ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2026
Prevention of post-spinal hypotension in high risk cesarean delivery: A systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of prophylactic vasopressor infusions.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Continuous Spinal Anesthesia in Frail Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Hip and Knee Revision Surgery: Advantages, Indications, and Risk Management-A Single-Center Retrospective Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Post-spinal hypotension (PSH) is a common complication of neuraxial anaesthesia in high risk cesarean delivery (CD). This systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylactic intravenous infusions of norepinephrine, phenylephrine, and ephedrine to prevent PSH in this population. Methods: Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous prophylactic norepinephrine, phenylephrine, and ephedrine in high risk CD and reporting maternal or fetal outcomes were considered. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A frequentist network meta-analysis was carried out. Heterogeneity was inspected with I² and Q statistics, and treatment ranking was estimated by Results: Eighteen trials involving 3331 participants were included. Administration of vasopressors reduced the incidence of PSH compared with placebo or no treatment [odds ratios (OR): 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12, 1.67; I²: 10.5%]. Norepinephrine and phenylephrine were superior to ephedrine. There was greater cardiac stability and less bradycardia and nausea with norepinephrine. In preeclamptic and in infusion treated patients, vasopressors were more effective, yet the advantage of norepinephrine was not consistently statistically significant. Neonatal outcomes such as APGAR scores and umbilical artery pH did not differ significantly between agents (OR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8, 1.5; Conclusion: Both norepinephrine and phenylephrine are effective for the prevention of PSH in high-risk cesarean delivery receiving neuraxial anaesthesia, with norepinephrine offering more favourable maternal safety and tolerability. These findings justify the use of norepinephrine and phenylephrine over ephedrine in this patient population.
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.