Skip to main content
Download PDF

Intravenous lipid emulsion for local anaesthetic systemic toxicity in pregnant women: a scoping review

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 24, Article number: 138 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a rare but life-threatening complication that can occur after local anaesthetic administration. Various clinical guidelines recommend an intravenous lipid emulsion as a treatment for local anaesthetic–induced cardiac arrest. However, its therapeutic application in pregnant patients has not yet been established. This scoping review aims to systematically identify and map the evidence on the efficacy and safety of intravenous lipid emulsion for treating LAST during pregnancy.

Method

We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register Controlled Trials) and a clinical registry (lipidrescue.org) from inception to Sep 30, 2022. No restriction was placed on the year of publication or the language. We included any study design containing primary data on obstetric patients with signs and symptoms of LAST.

Results

After eliminating duplicates, we screened 8,370 titles and abstracts, retrieving 41 full-text articles. We identified 22 women who developed LAST during pregnancy and childbirth, all presented as case reports or series. The most frequent causes of LAST were drug overdose and intravascular migration of the epidural catheter followed by wrong-route drug errors (i.e. intravenous anaesthetic administration). Of the 15 women who received lipid emulsions, all survived and none sustained lasting neurological or cardiovascular damage related to LAST. No adverse events or side effects following intravenous lipid emulsion administration were reported in mothers or neonates. Five of the seven women who did not receive lipid emulsions survived; however, the other two died.

Conclusion

Studies on the efficacy and safety of lipids in pregnancy are scarce. Further studies with appropriate comparison groups are needed to provide more robust evidence. It will also be necessary to accumulate data—including adverse events—to enable clinicians to conduct risk–benefit analyses of lipids and to facilitate evidence-based decision-making for clinical practice.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a rare but potentially life-threatening side effect associated with the administration of local anaesthetics. LAST occurs when blood concentrations of local anaesthetics reach a toxic range, either by direct arterial or intravenous administration or by gradual absorption from extravascular tissue [1]. The incidence of LAST is estimated to be up to 1 in 500 peripheral nerve blocks and may occur in up to 4 in 10,000 epidural procedures [2, 3]. Although prevention is the most important element, LAST can still occur despite best clinical practices [4]. For appropriate management, early recognition of LAST signs and symptoms is essential.

LAST has two clinical manifestations: central nervous system toxicity and cardiovascular toxicity [4]. Central nervous system toxicity is classically biphasic, including an initial excitatory phase (e.g. dizziness, confusion, slurred speech, agitation and seizures) and a late depressive phase (e.g. coma and respiratory arrest). Cardiovascular toxicity is classically triphasic, including an early phase (e.g. hypertension and tachycardia), an intermediate phase (e.g. myocardial depression and hypotension) and a terminal phase (e.g. arrhythmias and cardiac arrest). The symptoms of central nervous system toxicity generally precede those of cardiovascular system toxicity. However, cardiovascular symptoms may appear suddenly, and severe and fatal manifestations may occur without initial or mild symptoms [4].

Pregnancy is a risk factor for LAST. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable because of (1) pregnancy-induced hormonal changes in oestradiol and progesterone, which sensitise myocardial cells to arrhythmias and increase neuronal susceptibility to anaesthetics, reducing the seizure threshold; (2) pregnancy-related decreases in protein (alpha-1 acid glycoprotein) titer, which increase free, i.e. toxic, local anaesthetics in the plasma; and (3) epidural venous engorgement caused by expanded blood volume during pregnancy, which increases drug absorption and risk of intravascular epidural catheter migration or placement [2, 5,6,7,8]. Local anaesthetics are widely used during labour and birth: over 60% of women in the UK [9], 37–80% in the US [10] and 84% in France [11] receive anaesthetics (e.g. epidural, spinal and combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia for labour and birth). LAST in pregnant women may become more prevalent given the increasing numbers of pregnant women using local anaesthetics, for both labour analgesia and anaesthesia for surgery. Advanced maternal age, obesity and comorbidities such as cardiac disease may increase vulnerability to LAST [2].

Intravenous lipid emulsion is a method for managing LAST. Lipid emulsion comprises an oil-in-water emulsion of soya oil stabilised in egg lecithin and was initially developed for parenteral nutrition in the 1960s [12]. Its role as an antidote for LAST emerged in 1998 when Weinberg et al. [13] observed that the infusion of soybean oil emulsion improved resuscitation rates from severe bupivacaine overdose-induced cardiovascular collapse in rats. After animal studies [14], the first human case report of the successful use of a lipid infusion for resuscitation from a prolonged cardiac arrest after overdose of bupivacaine was published in 2006 [15].

Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the action of lipid emulsion in LAST [16,17,18,19]. The partitioning theory, known as the ‘lipid sink’ theory, is the most widely accepted, proposing that highly lipid-soluble drugs, including local anaesthetics, are absorbed into a lipid emulsion, administered intravascularly, and removed from tissues. This reduces the local anaesthetic concentration in the myocardium [13, 17]. The lipid pharmacokinetics in maternity patients has not yet been elucidated.

