Key result
Norepinephrine given by infusion was approximately 6 times more potent than phenylephrine for preventing hypotension during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery, with an estimated relative potency ratio of 6.03:1.
Why the study?
The relative potency of norepinephrine and phenylephrine boluses for treating hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery is known, but few data exist for infusions.
Does prophylactic infusion of norepinephrine compared to phenylephrine prevent hypotension in women undergoing combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery?
RCT (n=60)
Double-blind
Computer-generated random numbers
No
Does prophylactic infusion of norepinephrine compared to phenylephrine prevent hypotension in women undergoing combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery?
Effect estimate: Relative potency ratio 6.03:1 (95% CI 5.26:1 to 6.98:1)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.061% vs 0.368%
Norepinephrine given by infusion is approximately 6 times more potent than phenylephrine for preventing hypotension during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery.
May guide vasopressor infusion dosing in obstetric anesthesia; leaves open confirmation in larger trials.
Purpose: The relative potency of norepinephrine and phenylephrine given as boluses to treat hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery has been reported but few data are available for infusions. This study aimed to determine the relative potency of norepinephrine and phenylephrine when given by infusion for preventing hypotension during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, up-and-down sequential allocation study. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a prophylactic infusion of norepinephrine or phenylephrine started immediately after induction of anesthesia. The first patients received either norepinephrine 0.1 μg/kg/min or phenylephrine 0.5 μg/kg/min. An effective infusion rate was defined when no hypotension occurred before delivery. For each subsequent patient, the norepinephrine infusion rate was decreased or increased by 0.01 μg/kg/min or the phenylephrine infusion rate was decreased or increased by 0.05 μg/kg/min according to whether the infusion was effective or ineffective respectively in the previous patient. Values for the infusion rate that was effective in preventing hypotension in 50% of patients (ED50) for norepinephrine and phenylephrine were estimated using up-and-down sequential analysis and relative potency was estimated. Probit regression was used as a backup and sensitivity analysis. Results: The ED50 values for norepinephrine and phenylephrine calculated by the up-and-down method were 0.061 (95% CI 0.054–0.068) μg/kg/min and 0.368 (95% CI 0.343–0.393) μg/kg/min respectively. The estimated relative potency ratio for ED50 for norepinephrine to phenylephrine was 6.03:1 (95% CI 5.26:1 to 6.98:1). Conclusion: Under the conditions of this study, norepinephrine given by infusion was about 6 times more potent than phenylephrine. This information is useful for clinical practice and further comparative studies of norepinephrine versus phenylephrine. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx , identifier [ChiCTR2200056237]
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qian et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Hypotension during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery (n=60). Norepinephrine vs. Phenylephrine infusion starting at 0.5 μg/kg/min, adjusted by 0.05 μg/kg/min was evaluated on Effective infusion rate (prevention of hypotension before delivery) to determine ED50 (Relative potency ratio 6.03:1, 95% CI 5.26:1 to 6.98:1). Norepinephrine given by infusion was approximately 6 times more potent than phenylephrine for preventing hypotension during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery, with an estimated relative potency ratio of 6.03:1.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: