Sufentanil for Spinal Analgesia during Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Huang, Hongming; Wang, Shiwu; Lin, Rujun; He, Zhongrun

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4741141

International Journal of Clinical Practice

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Multidisciplinary, Integrative, and Precise Diagnosis and Treatment of Age-Related Diseases

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4741141 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4741141

Sufentanil for Spinal Analgesia during Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Hongming Huang,¹Shiwu Wang,²Rujun Lin,¹and Zhongrun He³

Academic Editor: Xi Yang

Received21 Jul 2022

Revised13 Aug 2022

Accepted16 Aug 2022

Published31 Aug 2022

Abstract

Objective. To investigate the effect of sufentanil for spinal analgesia during cesarean section. Method. Eligible papers were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and ScienceDirect. Two researchers independently extracted primary and secondary endpoints to compute relative risk and mean difference by using the random-effects model or the fixed-effects model, as appropriate. Publication bias was quantified and assessed using funnel plot and Egger’s test. Result. A total of 8 publications with 503 pregnant women were included in this study for meta-analysis. Subarachnoid administration of sufentanil did not significantly reduce the onset time of sensory block and motor block. Nonetheless, subarachnoid administration of sufentanil significantly increased the incidence of postoperative skin pruritus (RR = 5.25, 95%CI: 1.90, 14.49, ). Conclusion. Subarachnoid administration of sufentanil has no significant difference in the combined effect value of shortening the onset time of sensory block and motor block, prolonging the onset time of local anesthesia and the incidence of some adverse reactions (such as postoperative nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and tremors). However, the incidence of skin pruritus was significantly increased, and the difference was statistically significant. Because of this, the drug still needs to be used with caution in combination with the actual situation in clinical use.

1. Introduction

Sufentanil, an opioid analgesic, has been known for its rapid onset of action and potent effect (5–10 times stronger than fentanyl). Its administration route by intravenous, subarachnoid, or subdural injection has been recommended by international guidelines [1]. Sufentanil is considered to be ideal for subdural administration due to its rapid onset of action and lipid solubility, allowing reduced migration and diffusion in the cerebrospinal fluid [2, 3]. Intraspinal administration of sufentanil can significantly reduce the onset time of anesthesia, improve its efficacy, and prolong anesthesia duration [4, 5]. In addition, sufentanil has also been shown to maintain hemodynamic stability similar to that of fentanyl [6]. Moreover, as compared with fentanyl combined with bupivacaine, sufentanil combined with bupivacaine can prolong the total duration of anesthesia, promote rapid sensory blockade, increase oxygen saturation, and reduce the incidence of overall adverse drug reactions. Another study found that sufentanil combined with hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine and morphine during cesarean section significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative shivering [7], while other studies have reported conflicting results [8]. The study by Hoshijima et al. showed that remifentanil was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative tremor than alfentanil or fentanyl, but this difference was not significant as compared with sufentanil. The widespread use of sufentanil in clinical practice makes it necessary to provide evidence on its adverse effects and anesthetic effects [9]. Therefore, in view of the controversy and necessity of the current evidence, this study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide theoretical basis for clinical decision making by exploring the role of sufentanil for spinal anesthesia in cesarean sections.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Search

Literature searches were performed using Medical Subject Headings (Mesh) search terms in databases such as PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and OVID. The search keywords were (“Sufentanil” [Mesh Terms] OR “Bupivacaine” OR “Ropivacaine”) AND (“spinal analgesia” [Mesh Terms] OR “intrathecal analgesia” OR “subarachnoid analgesia”) AND (“efficacy” OR “adverse effect” OR “motor block” OR “sensory block” OR “shivering” OR “pruritus”).

