Background Although intrathecal ropivacaine has been widely used for caesarean delivery, there are limited data for the use of ropivacaine for prophylactic cervical cerclage. We sought to determine the median effective dose of intrathecal ropivacaine for prophylactic cervical cerclage in 50% of patients (ED50) and the calculated dose required for successful block in 95% of patients (ED95).
Methods We included Chinese women scheduled for prophylactic cervical cerclage under combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia in the first or second trimester. A predetermined dose of intrathecal isobaric ropivacaine was administered. If this determined dose achieved an effective block at a level not lower than T12, the next dose was decreased by 0.5 mg. Otherwise, the next dose was increased by 0.5 mg. The primary outcome was the ED50 of intrathecal ropivacaine. Secondary outcomes included the calculated ED95, time from CSE to the start of surgery and so on.
Results Forty patients were included in the study, 23 (57.5%) of 40 received an effective block only with intrathecal ropivacaine, while 17 (42.5%) patients needed extra epidural lidocaine to achieve a successful block. The ED50 of intrathecal ropivacaine confirmed by isotonic regression was 6.9 mg (95% CI, 6.68 to 7.12 mg), and the calculated ED95 was 7.8 mg (95% CI, 7.69 to 10.05 mg). When an effective block was achieved with intrathecal ropivacaine alone, the time to resolution of the sensory and motor blocks was 90 (75–100) min and 90 (60–100) min, respectively.
Conclusions The ED50 of intrathecal ropivacaine for prophylactic cervical cerclage was 6.9 mg. Intrathecal ropivacaine (7.8 mg) is likely to produce successful anaesthesia in 95% of patients undergoing prophylactic cervical cerclage.
Trial registration number ChiCTR2100051418.
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors KL, PZ, MD and BT helped design the study, conduct the study, analyse the data and write the manuscript. KL, PZ and HJ helped conduct the study, analyse the data and write the manuscript. BT, MD and KL helped analyse the data and write the manuscript. BT is responsible for the overall content and acted as the guarantor for this study.
Funding This study was supported by Research funding of Shengjing Hospital.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.