Objective To compare the anesthetic potency and influence on maternal hemodynamics among spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural anesthesia (EA) and combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for women undergoing cesarean sections. Methods A total of 180 singleton term nulliparous pregnancies of American Sociaty of Anethesiologists physical status Ⅰor Ⅱ for cesarean sections in Guangyuan Central Hospital from January to December 2012 were allocated into three groups using the method of random number table. Patients in group SA received SA (n=60), group EA underwent EA (n=60) and patients in group CSEA accepted CSEA (n=60). Patients wderwent punere all placed in left lateral position. Group EA patients unctures at the L_1-2 interspace and the volume of carbonated lidocaine used initially was 12-15 mL. Group SA and CSEA accepted the anesthesia at either L_2-3 or L_3-4 interspace. The volume for group SA was 0.75% bupivacaine 1.2 mL with 10% glucose solution 1 mL, and for group CSEA was 0.5% bupivacaine 1.4 mL with 10% glucose solution 0.8 mL. A catheter was inserted into the epidural space for 3-4 cm after spinal needle exit so as to add additional epidural medication according to the block level and the level of anesthesia subsidence. The values of the basis of blood pressure and heart rate, the lowest blood pressure and heart rate, umbilical venous blood gas, start effect and induction time of anesthesia and the highest block level of anesthesia were record. Results There were statistically significant differences in terms of start effect time of anesthesia among the three groups (F=24.642, P<0.001). The start effect time of anesthesia in group SA and CSEA was significantly shorter than that in group EA (t=8.076, 7.996; P<0.05). The induction time of anesthesia in group SA was significantly shorter than those in group EA and CSEA (P<0.05). The lowest blood pressure and heart rate in group SA and CSEA were significantly lower than the values of basis (P<0.05). The lowest blood pressure and heart rate in group SA was significantly lower than that in group EA (P<0.05). The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia in group SA and CSEA was significantly higher than that in group EA (P<0.05). The block level of anesthesia in the three groups were at thoracic 8.12±1.22, 8.36±1.88 and 8.52±1.92 respectively, and there was no significant difference among the three groups (F=0.081, P=0.923). Conclusion EA and CSEA surpass SA in the choice of neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean sections, and 1.73% carbonated lidocaine for EA can improve anesthetic potency and better maintain relatively stable hemodynamic indexes.

Citation： LIBin, FANGLüe, ZHAOZe-yu. Effects of Different Neuraxial Anesthesia on Hemodynamics in Pregnant Women Undergoing Cesarean Section. West China Medical Journal, 2015, 30(4): 677-680. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.20150194 Copy