Various clinical guidelines [20,21,22,23,24,25] recommend lipid emulsions for LAST treatment. However, the guidelines do not mention the obstetric population specifically, and the safety of lipid emulsions for pregnant patients, including foetal risk and safe dosages, has not yet been established [2, 26]. Our aim in this scoping review was, therefore, (1) to systematically identify and map the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intravenous lipid emulsion for treating LAST in maternal patients and (2) to identify research gaps in the existing literature.

Methods and analysis

We conducted the scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review Implementation Guidance [27]. For reporting, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews [28].

Identifying relevant studies

We searched electronic databases – Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register Controlled Trials – from January 2000 to Sep 30, 2022, including their reference lists, and reviews for potential additional studies. We developed search strategies for each database using combinations of index terms (e.g. Medical Subject Heading [MeSH]) and free-text terms for ‘pregnancy’, ‘anaesthesia’, ‘resuscitation’ and ‘lipid’. Table 1 displays an example of a search strategy from one bibliographic database (Supporting information: S1 Table). We conducted the search in July 2021 and updated it on September 30, 2022. We also identified maternity cases of LAST reported to the clinical registry, lipidrescue.org [29], developed by Dr. Guy Weinberg, with his permission.

Table 1 Maximum recommended doses (for ideal body weight and nonspecific injection sites)
Full size table

Study selection

We used the web-based software Covidence to screen and review the papers. At least two reviewers (MN and MT) independently reviewed the title or abstract and full text against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were studies of obstetric patients with signs and symptoms of LAST. We included any type of study design containing primary quantitative data, including case reports. We excluded nonhuman studies. No restriction was placed on the year of publication or language. If two reviewers voted differently on whether a study met the inclusion criteria, a third reviewer was involved and discussion was conducted until a consensus was reached.

Data charting

We created a table to extract the following data from the included studies: author; year of publication; patient characteristics; local anaesthetic type; dose used; signs and symptoms of LAST; treatment administered for LAST; whether lipid emulsion was used, and if so, the dose; and patient outcomes. Data extraction was carried out by MT, MN and MF.

Result collating, summarising and reporting

We narratively summarised case reports according to the characteristics of the patient with LAST, treatments for LAST with or without intravenous lipid emulsion, and outcomes. In each case, we compared the doses of administered local anaesthetics with the maximum recommended dose for adult patients (Table 1) wherever possible. There are no guidelines nor is there any consensus on the safe doses of anaesthetic for pregnant women, but because pregnant women are thought to tolerate a lower dose than the general adult population, any dose exceeding the maximum dose for the general adult population was considered an overdose.

Similarly, because there are no guidelines on the dosing and timing of lipid emulsion administered for pregnant patients with LAST, the lipid doses used in each case were compared with guidelines developed for the general population [20, 24, 30,31,32] – e.g., the initial 1.5 mL/kg 20% lipid bolus with the maintenance infusion of 0.25 mL/kg/minute ideal body (Table 2).

Table 2 Summaries included studies
Full size table

Results

Our electronic search yielded 8,370 articles after eliminating duplicates. Following the screening of titles and abstracts according to the eligibility criteria, we conducted a full-text screening of 34 articles. We found a further seven cases reported on lipidrescue.org. As a result of the full-text screening (n = 41), we included 19 studies (18 case reports or series, and one cohort study), including 22 obstetric patients with LAST. Figure 1 shows the detailed process of the study selection, and Table 2 summarises included studies.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart of papers screening process

Full size image

Characteristics of LAST

Patients

Maternal age ranged from 16 to 40 years. Seven women were full-term (≥ 37 weeks’ gestation) [33,34,35,36,37,38, 40], four were preterm (< 37 weeks’ gestation) [23, 29, 38, 41] and eleven were of unknown gestational age when LAST occurred [23, 29, 39, 42,43,44]. Six women had pre-existing or pregnancy-induced medical conditions [34, 35, 37, 38, 41]; three were healthy [29]; and medical conditions were not reported for the rest. LAST occurred during pregnancy (n = 1), during labour and birth (n = 8) or after birth (n = 13; Table 3).

Table 3 Characteristics of LAST
Full size table

Types of blocks, and anaesthetics

Anaesthetic procedures causing LAST, in order of prevalence, included bilateral transverse abdominal plane (TAP) block (n = 11) [23, 29, 35, 38,39,40,41], epidural top-up anaesthesia for caesarean section (n = 2) [33, 37], epidural analgesia for labour (n = 2) [29, 36], spinal for caesarean section (n = 1) [29], combined spinal–epidural for labour (n = 1) [34], perineal nerve block for third-degree tear (n = 1) [29] and infiltration anaesthesia for foetal thoracentesis (n = 1). In series of procedures during pregnancy, labour and birth, and immediately after birth, the most commonly reported anaesthetic drug used was bupivacaine (n = 18), followed by ropivacaine (n = 9); these were administered alone, in combination with others, or preceding or following another local anaesthetic drug.

