An open-label randomized controlled clinical trial for comparison of continuous phenylephrine versus norepinephrine infusion in prevention of spinal hypotension during cesarean delivery.

BACKGROUND: During spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery phenylephrine is the vasopressor of choice but can cause bradycardia. Norepinephrine has both ß- and α-adrenergic activity suitable for maintaining blood pressure with less bradycardia. We hypothesized that norepinephrine would be superior to phenylephrine, requiring fewer rescue bolus interventions to maintain blood pressure. METHODS: Eighty-five parturients having spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery were randomized to Group P (phenylephrine 0.1µg/kg/min) or Group N (norepinephrine 0.05µg/kg/min) fixed-rate infusions. Rescue bolus interventions of phenylephrine 100µg for hypotension, or ephedrine 5mg for bradycardia with hypotension, were given as required to maintain systolic blood pressure. Maternal hemodynamic variables were measured non-invasively. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who required rescue vasopressor boluses (Group P: 65.8% [n=25] vs. Group N: 48.8% [n=21], P=0.12). The proportion of patients who received ⩾1 bolus of phenylephrine was similar between groups (Group P: 52.6% [n=20] vs. Group N: 46.5% [n=20], P=0.58). However, more patients received ⩾1 bolus of ephedrine in the phenylephrine group (Group P: 23.7% [n=9] vs. Group N: 2.3% [n=1], P<0.01). The incidence of emesis was greater in the phenylephrine group (Group P: 26.3% vs. Group P: 16.3%, P<0.001). Hemodynamic parameters including heart rate, the incidence of bradycardia, blood pressure, cardiac output, cardiac index, stroke volume, and systemic vascular resistance and neonatal outcome were similar between groups (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Norepinephrine fixed-rate infusion has efficacy for preventing hypotension and can be considered as an alternative to phenylephrine.

Increasing operating room efficiency through electronic medical record analysis.

We used electronic medical record (EMR) analysis to determine errors in operating room (OR) time utilisation. Over a two year period EMR data of 44,503 surgical procedures was analysed for OR duration, on-time, first case, and add-on time performance, within 19 surgical specialties. Maximal OR time utilisation at our institution could have saved over 302,620 min or 5,044 hours of OR efficiency over a two year period. Most specialties (78.95%) had inaccurately scheduled procedure times and therefore used the OR more than their scheduled allotment time. Significant differences occurred between the mean scheduled surgical durations (101.38 ± 87.11 min) and actual durations (108.18 ± 102.27 min; P < 0.001). Significant differences also occurred between the mean scheduled add-on durations (111.4 ± 75.5 min) and the actual add-on scheduled durations (118.6 ± 90.1 minutes; P < 0.001). EMR quality improvement analysis can be used to determine scheduling error and bias, in order to improve efficiency and increase OR time utilisation.