SynthesisJournal of anesthesia2025
Norepinephrine vs. phenylephrine for spinal hypotension in cesarean section: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of anesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Norepinephrine infusion for prophylaxis against spinal-induced hypotension in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery: a randomized controlled comparison of two doses.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- ED95 determination of continuous norepinephrine infusion for preventing spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in obese parturients during cesarean delivery.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePostspinal hypotension (PSH) during cesarean section (CS) often causes maternal intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) and fetal acidosis. Phenylephrine (PE) and norepinephrine (NE) are commonly used for management; however, the optimal agent and method (bolus vs. infusion) remains uncertain. This review assessed bolus and infusion of PE and NE for IONV and PSH during CS.
methodsSystematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and unpublished studies identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PE and NE administration during CS under spinal anesthesia. Primary outcomes included IONV and PSH, whereas secondary outcomes encompassed Apgar scores, umbilical artery pH, rescue vasopressor bolus requirements, and adverse events. A random-effects meta-analysis and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool were utilized.
resultsAmong 74 RCTs (7798 patients), NE and PE infusion reduced IONV compared with PE bolus (risk ratio [RR]: 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.66; RR: 0.54; 95% CI 0.42-0.69, high confidence). Similarly, these approaches reduced PSH (NE infusion: RR: 0.25; 95% CI 0.21-0.31, high confidence; PE infusion: RR: 0.29; 95% CI 0.24-0.34, moderate confidence). Rescue vasopressor bolus requirements showed a similar trend. Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH were comparable across all groups. Adverse event varied, with bradycardia more common with PE, tachycardia with boluses, and dizziness with PE bolus. Hypertension was more frequent with infusions. In prophylactic studies, hypotension trends persisted, but no differences were observed in IONV.
conclusionProphylactic continuous infusion appears to be a favorable strategy for managing PSH and IONV during CS. No significant difference was observed between PE and NE infusions in preventing PSH and IONV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40522505What 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.