Skip to main content
Download PDF

Intravenous infusion route in maternal resuscitation: a scoping review

BMC Emergency Medicine volume 21, Article number: 151 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The concept that upper extremities can be used as an infusion route during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pregnant women is a reasonable recommendation considering the characteristic circulation of pregnant women; however, this method is not based on scientific evidence.

Objective of the review

We conducted a scoping review to determine whether the infusion route should be established above the diaphragm during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a pregnant woman.

Discussion

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs on the infusion of fluids in pregnant women after 20 weeks of gestation requiring establishment of an infusion route due to cardiac arrest, massive bleeding, intra-abdominal bleeding, cesarean section, severe infection, or thrombosis. In total, 3150 articles from electronic database were extracted, respectively. After title and abstract review, 265 articles were extracted, and 116 articles were extracted by full-text screening, which were included in the final analysis. The 116 articles included 78 studies on infusion for pregnant women. The location of the intravenous infusion route could be confirmed in only 17 studies, all of which used the upper extremity to secure the venous route.

Conclusion

Pregnant women undergo significant physiological changes that differ from those of normal adults, because of pressure and drainage of the inferior vena cava and pelvic veins by the enlarged uterus. Therefore, despite a lack of evidence, it seems logical to secure the infusion route above the diaphragm when resuscitating a pregnant woman.

Peer Review reports

Background

The Japan Resuscitation Council (JRC) has published resuscitation guidelines in 2010, 2015, and 2020. ITherefore, a new algorithm for resuscitation of pregnant women was developed. Although the number of maternal deaths in Japan is approximately 4 per 100,000 deliveries [1], the effect of circuatory dynamics of pregnant women generates a need to determine effective and evidence-based maternal resuscitation methods.

The American Heart Association (AHA) developed and illustrated an algorithm based on the International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) [2], which stated that intravenous access should be considered above the diaphragm [3]. This statement is justifiable considering the special circulatory dynamics of pregnancy, but we believe that it needs to be supported by evidence and not by a scientific recommendation based on evidence.

However, there are no validated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the choice of infusion route during maternal resuscitation, and most studies have not included cardiac arrest cases. Pregnant women have a particular circulatory situation in which the inferior vena cava is compressed by the enlarged uterus, so the usual choice of infusion route during resuscitation of adults may not be applicable.

Therefore, we decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the practicality of the infusion route in pregnant women with the purpose of scientifically supporting whether the infusion route should be secured above the diaphragm during pregnancy. We created a clinical question (CQ) from the algorithm and 2015 statements of the American Heart Association (AHA). This report is a scoping review of the question, “In cardiopulmonary resuscitation of pregnant women, should the infusion route be taken above the diaphragm for massive infusion?”

Methods

The maternal group within the JRC of the Guideline Editorial Committee established the CQ. However, since there are no valid studies on the location of the infusion route during resuscitation of pregnant women, we concluded that a systematic review would be difficult and decided to instead conduct a scoping review of all studies on the infusion route for pregnant women.

Protocol and registration

This study was systematized and conducted concerning the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews checklist [4].

Eligibility criteria

Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included in the review, and articles consisting only of abstracts were excluded. Only literature published in English were included, while articles published in other languages were excluded. Literature on animals were excluded, and only studies on humans were included. The types of studies included were RCTs, non-RCTs (such as split time-series analyses, before-and-after comparative studies, cohort studies, case reports, and meta-analyses), case-concentration studies, reviews, and existing guidelines. Unpublished studies (e.g., conference abstracts and clinical trial protocols) were excluded.

Information sources

Articles published on or before December 07, 2019 were retrieved from MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase. The search strategy was constructed by Marie Furuta, PhD Health Studies, an expert in public health (co-author of this paper).

Search

The search strategy is shown in Supplementary Material 1.

Selection of sources of evidence

Data charting of each literature was performed independently by two reviewers. In pairs sequentially evaluated the titles and abstracts, while screening of full-text articles were performed independently.

Data charting process

Population, concept, and context frameworks were created [5], as shown in Table 1. A data charting form was jointly developed by two reviewers to determine the relevant articles that should be extracted.