Potential causes of LAST

Of the causes reported (n = 10), the most frequently cited was drug overdose (n = 3) [23, 29, 38], Although not reported by the original authors, we identified one more case of an overdose in which the patient received a local anaesthetic dose exceeding the maximum recommended dose for an adult [40]. Both intravascular migration of the epidural catheter [29, 34, 37], and wrong route drug errors [infusions containing bupivacaine were accidentally connected to peripheral venous lines] (n = 3) [29, 42,43,44], were mentioned in 3 reports each, followed by unintentional partial intramuscular injections of a local anaesthetic (n = 1) [38]. In most cases, assessing drug overdosage was impossible because of the lack of information about the patient’s weight, the use of epinephrine or adrenaline (which reduces systemic absorption and maximum plasma concentrations of a local anaesthetic) [23, 29, 35,36,37,38, 40, 42, 43] or dose of local anaesthetic used [41].

Clinical manifestations

All cases but one reported signs of neurologic toxicity; of these, 12 patients progressed to severe symptoms including seizures, loss of consciousness, apnoea and respiratory arrest [23, 29, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41,42,43,44] with seizure the most frequently reported (n = 11) [23, 29, 35, 37, 38, 41,42,43,44]. Eleven patients experienced cardiovascular toxicity symptoms [23, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 43, 44]. Of these, the most commonly reported were tachycardia (n = 6) [23, 29, 34, 36, 37] and hypertension (n = 5) [23, 29, 34, 36, 37]. Symptoms of serious cardiovascular toxicity, including hypotension and arrythmia, were present in six patients [23, 29, 33, 42,43,44], three of whom had cardiac arrest [23, 42,43,44].

Intravenous lipid emulsion and other treatment for LAST

Intravenous lipid emulsion was administered in 15 cases but were not reported or were not administered in 7 cases. Although data were often incomplete, of the 15 cases of lipid administration, this was the sole treatment in four cases with mild symptoms [29, 34, 36], in addition one patient also received 100% oxygen from a non-rebreathing mask [29]. Of the nine patients who were given lipids for severe LAST symptoms without cardiac arrest, seven received concurrent airway management [29, 35, 37, 38], and of these seven, five also had anticonvulsants [29, 35, 37, 38]. In the remaining cases, there was no information other than the HDU admission [29] or the report of no need for CPR [29]. One patient who went into cardiac arrest during TAP block after a caesarean section had intravenous lipid emulsion along with seizure management and advanced cardiovascular life support [23]. All patients who developed LAST before delivery, including during pregnancy, ended up with a caesarean birth [29, 33, 34, 36], except one [29].All intravenous lipid emulsions used were 20% concentration, and most of them were intralipid (n = 12). Of the seven cases without lipid emulsion administration, two occurred in 2006 (the year the first human study of intravenous lipid emulsion for LAST was published [15]) or earlier.

Timing of intravenous lipid emulsion administration

The timing of lipid emulsion administration varied. In five reported cases, a lipid emulsion was started at the onset of the early neurologic symptoms (dizziness, agitation, or twitching of face or limbs) or early cardiovascular symptoms (hypertension or tachycardia), before severe symptoms of LAST developed [29, 34, 36]. In 10 cases, lipid emulsion was delayed until the onset of more severe symptoms (i.e. seizure, loss of consciousness, respiratory arrest, hypotension or arrythmia) but without cardiac arrest [29, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41]. In one case, lipid emulsion was administered once cardiac arrest occurred [23].

Dosage and rates of intravenous lipid emulsion administration

Of the five patients [29, 34, 36] who received 20% lipid emulsion in an early phase of LAST, all received an initial bolus, but the dosage and rate of the bolus and administration of the infusion varied. For example, only two of these patients received an infusion after the initial bolus [29, 34]. Of the three patients who received a bolus only, one [29] received a dose of 90 ml ‘slowly’ (a slightly lower dose [1.4 ml/kg] than the recommendation), one had a bolus of 100 ml over 2–3 min [29], and the other had two boluses of 1.5 ml/kg (112.5 ml) at 10-min intervals [36].

Of the nine patients who suffered severe LAST (seizure, loss of consciousness, respiratory arrest, hypotension or arrhythmia) but not cardiac arrest, seven received a bolus of intravenous lipid emulsion followed by an infusion [29, 33, 37, 38], one received a bolus only, and another received two boluses without infusion. Four of these patients with severe LAST received higher bolus doses than recommended by the guidelines: three patients weighing 56–61 kg received a 100 ml lipid bolus (equivalent to 1.6–1.8 ml/kg) [29, 38] and another patient of unknown weight (who had a direct intravenous injection of bupivacaine) received a 150 ml lipid bolus. Information about the rate of lipid emulsion administration was only available in three cases involving a bolus (i.e., over 2 min [38] or 5 min [33]) and in five cases involving infusion (i.e. 0.25 ml/kg/min [29, 38] and 400 ml for a 75 kg patient over 2 h [equivalent to 0.04 ml/kg/min [33]). Among severe cases without cardiac arrest, the symptoms improved after a single bolus in all except one case where a second smaller bolus was administered 3 min later [29].

