Prophylactic phenylephrine and fluid co-administration to reduce spinal hypotension during elective caesarean section in a resource-limited setting: a prospective alternating intervention study

Spinal hypotension is a common and clinically important problem during caesarean section. Current consensus recommendations for resource-rich settings suggest the use of a titrated phenylephrine infusion, in combination with fluid coloading, for prevention of maternal hypotension. In resource-limited settings, where syringe drivers are unavailable, these recommendations advise the addition of 500 μg phenylephrine to the first 1 l of intravenous fluid given after initiation of spinal anaesthesia, with additional vasopressor boluses as required. This prospective, alternating intervention study compared the use of a conventional phenylephrine rescue bolus strategy for prevention of hypotension, defined as systolic arterial pressure < 90 mmHg, with a phenylephrine infusion given according to the consensus recommendation. We studied 300 women having elective caesarean section. There were 77 (51%) women who developed hypotension in the bolus group vs. 55 (37%) in the phenylephrine infusion group (p = 0.011). This represented a 29% reduction in hypotension, with a number needed to treat of 6.8. The six highest systolic arterial pressure readings occurred in the phenylephrine infusion group (range 166–188 mmHg), and there were four instances of bradycardia (heart rate < 50 beats.min⁻¹) with preserved systolic arterial pressure in each group. There were no adverse clinical sequelae, and no differences in neonatal Apgar scores in either group. The consensus recommendation for phenylephrine and fluid co-administration in resource-limited settings appears effective in preventing maternal hypotension, but at the cost of sporadic systolic hypertension.     

A randomised controlled trial of phenylephrine and noradrenaline boluses for treatment of postspinal hypotension during elective caesarean section

Phenylephrine is currently the vasopressor of choice during elective caesarean section, but it can cause reflex bradycardia. Noradrenaline, a potent α-agonist and weak β-agonist, may be associated with a lower incidence of bradycardia. However, comparative information is limited. This double-blind randomised controlled trial compared the effects of 100 μg phenylephrine and 5 μg noradrenaline administered as boluses for the treatment of postspinal hypotension during elective caesarean section in women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy. Hypotension was defined as a decrease of ≥ 20% from baseline systolic arterial pressure, or an absolute value < 100 mmHg. Ninety women were included in the study. The primary outcome was the incidence of maternal bradycardia < 60 beats.min⁻¹. There was no difference in the incidence of bradycardia (37.8% with phenylephrine vs. 22.2% with noradrenaline; p = 0.167), number of hypotensive episodes, number of boluses required to treat the first hypotensive episode or reactive hypertension. The total number of boluses used was higher in the phenylephrine group (p = 0.01). Maternal heart rate at 1 min after vasopressor administration was non-significantly lower using phenylephrine vs. noradrenaline (p = 0.034, considering p < 0.01 as statistically significant). The umbilical artery pH was higher using phenylephrine than with noradrenaline (p = 0.034). In conclusion, both vasopressors reversed postspinal hypotension without a statistically significant difference in maternal bradycardia. However, in view of the lower umbilical artery pH when using noradrenaline, further research is warranted to study its placental transfer and fetal metabolic effects.     

Induction opioids for caesarean section under general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

IntroductionThe adverse effects of induction opioids on the neonate are poorly characterised. The study aim was to investigate whether induction opioids can be used in caesarean section without adversely affecting the neonate.MethodsSix databases were systematically searched from inception until January 2019. Included studies compared induction opioids and placebo in caesarean section. Results were presented as odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes. An I² statistic of >50% was significant for heterogeneity. The primary outcome was Apgar score (1 and 5 min). Secondary outcomes included neonatal adverse events, cord blood gas analyses, maternal haemodynamic parameters (systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and catecholamine concentrations.ResultsSeventeen studies (n=987) were included in the meta-analysis. Remifentanil 0.5–1 μg/kg or 2–3 μg/kg/h, alfentanil 7.5–10 μg/kg and fentanyl 0.5–1 μg/kg were compared to placebo. There was no significant difference in Apgar scores at 1 min (P=0.25, 0.58 and 0.89 respectively) for all three opioids or at 5 min for remifentanil and alfentanil (P=0.08 and 0.21 respectively). Fentanyl significantly reduced 5 min Apgar scores (P=0.002). There was no difference in neonatal airway interventions with remifentanil or alfentanil (P <0.05). All three induction opioids caused a significant reduction in maximum SBP (P <0.0001), MAP (P <0.00001) and HR (P <0.00001).ConclusionInduction opioids are effective sympatholytic agents. Remifentanil and alfentanil appear to be safe, with no significant effect on Apgar scores or neonatal airway intervention, but a well-powered trial is required to confirm these findings.     