2.2. Literature Screening

Inclusion criteria were as follows. (1) The type of study design was a randomized controlled trial. (2) The study population is pregnant women aged 18–45 undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. (3) The interventional group received spinal anesthesia by sufentanil, whereas the control group received placebo. (4) The primary endpoint of the study included at least one of the following categories: time to sensory block, time to motor block, time to sensory recovery, and adverse outcomes including nausea, vomiting, postoperative shivering, hypotension, and pruritus.

Literature exclusion criteria were as follows. (1) Route of administration other than subarachnoid (spinal anesthesia). (2) The study did not specify the standard for the dosage of the drug. (3) Sample size of the interventional group or the control group less than 20. (4) Non-articles, such as reviews, conferences, reviews, or case reports.

2.3. Document Data Arrangement and Evaluation

Two investigators independently screened and extracted the following data from the included literature: type of study (open-label or double-blind trial), country or region of the study population, year and author of the study, sample size of the interventional and control groups, standardized drug dose, time of sensory block, time of motor block, time of recovery of sensory block, and occurrence of adverse reactions. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias by two independent investigators using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [10] that included following aspects: (1) random number generation method (selection bias); (2) group concealment (selection bias); (3) blinding of investigators and subjects (implementation bias); (4) blinding (detection bias) to the primary endpoint measure; (5) integrity of research results and data; (6) selective reporting; and (7) other biases. The screening of studies was performed by first reading the title and abstract. Full texts of potentially eligible articles were then downloaded for further screening. When the two investigators were in dispute, a consensus was reached by discussing with a third researcher.

2.4. Statistical Methods

STATA17.0 (SE) was used for statistical analysis. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) for categorical variables and the mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. The random-effects model or fixed-effects model was used to combine risk estimates, as appropriate. The inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test. If there was significant heterogeneity between studies (I²>50%), random-effects model was used; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. Publication bias was described by funnel plots and assessed using Egger’s and Begg’s tests. All statistical results in this study were considered statistically significant at two-sided .

3. Results

3.1. Search Results and Literature Features

A total of 211 related studies were generated. Finally, a total of 8 studies with a total of 503 women were included in the meta-analysis. The detailed process of literature retrieval and screening is shown in the PRISMA flowchart in Figure 1. The characteristics of the 8 included papers are shown in Table 1. The included studies were all randomized controlled trials, of which 4 reported the sensory block time, 2 reported motor block time, and 4 reported sensory recovery time. Adverse events of postoperative nausea and vomiting, hypotension, postoperative shivering, and postoperative skin pruritus were reported in 8, 4, 5, and 7 studies, respectively. Assessment of risk of bias by the Cochrane systematic review system found that 3 studies had possible selection bias of random number generation, 4 studies had possible selection bias of grouping concealment, and 2 studies had obvious grouping concealment selection bias; 4 studies had obvious selection bias of grouping concealment; 1 study had possible bias in blinding of researchers and subjects; 2 studies had possible bias in outcome measurement, 3 studies had obvious outcome measurement bias; 2 studies had possible bias in research results and data integrity; 4 studies had selective reporting bias; 2 studies had other possible biases.

3.2. Sensory Block Time

A total of 230 pregnant women from 4 studies were included. The results of the heterogeneity test were H² = 42.21, I² = 97.63%, and P = 0.00, indicating a high degree of heterogeneity. Mean differences were combined using random-effects models that showed no significant reduced onset time of sensory block for subarachnoid administration of sufentanil as compared with the control group (MD = -2.12, 95%CI: -4.94, 0.69, ), as shown in Figure 2. The funnel plot showed no obvious publication bias (Figure 3).

3.3. Sensory Recovery Time

A total of 4 studies with 208 pregnant women were included. Mean differences were combined using random-effects models in the presence of high heterogeneity (H² = 26.03, I² = 96.16%, ). The results showed that compared with the control group, subarachnoid administration of sufentanil for anesthesia did not significantly prolong the sensory recovery time (MD = 18.49, 95%CI: -9.65, 46.64, , Figure 4). Potential publication bias was suggested by the funnel plot (Figure 5).

