The anaesthetic and recovery profile of two concentrations (0.25% and 0.50%), of intrathecal isobaric levobupivacaine for combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia in patients undergoing modified Stark method caesarean delivery: a double blinded randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In spinal anaesthesia for a Caesarean delivery, it is important to limit anaesthesia only at the surgical area, and to resolve fast motor block. We compared the intraoperative effectiveness, hemodynamic effects, anaesthetic recovery times and patients satisfaction after isobaric levobupivacaine (L) 0.25% versus L0.50% spinal anaesthesia during elective Caesarean deliveries performed with the Stark technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blinded prospective study, seventy women undergoing elective caesarean delivery were randomized to receive either intrathecal 7.5 mg Levobupivacaine 0.25% plus sufentanil 2.5 µg (Group L0.25), or intrathecal 7.5 mg L 0.50% plus sufentanil 2.5 µg (GroupControl). The onset time, duration of anaesthesia, analgesia and sensory and motor block and hemodynamic parameters were measured from the beginning of spinal anaesthesia until four hours after spinal anaesthesia (T240). RESULTS: Onset time, duration of anaesthesia and haemodynamic variations were similar in the two groups. No patients required general anesthesia to complete surgery. Motor block vanished faster in Group L0.25 as compared with GroupControl (p < .01). The cephalad spread of the 0.50% solution was higher than that of the 0.25% solution: no patient in Group L0.25 experienced paresthesia of the upper limbs vs 14% in GroupControl (p < .05). In GroupControl anaesthesia reached the dermatome T1 in 15% of cases. Maternal and surgeon satisfaction was good in every patient. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine 7.5 milligrams at 0.25% may be used as a suitable alternative to L 0.50% for spinal anaesthesia for caesarean deliveris with the Stark technique with good maternal satisfaction. In Group L0.25 a lower appearance of nausea and hypotension were observed and motor and sensitive block developed and diminished faster while no clinically significant differences in hemodynamic behavior was observed between groups.

Implementation of epidural analgesia for labor: is the standard of effective analgesia reachable in all women? An audit of two years.

BACKGROUND: Social and cultural factors combined with little information may prevent the diffusion of epidural analgesia for pain relief during childbirth. The present study was launched contemporarily to the implementation of analgesia for labor in our Department in order to perform a 2 years audit on its use. The goal is to evaluate the epidural acceptance and penetration into hospital practice by women and care givers and safety and efficacy during childbirth. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This audit cycle measured epidural analgesia performance against 4 standards: (1) Implementation of epidural analgesia for labor to all patients; (2) Acceptance and good satisfaction level reported by patients and caregivers. (3) Effectiveness of labor analgesia; (4) No maternal or fetal side effects. RESULTS: During the audit period epidural analgesia increased from 15.5% of all labors in the first trimester of the study to 51% in the last trimester (p < 0.005). Satisfaction levels reported by patients and care givers were good. A hierarchical clustering analysis identified two clusters based on VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) time course: in 226 patients (cluster 1) VAS decreased from 8.5±1.4 before to 4.1±1.3 after epidural analgesia; in 1002 patients (cluster 2) VAS decreased from 8.12±1.7 before (NS vs cluster 1), to 0.76±0.79 after (p < 0.001 vs before and vs cluster 2 after). No other differences between clusters were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Present audit shows that the process of implementation of labor analgesia was quick, successful and safe, notwithstanding the identification of one cluster of women with suboptimal response to epidural analgesia that need to be further studies, overall pregnant womens'adhesion to labor analgesia was satisfactory.

Anisakis simplex hypersensitivity is associated with chronic urticaria in endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria (CU) may affect up to 1% of the general population. Anisakis simplex hypersensitivity is frequent in areas where raw fish is consumed and A. simplex allergy represents a relevant cause of acute urticaria. We assessed the possible association between CU and A. simplex sensitization in an area where marinated fish is very frequently eaten. METHODS: A thorough history of CU was sought in 919 adults seen at the Allergy Center, Bari. CU patients and 187 controls underwent skin-prick testing with a commercial extract of A. simplex, and reactors were recommended a 6-month raw-fish-free diet regimen. Responders were followed after a further 3 months. RESULTS: Of 919 subjects, 213 (23%) met the criteria for CU and 106/213 (49.7%) were sensitized to A. simplex with a significant difference between patients aged >65 or <65 years (56 vs. 41%, respectively; p < 0.05). All patients hypersensitive to A. simplex were regular consumers of marinated fish. In a control population without CU, the prevalence of A. simplex sensitization was 16% (p < 0.001). The 6-month diet regimen led to the disappearance of urticaria in 82/106 cases (77%) versus 1/42 (2%) subjects who did not change their dietary habits (p < 0.001). All nonresponders were sensitized to house-dust mites. Of 75 responders who were followed-up after 3 months, CU relapsed in 88% of those who had reintroduced raw fish versus 14% of those who were still on the diet (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In areas where raw or marinated fish is frequently eaten, A. simplex hypersensitivity is a frequent cause of CU.