One patient in cardiac arrest was given an initial bolus of 20% lipid emulsion at 1.5 ml/kg/min and an infusion at 0.25 ml/kg/min [23]. With no return of spontaneous circulation after 5 min, the infusion rate was doubled to 0.5 ml/kg/min, and two additional lipid boluses were given at 5-min intervals [23]. This is in line with the dosage and rate recommended in the AAGBI guidelines [20], as assessed by the current reviewers against existing guidelines [20,21,22, 24, 25].

Treatment without intravenous lipid emulsion

Of the five cases of the patients with mild toxicity, three received no treatment [39]: one received a colloid infusion (500 ml; a lipid was prepared but not administered as symptoms improved) [40]. Another patient received anticonvulsants at the onset of seizure with no lipid therapy. In two publicly reported cases of medication errors involving intravascular injection of bupivacaine, cardiovascular collapse occurred necessitating advanced life support [42,43,44]. One of these cases occurred after vaginal birth [43, 44] and the other during labour, resulting in an emergency caesarean section [42].

Outcomes

Symptoms of LAST resolved in all women treated with an intravenous lipid emulsion. More specifically, one case report described a woman in cardiac arrest in whom return of spontaneous circulation occurred 13 min after cardiac arrest following advanced life support and three boluses of lipid emulsion. In five women without cardiac arrest, symptoms of severe neurological or cardiovascular toxicity improved rapidly following intravenous lipid administration (eg. ‘within 30 s’ [37, p 517], within approximately 2–3 min [29, 33], and within ‘five minutes’ [34p, 248] of initiating lipid therapy), whereas for the remaining four patients, the time for symptom resolution was unclear [29, 35]. In five women with mild toxicity treated with lipid, symptoms became stable immediately [29], within 10 min [34] and within 20 min [36] after intralipid emulsion administration, but the time of resolution was unclear in two cases [29].

Of the seven patients who did not receive lipid administration [39,40,41,42,43,44], five women with LAST after TAP block recovered without neurological sequelae [39,40,41]; one recovered from symptoms after 3 h [40], and the remaining four [41], the time to recovery was not stated. Another two women who did not receive lipids for intravenous bupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest died despite resuscitation efforts [42,43,44]. None of the cases reported adverse events following the lipid emulsion administration.

Where fetal outcome was reported, all babies born at 37 or more weeks gestation, to women who suffered LAST prior to delivery survived. [34, 36, 37] No details were reported on a baby born at 26 weeks’ gestation except that the baby was born alive [29].

Discussion

In this scoping review, we sought to systematically identify and map the evidence on the efficacy and safety of intravenous lipid emulsions for the treatment of LAST in obstetric patients. When given, lipid emulsion appeared to be effective in all cases although publication bias is likely. Notably, no adverse events due to intravenous administration of lipid emulsion were reported in any cases in either mothers or neonates, even though dosing guidelines were sometimes not followed.

Comparison with existing studies and guidelines

Characteristics of LAST

Previous reviews in the general population have determined that most LAST events are due to increased sensitivity to anaesthetic agents rather than drug overdose [6]. During pregnancy, physiological changes may increase sensitivity to local anaesthetics and thus exceed minimum toxic plasma concentrations even when the recommended maximum tolerated dose of local anaesthetics is adhered to [2, 39, 45]. Excluding the cases of wrong-route drug error, at least one-third of the women had pregnancy-induced complications (e.g., preeclampsia or acute fatty liver of pregnancy) or preexisting medical conditions (e.g., hypertension, type 1 diabetes, congenital renal malformation, or obesity), which could have contributed to the risk for toxicity.

However, overdose was still the most commonly reported LAST cause in our review, most commonly occurring in TAP block associated with general or spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. The potential danger of TAP blocks in these situations has not previously been highlighted. TAP blocks involve the injection of a large volume of local anaesthetic into a relatively vascular plane [39, 46], which may result in significant local anaesthetic absorption [47], leading to higher concentrations in the blood.

Another point that might warrant attention is the number of cases where a combination of local anaesthetics was used. In several cases the dose of each individual drug did not exceed the recommended maximum, but there appeared to be no consideration of additive effects. Conversion of epidural analgesia for labour to epidural extension (from epidural anaesthesia during labour to surgical anaesthesia for caesarean section may increase the risk of toxicity because of the large doses of d local anaesthetics used. [2, 48, 49]. In several cases the low body weight of the patient seems to have been ignored when the dose of local anaesthetic was determined. Intravascular migration of epidural catheters was also commonly cited as the cause of LAST and appeared to be associated with patient mobilisation and epidural catheters that had been in-situ for many hours in labour.

A smaller proportion of cases suffered from seizures than reported in the non-pregnant population, although this was the most common symptom [50, 51]. In contrast, prodromal symptoms (e.g., dizziness, confusion, tinnitus, and slurring) were reported more frequently in cases in the obstetric population [50, 51]. Vasques et al. [50] argued that the increase in reporting of prodromal symptoms reflects increased awareness of early detection and diagnosis of LAST following the publication of clinical guidelines for LAST management [20, 21, 52]. The current review seems to reflect this trend.