3.4. Occurrence of Postoperative Nausea

A total of 503 patients in 8 studies were included. RR was then combined using a fixed-effects model based on the inverse variance method since the heterogeneity test indicated a low degree of heterogeneity (H² = 1.00, I² = 0.00%, ). Compared with the control group, the use of sufentanil did not significantly reduce the risk of postoperative nausea (RR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.31, 1.11, ), as shown in Figure 6. The funnel plot showed no obvious publication bias (Figure 7).

3.5. Incidence of Postoperative Vomiting

Pooled analysis in 503 patients from 8 studies using the fixed-effects model (H² = 1.22, I² = 17.95%, ) indicated that sufentanil did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative vomiting as compared to the control group (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.75, 1.44, , Figure 8). There was no obvious publication bias (Figure 9).

3.6. Postoperative Hypotension

The results of the meta-analysis using the fixed-effects model (H² = 2.42, I² = 58.60%, ) in 261 patients from 4 studies showed that as compared with the control group, the use of sufentanil did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative hypotension (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.22, , Figure 10). No obvious publication bias was detected (Figure 11).

3.7. Occurrence of Postoperative Shivering

A total of 5 studies with 308 patients were included. After confirming moderate heterogeneity (H² = 2.07, I² = 51.70%, ), the mean difference calculated using the random-effects model suggested that the use of sufentanil did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative shivering (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.27, 1.26, , Figure 12). The funnel plot (Figure 13) indicated no obvious publication bias.

3.8. Occurrence of Postoperative Skin Itching

The results of the heterogeneity test from 8 studies with a total of 503 patients were H² = 3.10 and I² = 67.74% (), indicating moderate heterogeneity. Compared with the control group, the use of sufentanil significantly increased the risk of postoperative skin itching (RR = 5.25, 95%CI: 1.90, 14.49, , Figure 14). No obvious publication bias was observed (Figure 15).

4. Discussion

In order to achieve the ideal anesthetic effect during cesarean section, anesthesia that effectively covers the S2–S4 to T4–T12 segments of the spinal cord by blocking the sympathetic nerve is usually necessary. However, postpartum hypotensive adverse reactions were common [19]. The usual dosing regimen for local anesthesia for cesarean section is bupivacaine 0.5% (7.5–15 mg) [19], with some guidelines suggesting 10 mg bupivacaine alone or 8 mg bupivacaine in combination with other opioids (e.g., sufentanil) to be low doses [20], while other investigators consider bupivacaine to be low as long as its dose does not exceed 8 mg [21]. Due to the existing inter-study heterogeneity in terms of the definition of low dose, this study did not explore the source of heterogeneity by performing subgroup analysis according to dosages.

Previous studies have shown that many opioids, including sufentanil, are involved in inhibiting the release of cholinergic neurotransmitters [22, 23]. In addition, opioids can induce nausea, vomiting, hypotension, skin itching, and other adverse drug reactions by reducing the transmission of cholinergic neurotransmitters in the heart, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract in the peripheral nervous system [24–26]. The research of Silva et al. showed that the target of respiratory depression caused by opioids is in the ventrolateral area of the rostral medulla oblongata [27]. In addition, many electrophysiological, anatomical, and pharmacological studies have shown that there are superficial and deep layers of the ventrolateral area of the rostral medulla oblongata, where many opioid-sensitive neurons and neurons associated with respiration and sympathetic output reside [28–30]. A 5 mg dose of sufentanil has been reported to be significantly associated with increased incidence of hypotension during cesarean delivery via the subarachnoid route [13].

