Comparison Between 0.5% and 0.75% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine Given Intrathecally in Elective Caesarian Section
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v7i3.2226Keywords:
Spinal Anesthesia; Cesarean Section; Bupivacaine; Hemodynamics; HypotensionAbstract
Spinal anesthesia is the preferred anesthetic technique for elective caesarean section because of its rapid onset, reliability, and favorable maternal and fetal safety profile. However, hypotension and other hemodynamic disturbances remain common concerns, and the concentration of hyperbaric bupivacaine may influence these effects. Objective: To compare maternal hemodynamic changes associated with 12 mg of 0.5% versus 12 mg of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in elective caesarean section. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at Abbas Institute of Medical Sciences, Muzaffarabad, from April 2024 to September 2024. A total of 100 women aged 20 to 40 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II undergoing elective caesarean section were randomly allocated into two equal groups. Group A received 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, while Group B received 12 mg of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Hemodynamic parameters, including systolic blood pressure and heart rate, were recorded at predefined intervals after spinal anesthesia. Adverse effects, sensory block level, vasopressor requirement, and patient satisfaction were also assessed. Results: Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable between the groups. Both regimens produced adequate spinal anesthesia, with T4 sensory block achieved in 86% of patients in Group A and 82% in Group B. Although between-group differences in systolic blood pressure and heart rate at measured time points were not statistically significant, Group A showed a trend toward greater hemodynamic stability. Nausea and vomiting occurred less frequently in Group A than in Group B (18% vs 38%). Bradycardia was observed only in Group B (4%), and hypotension was less frequent in Group A (6% vs 14%). A significantly greater proportion of patients in Group A required no rescue vasopressor compared with Group B (94% vs 80%; p = 0.038). Patient satisfaction was also higher in Group A (78% vs 66%). Conclusion: Both concentrations of hyperbaric bupivacaine provided effective spinal anesthesia for elective caesarean section. Although the differences in serial hemodynamic parameters were not statistically significant, 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine was associated with fewer adverse effects, lower vasopressor requirement, and better patient satisfaction, suggesting a more favorable clinical profile.
Downloads
References
1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671
2. Kinsella SM, Carvalho B, Dyer RA, Fernando R, McDonnell N, Mercier FJ, et al. International consensus statement on the management of hypotension with vasopressors during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(1):71-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14080
3. Dyer RA, Butwick AJ, Carvalho B. Oxytocin for labour and caesarean delivery: implications for the anaesthesiologist. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2021;34(3):260-267.
4. Sng BL, Lim Y, Sia AT. An observational prospective cohort study of incidence and characteristics of failed spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2021;46:102972.
5. Vyas N, Butani M, Gadhavi B. Comparison of hemodynamic effects of 0.5% versus 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2022;38(2):247-252.
6. Moustafa MA, Kamal SM. Intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% versus 0.75% for caesarean delivery: a randomised double-blind study. Egypt J Anaesth. 2021;37(1):318-325.
7. Heesen M, Böhmer J, Klohr S, Rossaint R, Straube S, van de Velde M. The effect of adding a vasopressor to spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2019;40:68-79.
8. Ginosar Y, Mirikatani E, Drover DR, Cohen SE, Riley ET. ED50 and ED95 of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine coadministered with opioids for caesarean delivery. Anesthesiology. 2020;133(1):28-38.
9. Loubert C, Hallworth S, Fernando R, Columb M, Patel N, Sarang K, et al. Does the baricity of bupivacaine influence intrathecal spread in the prolonged sitting position before caesarean delivery? Anesth Analg. 2021;112(4):904-914.
10. Siddiqui NT, Katznelson R, Friedman Z. Heart rate/blood pressure variability and spinal hypotension during caesarean section. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67(8):1001-1010.
11. Uppal V, Retter S, Casey M, Sancheti S, Matheson K, McKeen DM. Efficacy of hyperbaric versus isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in caesarean section: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020;45(1):17-24.
12. Nag DS, Samaddar DP, Chatterjee A, Kumar H, Dembla A. Vasopressors in obstetric anaesthesia: a current perspective. World J Clin Cases. 2021;3(1):58-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v3.i1.58
13. Klöhr S, Roth R, Hofmann T, Rossaint R, Heesen M. Definitions of hypotension after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: literature search and application to parturients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020;54(8):909-921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02239.x
14. Hasanin AM, Mokhtar AM, Badawy AA, Fouad R. Post-spinal anesthesia hypotension during cesarean section: a review article. Egypt J Anaesth. 2022;38(1):63-73.
15. Ioscovich A, Fadeev A, Rivilis A, Elstein D, Ginosar Y. Vasopressor use during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2023;52:103586.
16. Karaman S, Kocabas S, Uyar M, Hayzaran S, Firat V. The effects of sufentanil or morphine added to hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021;23(4):285-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265021505001869
17. Arzola C, Wieczorek PM. Efficacy of low-dose bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2021;107(3):308-318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer200
18. Carvalho B, Cohen SE, Lipman SS, Fuller A, Mathusamy AD, Macario A. Patient preferences for anesthesia outcomes associated with cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2022;101(4):1182-1187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000167774.36833.99
19. Khattak MA, Akhter N, Nayab A, Sajid B. Current practices of anaesthesia for caesarean section in tertiary care hospitals of Pakistan: a cross-sectional survey. J Pak Med Assoc. 2023;73(5):974-978.
20. Langesaeter E, Rosseland LA, Stubhaug A. Haemodynamic effects of repeated doses of oxytocin during caesarean delivery in healthy parturients. Br J Anaesth. 2021;103(2):260-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aep137
21. Sultan P, Gutierrez MC, Carvalho B. Neuraxial morphine and respiratory depression in obstetric patients. Drugs. 2021;71(14):1807-1819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11596250-000000000-00000
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Anas Zahid, Abid Hussain, Rimsha Matloob, Mehrab Fatima, Sami Ur Rehman, Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed Qureshi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