Managing hypotension during anaesthesia for caesarean section

Hypotension is a significant problem during regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. This may be associated with both maternal and fetal morbidity. Risk factors should be identified. The technique of neuraxial blockade can be modified to reduce the incidence. Management techniques include left uterine displacement, mechanical leg compression, intravenous fluids and vasopressors. Novel alternative methods include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and 5HT₃ antagonists. Neither pre-loading nor co-loading with intravenous fluid has been shown to be effective alone but must be combined with vasopressor administration by bolus or infusion. Phenylephrine by infusion is emerging as the vasopressor of choice, titrated to baseline blood pressure. Computerized target-controlled systems have been developed to facilitate titration. Cardiac output, rather than blood pressure, may be a more appropriate parameter for monitoring haemodynamic changes during caesarean section.     

A systematic review of phenylephrine vs. noradrenaline for the management of hypotension associated with neuraxial anaesthesia in women undergoing caesarean section

Phenylephrine is recommended for the management of hypotension after spinal anaesthesia in women undergoing caesarean section. Noradrenaline, an adrenergic agonist with weak β-adrenergic activity, has been reported to have a more favourable haemodynamic profile than phenylephrine. However, there are concerns that noradrenaline may be associated with a higher risk of fetal acidosis, defined as an umbilical artery pH < 7.20. We performed a systematic review of trials comparing noradrenaline with phenylephrine, concentrating on primary outcomes of fetal acidosis and maternal hypotension. We identified 13 randomised controlled trials including 2002 patients. Heterogeneity among the studies was high, and there were too few data to calculate a pooled effect estimate. Fetal acidosis was assessed in four studies that had a low risk of bias and a low risk of confounding, that is, studies which used a prophylactic vasopressor and where women received the allocated vasopressor only. There were no significant differences between these studies. No significant differences were observed for hypotension. Two trials found a significantly lower incidence of bradycardia when using noradrenaline. Cardiac output was significantly higher after noradrenaline in two of three studies. For other secondary outcomes including nausea, vomiting and Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min, no studies found significant differences. The evidence so far is too limited to support an advantage of noradrenaline over phenylephrine. Concerns of a deleterious effect of noradrenaline on fetal blood gas status cannot currently be assuaged by the available data from randomised controlled studies.     

Hyperbaric prilocaine vs. hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in women undergoing elective caesarean section: a comparative randomised double-blind study

Hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anaesthesia remains the gold standard for elective caesarean section, but the resultant clinical effects can be unpredictable. Hyperbaric prilocaine induces shorter motor block but has not previously been studied in the obstetric spinal anaesthesia setting. We aimed to compare duration of motor block after spinal anaesthesia with prilocaine or bupivacaine during elective caesarean section. In this prospective randomised, double-blind study, women with uncomplicated pregnancy undergoing elective caesarean section were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included: patients aged < 18 years; height < 155 cm or > 175 cm; a desire to breastfeed; or a contra-indication to spinal anaesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: the prilocaine group underwent spinal anaesthesia with 60 mg intrathecal prilocaine; and the bupivacaine group received 12.5 mg intrathecal heavy bupivacaine. Both 2.5 µg sufentanil and 100 µg morphine were added to the local anaesthetic agent in both groups. The primary outcome was duration of motor block, which was assessed every 15 min after arriving in the post-anaesthetic care unit. Maternal haemodynamics, APGAR scores, pain scores, patient satisfaction and side-effects were recorded. Fifty patients were included, with 25 randomly allocated to each group. Median (IQR [range]) motor block duration was significantly shorter in the prilocaine group, 158 (125–188 [95–249]) vs. 220 (189–250 [89–302]) min, p < 0.001. Median length of stay in the post-anaesthetic care unit was significantly shorter in the prilocaine group, 135 (120–180 [120–230]) vs. 180 (150–195 [120–240]) min, p = 0.009. There was no difference between groups for: maternal intra-operative hypotension; APGAR score; umbilical cord blood pH; maternal postoperative pain; and patients’ or obstetricians’ satisfaction. We conclude that hyperbaric prilocaine induces a shorter and more reliable motor block than hyperbaric bupivacaine for women with uncomplicated pregnancy undergoing elective caesarean section.     

Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review

Neuraxial anaesthesia is widely utilised for elective caesarean section, but the prevalence of inadequate intra-operative anaesthesia is unclear. We aimed to determine the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia for elective caesarean section; prevalence of conversion from neuraxial anaesthesia to general anaesthesia following inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia; and the effect of mode of anaesthesia. We searched studies reporting inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia that used ≥ ED95 doses (effective dose in 95% of the population) of neuraxial local anaesthetic agents. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia, defined as the need to convert to general anaesthesia; the need to repeat or abandon a planned primary neuraxial technique following incision; unplanned administration of intra-operative analgesia (excluding sedatives); or unplanned epidural drug supplementation. Fifty-four randomised controlled trials were included (3497 patients). The overall prevalence of requirement for supplemental analgesia or anaesthesia was 14.6% (95%CI 13.3–15.9%); 510 out of 3497 patients. The prevalence of general anaesthesia conversion was 2 out of 3497 patients (0.06% (95%CI 0.0–0.2%)). Spinal/combined spinal–epidural anaesthesia was associated with a lower overall prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia than epidural anaesthesia (10.2% (95%CI 9.0–11.4%), 278 out of 2732 patients vs. 30.3% (95%CI 26.5–34.5%), 232 out of 765 patients). Further studies are needed to identify risk factors, optimise detection and management strategies and to determine long-term effects of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia.     

Heart rate variability as a predictor of hypotension following spinal for elective caesarean section: a prospective observational study

Post‐spinal hypotension remains a common and clinically‐important problem during caesarean section, and accurate pre‐operative prediction of this complication might enhance clinical management. We conducted a prospective, single‐centre, observational study of heart rate variability in 102 patients undergoing elective caesarean section in a South African regional hospital. We performed Holter recording for ≥ 5 min in the hour preceding spinal anaesthesia. The low‐frequency/high‐frequency ratio component of heart rate variability was compared, using a logistic regression model, with baseline heart rate and body mass index (BMI) as a predictor of hypotension (defined as systolic arterial pressure < 90 mmHg) occurring from the time of spinal insertion until 15 min after delivery of the baby. We also assessed clinically relevant cut‐point estimations for low‐frequency/high‐frequency ratio. Low‐frequency/high‐frequency ratio predicted hypotension (p = 0.046; OR 1.478, 95%CI 1.008‐1.014), with an optimal cut‐point estimation of 2.0; this threshold predicted hypotension better than previously determined thresholds (p = 0.003; c‐statistic 0.645). Baseline heart rate (p = 0.20; OR 1.022, 95%CI 0.988‐1.057) and BMI (p = 0.60; OR 1.017, 95%CI 0.954‐1.085) did not predict hypotension. Heart rate variability analysis is a potentially useful clinical tool for the prediction of hypotension. Future studies should consider a low‐frequency/high‐frequency ratio threshold of 2.0 for prospective validation.     