Intravenous lipid emulsion

The timing of the initiation of lipid emulsion in LAST is controversial. In early case reports in 2006 and 2008 [15, 53, 54], lipid was administered to patients only when standard advanced cardiovascular life support did not achieve return of spontaneous circulation. The 2010 ASRA advisory on LAST suggested the use of lipid emulsion for patients suffering local anaesthetic-induced arrhythmia, prolonged seizures or rapid clinical deterioration [21]. More recently, a growing number of case reports suggest the benefit of prompt administration of lipid emulsion as a first-line treatment along with CPR.

In our review of obstetric patients, one patient with cardiac arrest received intravenous lipid emulsion according to clinical guidelines [20, 30]. However, liberal use was often found for patients not in cardiac arrest. Although under and overdosing was common, there were no adverse sequlae reported. In an emergency, calculating weight-based dosing may hinder timely lipid administration [55]. The recent ASRA practice advisory on LAST (in the 2017 and 2020 versions) simplified the instructions for administering lipid emulsion, particularly for patients over 70 kg, in whom a weight based dose is no longer recommended (i.e., a 100 ml lipid bolus and infusion of 200–250 ml) [31]. In our review clinicians appeared to prioritise timely lipid administration over the precise calculation of doses during a LAST crisis.

Outcomes

There was a notable difference in clinical outcomes in three cases where anaesthetics were mistakenly administered intravenously; one woman receiving lipids with conventional resuscitation survived [29], and two women died with conventional resuscitation alone [42, 43]. Because these results are based on case reports and there is no comparison group from the same population, it is impossible to assess whether the favourable outcome resulted from lipid emulsion administration.

We did not find any case reports of obstetric patients where the use of lipid emulsifiers failed to resolve LAST symptoms or where it caused adverse events. A review of non-obstetric patients indicates pancreatitis can occur as a result of use of intravenous lipid emulsion therapy [56]. A systematic review of clinical adverse events after acute intravenous lipid emulsion administration included acute kidney injury and acute lung injury [12]. Pregnant women with severe hyperemesis gravidarum treated with total parenteral nutrition may be at risk of uterine contractions with a high lipid infusion rate [57, 58]. It is important to be cautious about lipids’ potential adverse effects [12]. Further research is needed to accumulate data, including adverse events, to facilitate evidence-based decision-making and clinical practice.

Strengths and limitations

The administration of lipid emulsions for the treatment of LAST, is widely advocated but based on limited data especially with respect to the obstetric population [59,60,61]. Our review collated more cases of pregnant women than any existing review.

One important limitation of this review is that results showing the beneficial effects of intravenous lipid emulsion are based on studies without comparison groups. Although case reports are a valuable source of clinical information [62], these reports are highly individual and heterogeneous. Some of the cases reported were not peer reviewed, and treatment details other than lipids were sometimes incomplete.

In view of our search strategy, case reports of LAST treated without lipid may be missing if the word lipid or fat is not included. Furthermore, the results of case reports were subject to publication bias because cases with strong positive results tend to be highlighted and published.

Further case reports and observational studies detailing clinical settings and personal backgrounds may be required on an ongoing basis to identify characteristics of patients who may benefit or experience harm from lipids.

Conclusion

With the increase of caesarean sections worldwide, the management and treatment of LAST in pregnant women is an increasingly important issue [63]. Anaesthetists use local anaesthesia more often than general anaesthesia in pregnant women [30]. However, physiological changes that make regional anaesthesia safer in pregnancy also increase the risk of LAST [12]. In this scoping review, we attempted to identify and map the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of lipid emulsions to treat LAST in pregnant women. It will be necessary to accumulate data on LAST and its management because this would allow comparisons to be made on the clinical outcomes of different methods for LAST management. Such a global database would enable clinicians to conduct a risk–benefit analysis of lipids and to facilitate evidence-based decision-making for clinical practice.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets acquired and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

LAST:

Local anaesthetic systemic toxicity

AAGBI:

The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

ASRA:

The American Society for Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Management

AHA:

The American Heart Association

MeSH:

Medical Subject Heading

RCT:

Randomised control trial

PCEA:

Patient-controlled epidural anaesthetic

BP:

Blood presser

HR:

Heart rate

CS:

Caesarean section

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

ROSC:

Return of spontaneous circulation

TAP:

Transversus abdominis plane block

CSE:

Combined spinal–epidural

References

  1. Mulroy MF, Hejtmanek MR. Prevention of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35(2):177–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bern S, Weinberg G. Local anesthetic toxicity and lipid resuscitation in pregnancy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24(3):262–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mulroy MF. Systemic toxicity and cardiotoxicity from local anesthetics: incidence and preventive measures. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002;27(6):556–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Christie LE, Picard J, Weinberg GL. Local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. Bja Educ. 2015;15(3):136–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. El-Boghdadly K, Chin KJ. Local anesthetic systemic toxicity: Continuing Professional Development. Can J Anesth. 2016;63(3):330–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Macfarlane AJR, Gitman M, Bornstein KJ, El-Boghdadly K, Weinberg G. Updates in our understanding of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity: a narrative review. Anaesthesia. 2021;76:27–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Santos AC, DeArmas PI. Systemic Toxicity of Levobupivacaine, Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine during Continuous Intravenous Infusion to Nonpregnant and Pregnant Ewes. Anesthesiology. 2001;95(5):1256–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Santos AC, Pedersen H, Harmon TW, Morishima HO, Finster M, Arthur GR, Covino BG. Does Pregnancy Alter the Systemic Toxicity of Local-Anesthetics. Anesthesiology. 1989;70(6):991–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bamber JH, Lucas DN, Plaat F, Russell R. Obstetric anaesthetic practice in the UK: a descriptive analysis of the National Obstetric Anaesthetic Database 2009–14. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(4):580–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Butwick AJ, Bentley J, Wong CA, Snowden JM, Sun E, Guo N. United States State-Level Variation in the Use of Neuraxial Analgesia During Labor for Pregnant Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(8):e186567.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Blondel B, Coulm B, Bonnet C, Goffinet F, Le Ray C. Trends in perinatal health in metropolitan France from 1995 to 2016: Results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46(10):701–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hayes BD, Gosselin S, Calello DP, Nacca N, Rollins CJ, Abourbih D, Morris M, Nesbitt-Miller A, Morais JA, Lavergne V, Lipid Emulsion W. Systematic review of clinical adverse events reported after acute intravenous lipid emulsion administration. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2016;54(5):365–404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Weinberg GL, VadeBoncouer T, Ramaraju GA, Garcia-Amaro MF, Cwik MJ. Pretreatment or resuscitation with a lipid infusion shifts the dose-response to bupivacaine-induced asystole in rats. Anesthesiology. 1998;88(4):1071–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weinberg G, Ripper R, Feinstein DL, Hoffman W. Lipid emulsion infusion rescues dogs from bupivacaine-induced cardiac toxicity. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2003;28(3):198–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenblatt MA, Abel M, Fischer GW, Itzkovich CJ, Eisenkraft JB. Successful use of a 20% lipid emulsion to resuscitate a patient after a presumed bupivacaine-related cardiac arrest. Anesthesiology. 2006;105(1):217–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cave G, Harvey M, Willers J, Uncles D, Meek T, Picard J, Weinberg G. LIPAEMIC report: results of clinical use of intravenous lipid emulsion in drug toxicity reported to an online lipid registry. J Med Toxicol. 2014;10(2):133–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ozcan MS, Weinberg G. Update on the use of lipid emulsions in local anesthetic systemic toxicity: a focus on differential efficacy and lipid emulsion as part of advanced cardiac life support. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 2011;49(4):91–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fettiplace MR, Weinberg G. The Mechanisms Underlying Lipid Resuscitation Therapy. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(2):138–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weinberg GL. Lipid emulsion infusion: resuscitation for local anesthetic and other drug overdose. Anesthesiology. 2012;117(1):180–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI). Management of severe local anaesthetic toxicity. 2010. https://anaesthetists.org/Home/Resources-publications/Guidelines/Management-of-severe-local-anaesthetic-toxicity

  21. Neal JM, Bernards CM. Butterworth JFt, Di Gregorio G, Drasner K, Hejtmanek MR, Mulroy MF, Rosenquist RW, Weinberg GL: ASRA practice advisory on local anesthetic systemic toxicity. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35(2):152–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Neal JM, Neal EJ, Weinberg GL. Checklist for treatment of local anaesthetic system toxicity. American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2020. https://www.asra.com/guidelines-articles/guidelines/guideline-item/guidelines/2020/11/01/checklist-for-treatment-of-local-anesthetic-systemic-toxicity

  23. Anada N, Yoshida T. Shourei Kentou: Kyokusho masui chudoku [Case study: Local anesthetic systemic toxicity]. LiSA. 2017;24(12):1190–5.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lavonas EJ, Drennan IR, Gabrielli A, Heffner AC, Hoyte CO, Orkin AM, Sawyer KN, Donnino MW. Part 10: Special Circumstances of Resuscitation: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2015;132(18 Suppl 2):S501-518.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Neumar RW, Shuster M, Callaway CW, Gent LM, Atkins DL, Bhanji F, Brooks SC, de Caen AR, Donnino MW, Ferrer JM, et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2015;132(18 Suppl 2):S315-367.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lipman S, Cohen S, Einav S, Jeejeebhoy F, Mhyre JM, Morrison LJ, Katz V, Tsen LC, Daniels K, Halamek LP, et al. The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology consensus statement on the management of cardiac arrest in pregnancy. Anesth Analg. 2014;118(5):1003–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2015.

