ArticleCureus2024
Phenylephrine Infusion Versus Bolus Regimens During Cesarean Delivery Under Spinal Anesthesia: An Observational Study to Assess Hemodynamic Changes.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal and fetal outcomes of phenylephrine bolus versus infusion during cesarean delivery: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of two modes of phenylephrine administration, namely continuous infusion and intermittent bolus, in maintaining maternal hemodynamics during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia (SA). Methods Eighty patients undergoing cesarean delivery with SA were allocated into two groups. In group I, 40 patients were administered a prophylactic phenylephrine infusion at a rate of 75 mcg/min immediately after SA. Conversely, group B, consisting of 40 patients, received a 75 mcg bolus dose promptly after SA and subsequently whenever their blood pressure fell by more than 20% from the baseline value. Crucial variables, such as heart rate (HR), blood pressure, and side effects, were closely monitored at a three-minute interval in both groups. Following the delivery of the child, APGAR scores were documented at the first and fifth minutes, and the gathered data underwent analysis using SPSS Statistics, version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Results The results revealed that baseline HR and blood pressure were similar in both groups. Nevertheless, the bolus group exhibited a higher mean HR, whereas the infusion group maintained a closer proximity to the baseline reading throughout the measurement period. Despite these variations, changes in HR did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between the two groups at any measuring intervals. Additionally, the mean systolic blood pressure in group B exhibited an initial decrease from the baseline, whereas group I displayed an increase compared to the baseline values. Importantly, neither group reported instances of nausea or vomiting, and the APGAR scores were comparable between them. Conclusion In conclusion, the study found that a phenylephrine bolus of 75 mcg was more effective in maintaining blood pressure within acceptable limits without causing bradycardia or hypertension when compared to a phenylephrine infusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.