Quadratus lumborum block for analgesia after caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial

Quadratus lumborum block has been shown to provide satisfactory analgesia after caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia. However, its efficacy has not been demonstrated in patients who have received intrathecal morphine. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of quadratus lumborum block as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen including intrathecal morphine. This was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomly allocated to receive bilateral quadratus lumborum block (40 ml levobupivacaine 0.25%) or sham block (control) after undergoing elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. The primary outcome was 24-h morphine consumption measured by patient-controlled analgesia. Secondary outcomes included pain scores and quality of recovery. Data from 86 women were analysed. Median (IQR [range]) 24-h morphine consumption was similar in patients receiving quadratus lumborum block and sham block (12 (8–29 [0–68]) mg vs. 14 (5–25 [0–90]) mg, respectively; p = 0.986). There was a reduction in median (IQR [range]) visual analogue scale pain scores at 6 h with quadratus lumborum block compared with sham block both at rest (6 (0–14 [0–98]) mm vs. 14 (3–23 [0–64]) mm (p = 0.019); and on movement: 23 (10–51 [0–99]) mm vs. 44 (27–61 [2–94]) mm; (p = 0.014)). There was no difference in pain scores at any other time-point up to 48 h. When used in conjunction with intrathecal morphine and spinal anaesthesia, bilateral quadratus lumborum block does not reduce 24-h morphine consumption after caesarean section.     

Randomized controlled study of colloid preload before spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

We randomized women having elective Caesarean section to receiveeither no preload (control group, n=33) or 4% gelatin solution(Gelofusine) 15 ml kg^–1 (colloid group, n=35)i.v. before spinal anaesthesia. Intravenous metaraminol wastitrated at 0.25–0.75 mg min^–1 to maintainsystolic arterial pressure (SAP) in the target range 90–100%of baseline after the spinal injection. The control group requiredmore vasopressor in the first 10 min [median 1.7 (range 0–2.9)mg vs 1.4 (0–2.8), P=0.02] at a greater maximum infusionrate [0.5 (0–0.75) vs 0.25 (0–0.5) mg min^–1,P=0.0005] and had a lower minimum SAP [90 (51–109) vs101 (75–127) mm Hg, P=0.006] than the colloid group. Nauseawas less frequent in the colloid group (6 vs 24%) but neonataloutcome was similar in the two groups. Colloid preload improvedhaemodynamic stability but did not affect neonatal outcome whenarterial pressure was maintained with an infusion of metaraminolduring spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean section. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87: 772–4     

Hyperbaric vs. isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section: a Cochrane systematic review

Both isobaric and hyperbaric bupivacaine have been used for spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section, but it is not clear if one is better than the other. The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of hyperbaric bupivacaine compared with isobaric bupivacaine administered during spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. We included 10 studies with 614 subjects in the analysis. There was no evidence of differences either in the risk of conversion to general anaesthesia, with a relative risk (95%CI) of 0.33 (0.09–1.17) (very low quality of evidence), or in the need for supplemental analgesia, the relative risk (95%CI) being 0.61 (0.26–1.41) (very low quality of evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference in the use of ephedrine, the amount of ephedrine used, nausea and vomiting, or headache. Hyperbaric bupivacaine took less time to reach a sensory block height of T4, with a mean difference (95%CI) of ?1.06 min (?1.80 to ?0.31). Due to the rarity of some outcomes, dose variability, use of adjuvant drugs and spinal technique used, future clinical trials should look into using adequate sample size to investigate the primary outcome of the need for supplemental analgesia.     

Neonatal outcomes following phenylephrine or norepinephrine for treatment of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension at emergency caesarean section in women with fetal compromise: a randomised controlled study

BackgroundNorepinephrine is as effective as phenylephrine for management of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension. Most of the studies comparing these vasopressors have been conducted in healthy pregnant women undergoing elective caesarean section. In the current study, we tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference in neonatal outcome when phenylephrine or norepinephrine is used to treat spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in women undergoing emergency caesarean section for fetal compromise.MethodsPatients undergoing caesarean section for fetal compromise who developed spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension were randomised to receive phenylephrine 100 μg or norepinephrine 8 μg for treatment of each hypotensive episode, defined as systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg. Umbilical cord arterial and venous blood samples were obtained for blood gas analysis. The primary outcome measure was umbilical artery pH.ResultsOne hundred patients (50 in each group) were studied. There was no significant difference in umbilical artery pH between the two groups (mean difference 0.001; 95% CI −0.032 to 0.034). The number of hypotensive episodes, vasopressor boluses required, the incidence of bradycardia, heart rate and blood pressure trends following vasopressor administration, and the incidence of nausea/vomiting were not significantly different between groups.ConclusionPhenylephrine 100 μg and norepinephrine 8 μg were not significantly different in terms of neonatal outcome when administered as intravenous boluses for treatment of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in parturients undergoing emergency caesarean sections for fetal compromise.     

Combined spinal‐epidural vs. spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: meta‐analysis and trial‐sequential analysis

Combined spinal‐epidural and single‐shot spinal anaesthesia are both used for caesarean section. It has been claimed in individual trials that combined spinal‐epidural is associated with higher sensory spread and greater cardiovascular stability. We set out to gather all available evidence. We performed: a systematic literature search to identify randomised controlled trials comparing combined spinal‐epidural with spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: conventional meta‐analysis; trial‐sequential analysis; and assessment of trial quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Fifteen trials with high heterogeneity, including 1015 patients, were analysed. There was no significant difference between combined spinal‐epidural and spinal anaesthesia for our primary outcomes maximum sensory height and vasopressor use (mg ephedrine equivalents). However, trial‐sequential analysis suggested insufficient data and the GRADE scores showed ‘very low’ quality of evidence for these outcomes. The secondary outcomes hypotension, time for sensory block to recede to the level of T10, and the combined outcome of nausea and vomiting, did not differ significantly between the interventions. The block times were statistically significantly longer for combined spinal‐epidural in individual trials, but only one trial showed a clinically meaningful difference (11 min). Based on this analysis, and taking into consideration all comparisons irrespective of whether drugs had been applied via the epidural route, there is not enough evidence to postulate any advantage compared with the spinal technique. Future analyses and studies need to examine the potential advantages of the combined spinal‐epidural technique by using the epidural route intra‐ and/or postoperatively.     

Efficacy of regional blocks or local anaesthetic infiltration for analgesia after caesarean delivery: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Caesarean delivery is common and can cause severe postoperative pain but injection of local anaesthetic at various sites for regional blocks or local anaesthetic infiltration may reduce this. We aimed to compare and rank these sites. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and CENTRAL to June 2021 for randomised controlled trials and performed a random-effects Bayesian model network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was dose of parenteral morphine equivalents in the first 24 postoperative hours. We used surface under cumulative ranking probabilities to order techniques. We analysed 114 trials (8730 participants). The ordered mean (95% credible interval) reduction in morphine equivalents, from 34 mg with placebo, were as follows: ilio-inguinal 15 (1–32) mg; ilio-inguinal–iliohypogastric 13 (6–19) mg; transversalis fascia 11 (4–26) mg; erector spinae 11 (10–32); transverse abdominis 9 (4–13) mg; wound catheter infusion 8 (2–15) mg; quadratus lumborum 8 (1–15) mg; wound infiltration 8 (2–13) mg; and no intervention −4 (−10 to 2) mg. Ordered efficacies for injection sites were different for other relevant outcomes, including pain (to 4–6 h and to 24 h) and time to rescue analgesia: there was no single preferred route of injection. The ordered mean (95% credible interval) reduction in dynamic pain scores (0–10 scale) at 24 h compared with placebo were as follows: wound infusion 1.2 (0.2–2.1); erector spinae 1.3 (−0.5 to 3.1); quadratus lumborum 1.0 (0.1–1.8); ilio-inguinal–iliohypogastric 0.6 (−0.5 to 1.8); transverse abdominis 0.6 (−0.1 to 1.2); wound infiltration 0.5 (−0.3 to 1.3); transversalis fascia −0.8 (−3.4 to 1.9); ilio-inguinal −0.9 (−3.6 to 1.7); and no intervention −0.8 (−1.8 to 0.2). We categorised our confidence in effect sizes as low or very low.     