Table 1 PCC (Population, Concept, Context) frameworks
Full size table

Results

Selection of sources of evidence

Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flowchart [6] for this scoping review.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart of the study

Full size image

Characteristics of sources evidence

The search for articles was performed on December 07, 2019 based on the search formula described in Supplementary Material 1. 1194 articles were extracted from MEDLINE/PubMed and 1959 articles were extracted from Embase. After title and abstract review, 265 articles met the eligibility criteria by deduplication and relevance screening. Supplementary Material 2 shows the list of references in which full-text screening was conducted. Full-text screening was then conducted, and 116 references were extracted for the final analysis.

Results of individual sources of evidence

Table 2 presents the details of the breakdown of the 116 articles.

Table 2 General characteristics of included articles
Full size table

The 116 articles included 78 studies on the infusion of fluids during cesarean section, 11 on the infusion of fluids during hemorrhage, 7 on the infusion of fluids during cardiac arrest, and 20 on the infusion of fluids for infection, thrombosis, and other conditions in pregnant women based on the search formula described above. The location of the infusion route (upper or lower extremity) could be confirmed in only 17 studies, all of which used the upper extremity to secure the venous route. Table 3 shows a list of references that mention the infusion route.

Table 3 All references that mention the location of the infusion route
Full size table

We also conducted a comprehensive search for studies on maternal bone marrow tracts, but no relevant studies were identified.

Summary of evidence

To conduct a broad review of maternal infusion routes, a scoping review was performed. Some literature, including RCTs, were found related to the infusion of fluids during surgery and bleeding in pregnant women. However, there were no RCTs related to maternal infusion routes, hence, a systematic review was decided against.

Conclusions

In this study, we conducted a scpoing review to broadly review routes of maternal infusion. This comprehensive scoping review revealed that the number of studies mentioning the infusion route in detail is scarce, and the level of evidence for securing the infusion route above the diaphragm is small. However, there is no evidence of the adverse effects occurring when securing the infusion route above the diaphragm. The AHA recommendations further support an infusion route above the diaphragm, considering the pressure drainage of the inferior vena cava caused by an enlarged uterus in pregnant and nursing women, as detailed below.

The 2010 AHA Guideline, Part 12: Cardiac arrest in special situations, it was recommended that the infusion route be secured above the diaphragm [2].

The AHA likely came to this view considering the following special circulatory dynamics of pregnant and nursing women. Significant physiological changes occur in pregnant and nursing women, which differ from those in normal adults. In addition to increasing circulating blood volume up to 50%, decreasing peripheral vascular resistance, and increasing in cardiac output, the enlarged uterus causes pressure drainage of the inferior vena cava and pelvic veins, resulting in partial venous hypertension and edema [7].

It is justifiable to secure an infusion route above the diaphragm so that infusions and administered drugs can reach the heart without passing through the distended inferior vena cava [8].

Although these recommendations are reasonable based on the special circulatory dynamics of pregnant and nursing women, they are not based on evidence from the literature. Some studies have suggested that an infusion route below the diaphragm should be avoided because an enlarged uterus pressurizes and inhibits venous return [9].

It is noteworthy that the scoping review revealed that there are no valid RCTs on the choice of infusion route in pregnant women. A high-quality RCT of infusion routes during maternal resuscitation seems impossible due to the ethical difficulties of randomization and blinding. However, conducting RCTs and systematic reviews comparing upper and lower extremity infusion routes in the future, including in non-pregnant women, can be useful to build further evidence.

In non-pregnant women, there were three observational studies of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a total of 34,868 patients comparing the upper and lower extremity infusion routes [10,11,12]. Compared to the use of the venous route in the upper extremities, the use of the bone marrow route in the lower extremities was associated with worse outcomes such as poor survival, with < 17 patients discharged alive per 1000 cardiac arrest patients. These references compare the intravenous and intraosseous route with the target population being non-pregnant women. Although the above references need to consider inconsistency and indirection in this scoping review, it is possible that the outcome of cardiac arrest may be better if the infusion route is secured through the upper arm.