  28. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Weinberg, G. http://www.lipidrescue.org

  30. Lott C, Truhlar A, Alfonzo A, Barelli A, Gonzalez-Salvado V, Hinkelbein J, Nolan JP, Paal P, Perkins GD, Thies KC, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Cardiac arrest in special circumstances. Resuscitation. 2021;161:152–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Neal JM, Neal EJ, Weinberg GL. American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity checklist: 2020 version. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021;46(1):81–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA). Management of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. 2017 https://anesth.or.jp/files/pdf/practical_localanesthesia.pdf

  33. Diaz J, Bernasinski M, Malinovsky JM. Reversal of neurologic symptoms related to lidocaine toxicity with a lipid emulsion administration. Ann Fr Anesth. 2012;31(7–8):647–647.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Dun-Chi Lin J, Sivanesan E, Horlocker TT, Missair A. Two for One: A Case Report of Intravenous Lipid Emulsion to Treat Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity in Term Pregnancy. A A Case Rep. 2017;8(9):235–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Naidu RK, Richebe P. Probable local anesthetic systemic toxicity in a postpartum patient with acute Fatty liver of pregnancy after a transversus abdominis plane block. A A Case Rep. 2013;1(5):72–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Singh S, Lalin D, Verma VK. Management of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity by timely lipid resuscitation in a paraturient - A case report. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63(1):68–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Spence AG. Lipid reversal of central nervous system symptoms of bupivacaine toxicity. Anesthesiology. 2007;107(3):516–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Weiss E, Jolly C, Dumoulin JL, Meftah RB, Blanie P, Laloe PA, Tabary N, Fischler M, Le Guen M. Convulsions in 2 patients after bilateral ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane blocks for cesarean analgesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014;39(3):248–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Griffiths JD, Le NV, Grant S, Bjorksten A, Hebbard P, Royse C. Symptomatic local anaesthetic toxicity and plasma ropivacaine concentrations after transversus abdominis plane block for Caesarean section. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(6):996–1000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ideno S, Nakajima Y, Watanabe K. A case of local anesthetics-induced toxicity after transversus abdominis plane block. J Japan Soc Clin Anesthesia. 2013;33(No 1):92–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wada M, Nakajima Y, Tashiro H, Chiba J, Kusanishi T, Morooka M, Tsuzuki Y, Honda Y, Sakai M, N. M: A case of suspected local anaesthetic poisoning due to transverse abdominal fascial plane (TAP) block, which was difficult to differentiate from post-Caesarean eclampsia. Kanto J Obstet Gynecol. 2011, 43(3):370–370.

  42. Smetzer J, Baker C, Byrne FD, Cohen MR. Shaping systems for better behavioral choices: lessons learned from a fatal medication error. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(4):152–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sud A, Szawarski P. Classic cases revisited - Death of a nurse and the anatomy of error. J Intensive Care Soc. 2018;19(2):155–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cooper GM, McClure JH. Anaesthesia chapter from Saving mothers’ lives; reviewing maternal deaths to make pregnancy safer. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100(1):17–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ng SC, Habib AS, Sodha S, Carvalho B, Sultan P. High-dose versus low-dose local anaesthetic for transversus abdominis plane block post-Caesarean delivery analgesia: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(2):252–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Griffiths JD, Barron FA, Grant S, Bjorksten AR, Hebbard P, Royse CF. Plasma ropivacaine concentrations after ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105(6):853–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wong CA. Editorial comment: cardiac arrest from local anesthetic toxicity after a field block and transversus abdominis plane block: a consequence of miscommunication between the anesthesiologist and surgeon and probable local anesthetic systemic toxicity in a postpartum patient with acute Fatty liver of pregnancy after a transversus abdominis plane block. A A Case Rep. 2013;1(5):77–8.

    Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Regan KJ, O’Sullivan G. The extension of epidural blockade for emergency Caesarean section: a survey of current UK practice. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(2):136–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mock ND, Griggs KM, Mileto LA. Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity during Labor, Birth, and Immediate Postpartum: Clinical Review. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2021;46(6):330–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vasques F, Behr AU, Weinberg G, Ori C, Di Gregorio G. A Review of Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity Cases Since Publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia Recommendations: To Whom It May Concern. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015;40(6):698–705.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Di Gregorio G, Neal JM, Rosenquist RW, Weinberg GL. Clinical presentation of local anesthetic systemic toxicity: a review of published cases, 1979 to 2009. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35(2):181–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Weinberg GL. Treatment of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35(2):188–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Litz RJ, Popp M, Stehr SN, Koch T. Successful resuscitation of a patient with ropivacaine-induced asystole after axillary plexus block using lipid infusion. Anaesthesia. 2006;61(8):800–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Smith HM, Jacob AK, Segura LG, Dilger JA, Torsher LC. Simulation education in anesthesia training: a case report of successful resuscitation of bupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest linked to recent simulation training. Anesth Analg. 2008;106(5):1581–4 table of contents.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Thompson BM. Revising the 2012 American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Checklist for Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity: a call to resolve ambiguity in clinical implementation. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41(1):117–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Levine M, Skolnik AB, Ruha AM, Bosak A, Menke N, Pizon AF. Complications following antidotal use of intravenous lipid emulsion therapy. J Med Toxicol. 2014;10(1):10–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Wolk RA, Rayburn WF. Parenteral nutrition in obstetric patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 1990;5(4):139–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wegrzyniak LJ, Repke JT, Ural SH. Treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2012;5(2):78–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Nolan JP, Hazinski MF, Aickin R, Bhanji F, Billi JE, Callaway CW, Castren M, de Caen AR, Ferrer JM, Finn JC, et al. Part 1: Executive summary: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation. 2015;95:e1-31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cao D, Heard K, Foran M, Koyfman A. Intravenous lipid emulsion in the emergency department: a systematic review of recent literature. J Emerg Med. 2015;48(3):387–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Neal JM, Barrington MJ, Fettiplace MR, Gitman M, Memtsoudis SG, Morwald EE, Rubin DS, Weinberg G. The Third American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice Advisory on Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity: Executive Summary 2017. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(2):113–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jenicek M. Clinical Case Reporting in Evidence-Based Medicine. 2nd ed. London: Arnold; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Salem SM, Abdel-Rasheed M, Gouda MA, Salama S. The new trending pain-free cesarean section: TAP block versus IV PCA. Bull Natl Res Centre. 2021;45(132):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Guy Weinberg for providing additional LAST cases in obstetric patients from Lipidrescue.org. We would also like to thank the members of the Japan Resuscitation Council, maternal group: Dr. Rie Kato, Dr. Shinji Takahashi, Dr. Jun Takeda, Dr. Masahiro Nakao, Dr. Eishin Nakamura, Dr. Tomoyuki Yamashita, Dr. Yoshihiro Yamahata, Dr. Naosuke Enomoto, and Dr. Yuki Hosokawa

Japan Resuscitation Council (JRC) of the Guideline Editorial Committee, Maternal Group

Masafumi, Nii2, Rie Kato9, Shinji Takahashi10, Jun Takeda11, Hiroaki Tanaka2, Masahiro Nakao12, Eishin Nakamura13, Tomoyuki Yamashita14, Yoshinori Yamahata15, Marie Furuta3, Naosuke Enomoto2, Makoto Tsuji1, Shinji Baba4, Yuki Hosokawa9, Takahide Maenaka5, Shigetaka Matsunaga6, and Atsushi Sakurai.7

9 Department of Anesthesiology, Showa University School of Medicine, Shinagawa, Tokyo, Japan.

10 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Urayasu Hospital, Juntendo University, Urayasu, Chiba, Japan.

11 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Juntendo University, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.

12 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sakakibara Heart Institute, Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan.

13 Center for Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Saitama, Japan.

14 Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan.

15 Department of Emergency Medicine, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Saiseikai Mastusaka General Hospital, Mastusaka, Mie, Japan

    Makoto Tsuji

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mie University School of Medicine, Tsu, Mie, Japan

    Masafumi Nii & Hiroaki Tanaka

  3. Department of Human Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan

    Marie Furuta

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center, Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan

    Shinji Baba

  5. Regional Medical Care Planning Division, Health Policy Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Tokyo, Japan

    Takahide Maenaka

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Saitama, Japan

    Shigetaka Matsunaga

  7. Department of Acute Medicine, Division of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nihon University School of Medicine, Itabashi, Tokyo, Japan

    Atsushi Sakurai

  8. Japan Resuscitation Council, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan

    Makoto Tsuji, Masafumi Nii, Marie Furuta, Shinji Baba, Takahide Maenaka, Shigetaka Matsunaga, Hiroaki Tanaka & Atsushi Sakurai

Authors
  1. Makoto Tsuji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masafumi Nii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie Furuta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shinji Baba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takahide Maenaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shigetaka Matsunaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hiroaki Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Atsushi Sakurai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the Japan Resuscitation Council (JRC) of the Guideline Editorial Committee

  • Masafumi Nii
  • , Rie Kato
  • , Shinji Baba
  • , Jun Takeda
  • , Hiroaki Tanaka
  • , Masahiro Nakao
  • , Eishin Nakamura
  • , Tomoyuki Yamashita
  • , Yoshinori Yamahata
  • , Marie Furuta
  • , Naosuke Enomoto
  • , Makoto Tsuji
  • , Shinji Baba
  • , Yuki Hosokawa
  • , Takahide Maenaka
  • , Shigetaka Matsunaga
  •  & Atsushi Sakurai

Contributions

MT drafted the manuscript. MN helped to draft the manuscript. MT, MN, SB and TM were involved in data interpretation and analysis. MF involved in data analysis. MN, SM, HT and AS conceived of the study, and involved in its design and coordination. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masafumi Nii.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: S1 Table.

Search strategy (Medline OvidSP) 1970 to September week 2, 2022.

Additional file 2: S2 Table.

Guidelines on lipid emulsion therapy for LAST.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsuji, M., Nii, M., Furuta, M. et al. Intravenous lipid emulsion for local anaesthetic systemic toxicity in pregnant women: a scoping review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24, 138 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06309-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06309-1

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us