Prevention and management of intra-operative pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia: a technical and interpersonal approach

A woman who experiences pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia is at risk of adverse psychological sequelae. Litigation arising from pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia has replaced accidental awareness under general anaesthesia as the most common successful medicolegal claim against obstetric anaesthetists. Generic guidelines on caesarean section exist, but they do not provide specific recommendations for this area of anaesthetic practice. This guidance aims to offer pragmatic advice to support anaesthetists in caring for women during caesarean section. It emphasises the importance of non-technical skills, offers advice on best practice and aims to encourage standardisation. The guidance results from a collaborative effort by anaesthetists, psychologists and patients and has been developed to support clinicians and promote standardisation of practice in this area.     

Skin conductance as a means to predict hypotension following spinal anaesthesia

Background and objective: Hypotension following spinal anaesthesia (SA) is common, especially in the elderly. Elevated sympathetic tone has been shown to correlate with severe hypotension after SA. The aim of this prospective trial was to investigate skin conductance (SC), as a measure of sympathetic tone, to predict hypotension after SA. Methods: After ethical approval and written informed consent, 30 patients undergoing SA were included. Baseline measurements of SC [number of fluctuations per second (reflecting the firing rate of skin sympathetic nerves), area under the curve (AUC) A and B (reflecting the magnitude of the sympathetic impulse)], blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. After administration of SA, all parameters were assessed every 2.5 min for a total of 15 min. Baseline readings of SC were compared with the lowest blood pressure within the study period. Results: Data from 30 subjects [73 (8) years] were analysed. After SA, the mean arterial blood pressure declined an average of 21.3 (11.3) mmHg. A cut‐off value of 0.35 μSs for baseline AUC B allowed prediction of more than mild hypotension (>15% from baseline) after SA with a sensitivity of 72.5% and a specificity of 77.5%. Conclusions: AUC B, as a parameter of SC, may predict severe arterial hypotension after SA in the elderly.     

Effect of delayed supine positioning after induction of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND: The study tested the hypothesis that the incidence of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section is less in parturients who remain in the sitting position for 3 min compared with parturients who are placed in the modified supine position immediately after induction of spinal anesthesia. METHODS: Spinal anaesthesia was induced with the woman in the sitting position using 2.8 ml hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% at the L(3-4) or L(2-3) interspace. Ninety-eight patients scheduled for elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia were randomised to assume the supine position on an operating table tilted 10 degrees to the left (modified supine position) immediately after spinal injection (group 0, n=52) or to remain in the sitting position for 3 min before they also assumed the modified supine position (group 3, n=46). Isotonic saline 2-300 ml was given intravenously over 15 min before spinal injection followed by 15 ml/kg over 15-20 min after induction of spinal anaesthesia. If the systolic blood pressure decreased to less than 70% of baseline or to less than 100 mmHg or if there was any complaint of nausea, ephedrine was given in 5 mg boluses intravenously every 2 min. RESULTS: The blood pressure decreased significantly in both groups following spinal injection (P<0.001). Blood pressure variations over time differed significantly between the two groups (P<0.05). However, the incidence of maternal hypotension before delivery was similar in the two groups. The difference was caused by the time to the blood pressure nadir being significantly shorter in group 0 compared with group 3 (9.1+/-4.5 min vs. 11.7+/-3.7 min, P<0.01). Similar numbers of patients received rescue with ephedrine before delivery: 35 (67%) in group 0 vs. 26 (57%) in group 3 (NS). The mean total dose of ephedrine before delivery was 10.9 mg in group 0 vs. 9.2 mg in group 3 (NS). There were no differences in neonatal outcome between the two groups. CONCLUSION: At elective caesarean section, a 3-min delay before supine positioning does not influence the incidence of maternal hypotension after induction of spinal anaesthesia in the sitting position with 2.8 ml of bupivacaine 0.5% with 8% dextrose.