Pregnant women undergo significant physiological changes that differ from those of normal adults, due to pressure and drainage of the inferior vena cava and pelvic veins by the enlarged uterus. Therefore, despite a lack of evidence, it seems logical to secure the infusion route above the diaphragm when resuscitating a pregnant woman.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

AHA:

American Heart Association

CoSTR:

International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

CQ:

clinical question

PRISMA :

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

RCTs :

randomized controlled trials

References

  1. Hasegawa J, Sekizawa A, Tanaka H, Katsuragi S, Osato K, Murakoshi T, et al. Maternal Death Exploratory Committee in Japan., Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Current status of pregnancy-related maternal mortality in Japan: a report from the maternal death exploratory Committee in Japan. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e010304. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Vanden Hoek TL, Morrison LJ, Shuster M, Donnino M, Sinz E, Lavonas EJ, et al. Circulation 2010-part 12: cardiac arrest in special situations: 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2010;122(Suppl 3):S829–61. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.971069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jeejeebhoy FM, Zelop CM, Lipman S, Carvalho B, Joglar J, Mhyre JM, et al. Cardiac arrest in pregnancy: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132(18):1747–73. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. The Joanna Briggs institute: Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015. Australia: 2015

  6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hill CC, Pickinpaugh J. Physiologic changes in pregnancy. Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88(2):391–401, vii. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2007.12.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Novikova N. Prophylactic intravenous preloading for regional analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(2):CD000175.

  9. Crochetière C. Obstetric emergencies. Anesthesiol Clin North Am. 2003;21(1):111–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-8537(02)00026-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Feinstein BA, Stubbs BA, Rea T, Kudenchuk PJ. Intraosseous compared to intravenous drug resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2017;117:91–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.06.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kawano T, Grunau B, Scheuermeyer FX, Gibo K, Fordyce CB, Lin S, et al. Intraosseous vascular access is associated with lower survival and neurologic recovery among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(5):588–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.11.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mody P, Brown SP, Kudenchuk PJ, Chan PS, Khera R, Ayers C, et al. Intraosseous versus intravenous access in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: insights from the resuscitation outcomes consortium continuous chest compression trial. Resuscitation. 2019;134:69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.10.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pouta AM, Karinen J, Vuolteenaho OJ, Laatikainen TJ. Effect of intravenous fluid preload on vasoactive peptide secretion during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1996;51(2):128–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1996.tb07698.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. King SW, Rosen MA. Prophylactic ephedrine and hypotension associated with spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth. 1998;7(1):18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-289X(98)80023-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ngan Kee WD, Khaw KS, Lee BB, Lau TK, Gin T. A dose-response study of prophylactic intravenous ephedrine for the prevention of hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2000;90(6):1390–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200006000-00024.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Desalu I, Kushimo OT. Is ephedrine infusion more effective at preventing hypotension than traditional prehydration during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section in African parturients? Int J Obstet Anesth. 2005;14(4):294–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2005.05.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ngan Kee WD, Khaw KS, Ng FF. Prevention of hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: an effective technique using combination phenylephrine infusion and crystalloid Cohydration. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(4):744–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200510000-00012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ngan Kee WD, Lee A, Khaw KS, Ng FF, Karmakar MK, Gin T. A randomized double-blinded comparison of phenylephrine and ephedrine infusion combinations to maintain blood pressure during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: the effects on fetal acid-base status and hemodynamic control. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(4):1295–302. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e31818065bc.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nuthalapaty FS, Beck MM, Mabie WC. Complications of central venous catheters during pregnancy and postpartum: A case series. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:311.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chatterjee DJ, Bukunola B, Samuels TL, Induruwage L, Uncles DR. Resuscitation in massive obstetric haemorrhage using an intraosseous needle. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(4):306–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06629.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. El-Mekawy NM. Comparative study between ephedrine infusion vs. CO/post loading of fluids for prevention of hypotension in emergency cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. Egypt J Anaesth. 2012;28(3):193–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egja.2012.02.009.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Romdhani C, Trabelsi W, Lebbi A, Naas I, Elaskri H, Gharsallah H, et al. Lower incidence of hypotension following spinal anesthesia with 6% hydroxyethyl starch preload compared to 9‰ saline solution in caesarean delivery. Tunis Med. 2014;92(6):406–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cape AV, Mogensen KM, Robinson MK, Carusi DA. Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) complications during pregnancy. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2014;38(5):595–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607113489994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zasa M, Conci E, Marchignoli A, Pini R, Passeri L, Fanelli G, et al. Comparison of two different approaches to hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: effects on neonatal and maternal wellbeing. Acta Biomed. 2015;86(1):45–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Onwochei DN, Ngan Kee WD, Fung L, Downey K, Ye XY, Carvalho JCA. Norepinephrine intermittent intravenous boluses to prevent hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a sequential allocation dose-finding study. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(1):212–8. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001846.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ngan Kee WD, Tam YH, Khaw KS, Ng FF, Lee SWY. Closed-loop feedback computer-controlled phenylephrine for maintenance of blood pressure during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a randomized trial comparing automated boluses versus infusion. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(1):117–23. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001974.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ngan Kee WD. A random-allocation graded dose-response study of norepinephrine and phenylephrine for treating hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology. 2017;127(6):934–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000001880.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ngan Kee WD, Lee SWY, Ng FF, Khaw KS. Prophylactic norepinephrine infusion for preventing hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(6):1989–94. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Webster J, Larsen E, Booker C, Laws J, Marsh N. Prophylactic insertion of large bore peripheral intravenous catheters in maternity patients for postpartum haemorrhage: a cohort study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(5):548–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12759.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the members of the Japan Resuscitation Council, Maternal group.

Dr. Rie Kato, Dr. Jun Takeda, Dr. Masahiro Nakao, Dr. Tomoyuki Yamashita, Dr. Yoshihiro Yamahata, Dr. Masafumi Nii, Dr. Naosuke Enomoto, Dr. Yuki Hosokawa, Dr. Shinji Baba, Dr. Naosuke Enomoto, Dr. Makoto Tsuji, Dr. Takahide Maenaka, members of the Japan Resuscitation Council, Dr. Hiroshi Nonogi, Dr. Mayumi Aibiki, Dr. Takanari Ikeyama, Dr. Tetsuya Isayama, Dr. Taku Iwami, Dr. Yasuhiro Kuroda, Dr. Tetsuya Sakamoto, Dr. Naoki Shimizu, Dr. Masao Nagayama, Dr. Chika Nishiyama, Dr. Tetsuo Hatanaka, Dr. Shigeharu Hosono, and Dr. Tasuku Matsuyama.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981 Kamoda, Kawagoe-shi, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan

    Eishin Nakamura

  2. Japan Resuscitation Council, Maternal group, Tokyo Japan, 2-5-4 Yoyogi, Sibuya-ku, Tokyo, 151-0053, Japan

    Eishin Nakamura, Shinji Takahashi, Shigetaka Matsunaga, Hiroaki Tanaka, Marie Furuta & Atsushi Sakurai

  3. Department of Anesthesiology, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu-shi, Chiba, 279-0021, Japan

    Shinji Takahashi

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981 Kamoda, Kawagoe-shi, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan

    Shigetaka Matsunaga

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu-shi, Mie, 514-8507, Japan

    Hiroaki Tanaka

  6. Department of Human Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 53 Kawahara-cho Shogo-in, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan

    Marie Furuta

  7. Division of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Acute Medicine, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1 Oyaguchi Kamimachi, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8610, Japan

    Atsushi Sakurai

Authors
  1. Eishin Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shinji Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shigetaka Matsunaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroaki Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marie Furuta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Atsushi Sakurai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

the Japan Resuscitation Council (JRC), Guideline Editorial Committee

Contributions

Study design was concieved by EN, ST, SM, HT, and AS. Methodology was formulated by MF and AS. Formal analysis and investigation were performed by EN, ST, and MF. Review and editing were performed by EN and ST. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eishin Nakamura.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

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.

Supplementary Material 1: Detail of search strategy

Additional file 2.

Supplementary Material 2: full-text reference list assessed for eligibility

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

Nakamura, E., Takahashi, S., Matsunaga, S. et al. Intravenous infusion route in maternal resuscitation: a scoping review. BMC Emerg Med 21, 151 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00546-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00546-9

Keywords

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

Contact us