Prophylactic intravenous ephedrine to minimize fetal bradycardia after combined spinal-epidural labour analgesia: a randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2015, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society. Background: The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique for relief of labour pain offers both rapid onset and superior first-stage analgesia. Nevertheless, the known increased risk for early profound fetal bradycardia (EPFB) following CSE continues to be a concern that often limits its use. The purpose of this study was to determine if giving prophylactic intravenous ephedrine at the time of CSE administration would reduce EPFB. Methods: We conducted this clinical trial at a large community hospital and enrolled healthy patients requesting epidural analgesia for labour. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either normal saline placebo or ephedrine 10 mg iv at the time of CSE. The primary outcome of EPFB (defined as bradycardia < 90 beats·min −1 for > two minutes and occurring within the first 30 min after CSE) was compared between groups. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of urgent cesarean delivery, the requirement for additional doses of ephedrine, maternal blood pressure, uterine hypertonus and tachysystole, and abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) patterns before and after CSE. Results: There were 299 women randomized to the ephedrine (EPH) group and 297 randomized to the normal saline placebo (NS) group. There was no difference between groups in the incidence of EPFB (2.7% EPH group vs 4.7% NS group; relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 1.33; P = 0.184). There was also no difference between groups in the incidence of urgent cesarean delivery, uterine hypertonus, uterine tachysystole, and abnormal FHR patterns. Conclusions: We conclude that prophylactic intravenous ephedrine administration at the time of CSE during labour was ineffective at reducing the risk for EPFB associated with CSE. Nevertheless, a lower than expected rate of EPFB resulted in the trial being underpowered. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02062801.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".