进行。主要结果是运动阻滞消退的中位时间,即从鞘内注射或硬膜外充盈到直腿抬高恢复的时间,采用 Kaplan-Meier 曲线进行分析,并通过 Mantel-Haenszel 方法得出危险比。次要结果是按鞘内注射剂量分层的运动阻滞消退时间中位数、行走时间中位数和S3皮层对冷的感觉恢复时间中位数。随着鞘内注射剂量的增加,离群者直腿抬高的最长时间越长,但本研究并不具备检验组间差异的能力。在感觉阻滞消退方面,存在明显的异常值;鞘内组有四名患者需要 15-21 小时才能完全消退运动阻滞,硬膜外组有四名患者需要 16-27 小时才能完全消退感觉阻滞。Chapron 等人使用 12.5 毫克鞘内 0.5%高压布比卡因,发现完全消除运动阻滞的中位时间(IQR [范围])为 3.7 (3.2-4.2 [1.5-5.0]) 小时 [3]。然而,由于使用了不同的剂量、浓度和运动阻滞终点,因此很难将我们的研究结果与之前的研究结果进行直接比较。此外,还可能存在其他混杂因素,如我们的一些患者使用静脉注射右美托咪定来控制颤抖,这可能会影响阻滞的消退[4]。与鞘内0.5%高压布比卡因不同,我们发现普遍缺乏涉及0.75%高压布比卡因的阻滞消退数据,特别是在产科人群中将直腿抬高的时间作为终点。特别是在工作量大的时期,我们发现过多的复查结果为 100%,这导致医疗服务提供者低估了复查过程的重要性。为了提高发现并发症的特异性,我们更新了机构协议,增加了一个标准:运动和感觉评估结果在连续两次评估中没有改善或恶化。根据我们的经验,在评估过程中经常会问到这个问题,以确定是否需要采取进一步行动。我们还发现,在第 0 次评估时纳入这一标准大大减少了触发复查的次数,同时还能及时复查和升级对异常回归病例的护理。我们需要进一步研究使用鞘内注射 0.75% 高压氧布比卡因的产科神经回流时间,以及用于神经监测方案的各种时间触发器的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Time to motor block regression after neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a retrospective, cohort study

Time to motor block regression after neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a retrospective, cohort study

Prolonged motor block regression following neuraxial anaesthesia should prompt careful evaluation for serious postpartum neurological injuries and complications such as vertebral column haematoma. The ability to perform straight leg raise against gravity 4 h after neuraxial anaesthesia has been recommended as a time threshold to trigger review [1]. However, using this time threshold, we observed a large number of our patients required review, resulting in a labour-intensive process that we found difficult to sustain [2]. One possible explanation for the excessive number of triggers may be related to the increased local anaesthetic doses used at our institution, a practice that began during the COVID-19 pandemic and has continued. We hypothesised that the median time to motor block regression after spinal or epidural anaesthesia is > 4 h. To test this, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to characterise the duration of sensory and motor block regression following neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery (Fig. 1).

The study was deemed a quality improvement project and research ethics committee approval was not required. Data from 200 patients receiving intrathecal (n = 100, 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine with fentanyl 10–15 mcg and morphine 100 mcg) and epidural (n = 100, lidocaine 2% with adrenaline 1:200,000, fentanyl 50–100 mcg and morphine 1.5–2 mg) anaesthesia for elective or emergency caesarean deliveries were retrospectively collected from patient records between December 2021 and February 2022. Sensory and motor evaluations were performed as per our standard institutional protocol. The primary outcome was median time to motor block regression, defined as time of intrathecal injection or epidural top-up, to time of recovery of straight leg raising, analysed using Kaplan–Meier curves with hazard ratio obtained via the Mantel–Haenszel method. Secondary outcomes were median time to motor block regression stratified by intrathecal dose, median time to ambulation and median time to S3 dermatome recovery of sensation to cold.

Results are presented in Table 1. The maximum time to straight leg raising in outliers was greater with increasing intrathecal dose used, although this study was not powered to examine differences between groups. For sensory block regression, there were significant outliers; four patients in the intrathecal group took 15–21 h for complete motor block regression and four patients in the epidural group took 16–27 h for complete sensory block regression. There were no cases of postpartum neuropathy.

Using 12.5 mg intrathecal 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, Chapron et al. found the median (IQR [range]) time to complete motor block resolution was 3.7 (3.2–4.2 [1.5–5.0]) h [3]. However, the use of a different dose, concentration and motor block endpoint makes it difficult to directly compare our findings with previous studies. Additionally, there are likely other confounders such as the management of shivering using intravenous dexmedetomidine in some of our patients, that may possibly affect block regression [4]. Unlike intrathecal 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, we found a general lack of block regression data involving 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine, and specifically using time to straight leg raising as an endpoint in the obstetric population.

As > 50% of patients continued to have significant motor block at 4 h following spinal anaesthesia, we extended the time trigger to 6 h. The proportion of patients in our cohort who met the review criteria decreased from 63% to 23% when this threshold was increased. Particularly during periods of high workload, we found excessive reviews with a 100% uneventful outcome have led providers to underestimate the importance of the review process. To raise the specificity for detection of complications, we have since updated our institutional protocol to incorporate an additional criterion: motor and sensory evaluations that have either not improved or worsened over two consecutive assessments. In our experience, this question was frequently asked during assessments to determine if further actions were required. We also found incorporating this criterion at time 0 has significantly decreased the number of reviews triggered while preserving timely review and escalation of care for those with an unusual regression course. Further study on obstetric neuraxial regression times with intrathecal 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine and the impact of various time triggers used for neurological monitoring protocols is required.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信