Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30636632›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2019

Minimally invasive spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in maternal anticoagulation therapy: a randomized controlled trial.

Dan Huang, Linjie Zhu, Jie Chen, Jie Zhou

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02987192 (Comparison of the Impact Between Minimally Invasive and Traditional Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section in Maternal Anticoagulation Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02987192 naunknown statusnot on this map

Comparison of the Impact Between Minimally Invasive and Traditional Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section in Maternal Anticoagulation Therapy:Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRenJi HospitalRan2016 to 2017Enrolled200ConditionsAnticoagulation, Minimally Invasive, Spinal AnesthesiaArmspen type 27 gauge needles, cutting type 22 gauge needles
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dan HuangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200127, China.
Linjie ZhuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200127, China.
Jie ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200127, China. 13611906592@163.com.
Jie ZhouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200127, China. 13601693227@163.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5246-8674
Renji Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnticoagulant therapy during pregnancy is widely used due to the increasing awareness of maternal hypercoagulability. Few studies have reported the use of minimally invasive spinal anesthesia in these parturients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive spinal anesthesia in parturients with anticoagulation therapy undergoing cesarean section.

methodsThis was a randomized, controlled study conducted in 239 parturients using anticoagulants and undergoing selective cesarean section. 37 parturients withdrew, and finally parturients received spinal anesthesia using 27gauge pen type fine spinal needles (experimental group, n = 110) and 22gauge traditional spinal needles (control group, n = 92). The primary efficacy outcomes included low back pain (LBP) and postdural puncture headache (PDPH) after delivery. Secondary efficacy outcomes included visual analogue scale during subarachnoid puncture (VASdural), difference between visual analogue scale (VAS) during peripheral venipuncture and VASdural (∆VAS), VAS of back puncture point 24, 48 and 72 h after operation (VASdural-24 h, VASdural-48 h and VASdural-72 h, respectively), maternal satisfaction and hospitalization stay.

resultsNo parturient had PDPH and was suspected with spinal or intracranial haematoma in two groups. There was no significant difference in VASlbp-24 h, VASlbp-48 h and VASlbp-72 h (P = 0.056; P = 0.813; P = 0.189, respectively) between two groups. In experimental group, VASdural (P = 0.017), ∆VAS (P = 0.001) and VASdural-24 h (P < 0.0001) were lower, whereas maternal satisfaction was higher (P = 0.046). There was no significant difference in VASdural-48 h, VASdural-72 h, urination function, strength recovery and hospitalization stay (P = 0.069; P = 0.667; P = 0.105; P = 0.133; P = 0.754, respectively) between the two groups.

conclusionsMinimally invasive spinal anesthesia provided lower VASdural, VASdrual-24 h and a higher maternal satisfaction. Hence, it is considered as a safe, reliable and reasonable option for cesarean section parturients during maternal anticoagulation therapy with normal platelet count and coagulation time.

trial registrationThis study was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov at November 11th, 2016 ( NCT02987192 ).

Indexed as

AdultAnesthesia, ObstetricalAnesthesia, SpinalAnticoagulantsCesarean SectionFemaleHumansLow Back PainNeedlesPatient SatisfactionPost-Dural Puncture HeadachePregnancyProspective StudiesVisual Analog ScaleAnticoagulantsAnticoagulantsCesarean sectionLow back painMinimally invasivePostdural puncture headacheSpinal anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID30636632
PMCPMC6330402
OpenAlexW2938861588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.