Although meta-analysis [31] has demonstrated that bupivacaine combined with sufentanil reduced pain and shortened the duration of sensory block in women, it was associated with elevated incidence of pruritus. Nonetheless, the results of this study showed that subarachnoid administration of sufentanil numerically shortened the onset time of sensory block and motor block and prolonged the total onset time of local anesthesia; the difference was not statistically significant. On the contrary, the incidence of adverse drug reactions significantly increased, such as skin itching. Therefore, the superiority of this drug is still controversial and its clinical administration entails prudence. Since only 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis, the possibility of a potential bias associated with small sample size cannot be definitively ruled out. Consistent with our study results, other investigations have also reported that subarachnoid administration of 2.5ug–10ug sufentanil was not significantly associated with intraoperative hypotension [19, 21, 32].

This study has several limitations. First, although the quality of all included literature in this study was at least moderate, not all were free of risk of bias. Second, sample size calculation was reported in only a subset of publications, so it remains unclear whether the research results have sufficient statistical power to ensure reliability. In addition, the wide confidence interval of some endpoint indicators increased the uncertainty of statistical inference. At last, due to the geographic differences in clinical practice, the dosage of sufentanil differs significantly between studies, which may also introduce bias.

In conclusion, there was no significant difference in the onset time of sensory block, motor block, and the combined effect between subarachnoid and local administration of sufentanil. The incidence of some adverse reactions such as postoperative nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and tremor had no significant difference in the combined effect size. However, the incidence of skin pruritus was significantly increased, and the difference was statistically significant. Therefore, in the clinical use of this drug, it is still necessary to use it with caution in combination with the actual situation.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Hongming Huang and Shiwu Wang contributed equally to this work

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by People’s Hospital of Wanning, Hainan.

References

D. Maciejewski, “Sufentanil in anaesthesiology and intensive therapy,” Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 35–41, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Scholz, M. Steinfath, and M. Schulz, “Clinical pharmacokinetics of alfentanil, fentanyl and sufentanil,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 275–292, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Savoia, M. Loreto, and E. Gravino, “Sufentanil: an overview of its use for acute pain management,” Minerva Anestesiologica, vol. 67, no. 9 Suppl 1, pp. 206–216, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Abrams, J. E. Morrison, A. Villasenor, D. Hencmann, M. Da Fonseca, and W. Mueller, “Safety and effectiveness of intranasal administration of sedative medications (ketamine, midazolam, or sufentanil) for urgent brief pediatric dental procedures,” Anesthesia Progress, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 63–66, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
W. C. Ummenhofer, R. H. Arends, D. D. Shen, and C. Bernards, “Comparative spinal distribution and clearance kinetics of intrathecally administered morphine, fentanyl, alfentanil, and sufentanil,” Anesthesiology, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 739–753, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Hassani, G. Movassaghi, R. Safaian et al., “Bupivacaine-sufentanil versus bupivacaine-fentanyl in spinal anesthesia of patients undergoing lower extremity surgery,” Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, vol. 4, no. 2, Article ID e12091, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. de Figueiredo Locks, “Incidence of shivering after cesarean section under spinal anesthesia with or without intrathecal sufentanil: a randomized study,” Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 676–684, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Birnbach, D. Meininger, C. Byhahn et al., “Intrathecal fentanyl, sufentanil, or placebo combined with hyperbaric mepivacaine 2% for parturients undergoing elective cesarean delivery,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 852–858, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Hoshijima, R. Takeuchi, N. Kuratani et al., “Incidence of postoperative shivering comparing remifentanil with other opioids: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, vol. 32, pp. 300–312, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. T. Higgins, D. G. Altman, P. C. Gøtzsche et al., “The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials,” BMJ, vol. 343, Article ID d5928, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Abdollahpour, R. Azadi, R. Bandari, and M. Mirmohammadkhani, “Effects of adding midazolam and sufentanil to intrathecal bupivacaine on analgesia quality and postoperative complications in elective cesarean section,” Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, vol. 5, no. 4, Article ID e23565, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. D. Dourado, R. L. d M. Lins Filho, R. A. M. L. Fernandes, M. C. de Sa Gondim, and E. V. M. Nogueira, “Sufentanil in combination with low-dose hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial,” Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 622–627, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. S. Bang, K. H. Chung, J. H. Lee et al., “Comparison of clinical effects according to the dosage of sufentanil added to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing cesarean section,” Korean J Anesthesiol, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 321–326, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Chen, X. Qian, F. Fu, H. Lu, and B. Bein, “Intrathecal sufentanil decreases the median effective dose (ED50) of intrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine for caesarean delivery,” Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 284–290, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Farzi, A. Mirmansouri, B. Naderi Nabi et al., “Comparing the effect of adding fentanyl, sufentanil, and placebo with intrathecal bupivacaine on duration of analgesia and complications of spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing cesarean section,” Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, vol. 7, no. 5, Article ID e12738, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Karaman, S. Kocabas, M. Uyar, S. Hayzaran, and V. Firat, “The effects of sufentanil or morphine added to hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section,” European Journal of Anaesthesiology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 285–291, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kaya, U. Büyükkoçak, and H. Başar, “Comparison of epidural ropivacaine 0.2% and ropivacaine 0.2% in combination with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL-1 for postcaesarean analgesia,” Agri, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 30–37, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Bozdogan Ozyilkan, A. Kocum, M. Sener et al., “Comparison of intrathecal levobupivacaine combined with sufentanil, fentanyl, or placebo for elective caesarean section: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study,” Current Therapeutic Research, vol. 75, pp. 64–70, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Roofthooft and M. Van de Velde, “Low-dose spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean section to prevent spinal-induced hypotension,” Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 259–262, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-Z. Fan, L. Susetio, Y.-P. Wang, Y. J. Cheng, and C. C. Liu, “Low dose of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine combined with epidural lidocaine for cesarean section--a balance block technique,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 474–477, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Arzola and P. M. Wieczorek, “Efficacy of low-dose bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean delivery: systematic review and meta-analysis,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 308–318, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. N. Willette, B. M. Doorley, and H. N. Sapru, “Activation of cholinergic mechanisms in the medulla oblongata reverse intravenous opioid-induced respiratory depression,” Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 240, no. 1, pp. 352–358, 1987.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Weinstock, “Acetylcholine and Cholinesterase. Narcotic Drugs,” Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1971.
View at: Google Scholar
J. A. Russell and E. J. Simons, “Modulation of cholinergic neurotransmission in airways by enkephalin,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 853–858, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Weitzell, P. Illes, and K. Starke, “Inhibition via opioid μ-and δ-receptors of vagal transmission in rabbit isolated heart,” Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, vol. 328, no. 2, pp. 186–190, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. D. M. Paton, “The action of morphine and related substances on contraction and on acetylcholine output of coaxially stimulated Guinea‐pig ileum,” British Journal of Pharmacology and Chemotherapy, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 119–127, 1957.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Taveira da Silva, J. D. Souza, J. A. Quest et al., “Central nervous system site of action for the respiratory depressant effect of diacetylmorphine (heroin) in the cat,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 1209–1217, 1983.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Punnen, R. Willette, A. J. Krieger, and H. Sapru, “Cardiovascular response to injections of enkephalin in the pressor area of the ventrolateral medulla,” Neuropharmacology, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 939–946, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. P. Kalia, “Anatomical organization of central respiratory neurons,” Annual Review of Physiology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 105–120, 1981.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. L. Brown and P. G. Guyenet, “Cardiovascular neurons of brain stem with projections to spinal cord,” American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, vol. 247, no. 6, pp. R1009–R1016, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Hu, C. Zhang, J. Yan, R. Wang, Y. Wang, and M. Xu, “Sufentanil and bupivacaine combination versus bupivacaine alone for spinal anesthesia during cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 3, Article ID e0152605, 2016 Mar 31.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Lee, K. H. Chung, J. Y. Lee et al., “Comparison of fentanyl and sufentanil added to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing cesarean section,” Korean journal of anesthesiology, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 103–108, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Hongming Huang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies