Tag Archive: obstetrics


I have had a few readers ask questions about the use of ultrasound for the difficult epidural – usually in the labour ward context, but we sometimes run into this in the OT for combined spinal-epidural blocks.  Now I  love all things ultrasound – but looking at the literature it is tough to get a read on the utility of US in the often troublesome area of epidurals.  All those bones – can we see anything useful?  So I have asked an expert, and gotten a few handy, practical pointers.

Dr Chris Mitchell is a Consultant Anaesthestist at King Edward  Memorial Hospital for Women in Perth, Western Australia. But Mitch is more than an Anaesthetist – before he went into specialist training Chris was a rural GP-Anaesthetist in NW WA.  In fact my first job after my training in Anaesthesia I actually replaced Chris!

Now onto the meat of the post – here are Chris’s tips in beautifully illustrated form – click here [US for Epidurals]

I think it should be said – epidurals in the labour ward are an elective procedure.  There is a risk : benefit pay off.  If you are increasing the risk side of the equation as a result of a difficult insertion, then you need to discuss that with the patient – so before calling for he US machine I think it is worth a pause to consider if this is worth a try – I am sure that for the occasional operator this technique wil help, but is no magic bullet!

We usually try and avoid the patients with really tough anatomy – if the BMI is over 35 we usually start to strongly consider referral to a larger institution for a whole raft of safety reasons.

Huge thanks to Dr Mitch for his pearls on epidurals and US.  I would love to hear your experiences and if you have any questions for Chris I will pass them along.  Comments please

Casey

 

This case is an opportunity for us to learn from an expert.  Epidural analgesia in labour can be rewarding and infuriating.  So I have enlisted the help of Dr Roger Browning – Consultant Anaesthetist at Fremantle and King Edward Memorial Hospitals {tertiary maternity centre in WA}.  I put a few questions to Roger based around a real case to see how the expert goes about troubleshooting common epidural problems. Here we go:

26 yo primigravida, induced for postdatism @ 41 weeks.  She is now ~ 6cm dilated with slowish progress.  You have been called to put in an epidural after she has tried nitrous and a dose of IM morphine.  As you arrive she is clearly very distressed with each contraction.  They are coming every 4 minutes on an Oxytocin infusion.  She is otherwise fit and well, normotensive.
Practitioners should use the technique they have learnt and are most familiar with. I would place a lumbar epidural using a 16G tuohy kit and loss of resistance to saline, and thread the catheter in leaving 4-4.5 cm in the space and secure it to her back using a “lockit”, medium tegarderm and surrrounding fixomull dressing for reinforcement. I would aspirate the catheter to check for blood or CSF and then test the catheter with a 7-8 ml injection of bupivacaine 0.125% + fentanyl 5mcg/ml. If there is no major motor block within 5min (ie indicating subdural or intrathecal catheter) I would then give another 5-8ml of solution ie 15ml in total to get initial analgesia.
At KEMH we use bupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2.5mcg/ml background infusion of 5ml/hr and PCEA 10ml with 20min lockout, via a CADD pump. In a rural hospital (and other metro hospitals like osborne park) I would prescribe intermittent topups: bupivacaine 0.125% + fentanyl 5mcg/ml 10-15ml hourly PRN, for breakthrough bupivacaine 0.25% 5ml hourly prn, rectal pressure pethidine 50mg/5ml hourly prn, and instrumental delivery / suturing ligonocaine 2% + adrenaline 1:20000 4ml + 4ml one dose only.
3 hours later….
You are called by the midwife for help.  She states that the epidural you put in worked great initially, but… now it is not so good.  She hasn’t made much progress up to 8 cm now.  We are still expecting a few hours of pain at best….
You need to assess whether or not you think the epidural cathetter is still in the epidural space. Check the patient’s back & dressing, if the catheter is now less than 3cm in the space, or there is a lot of fluid under the dressing don’t waste time trying more drugs etc, it has come out, take it out and place another epidural. If everything looks ok then carefully titrate in more bupivacaine 0.125% + fentanyl5mcg/ml solution, larger volumes will often “spread further” and tend to be better than small volumes of more concentrated LA. I will give up to another 20-25ml in increments over 10-20min. If this doesn’t work you should probably take it out and place a new epidural catheter.
Our 26 yo primi has made it to fully, but not really descending well.  The CTG trace has been getting ugly…  some decelerations at first, but now it has become flat / unreactive.  The Obs team call you for a Csection.  It is not Cat 1 urgent, but you want to get her ready ASAP.
Before starting an epidural topup for a CS once again you want to be sure the catheter is in the epidural space and it is working. Look at her back is the catheter < 3cm in the space? is there a lot of fluid under the dressing? has it been working well down in labour ward? If the answer is no to any of these you are probably better off taking it out and doing a spinal.  At KEMH to topup a epidural we use lignocaine 2% + adrenaline 1:200000 (which comes in a 20ml ampoule) and fentanyl 50-75mcg. You should aspirate the catheter to check for csf / blood and then give 5ml as a test dose, check for early profound block (?intrathecal) or tachycardia, perioral tingling (?iv). You should titrate in the lignocaine in 5ml increments every 5min, to max of 7mg/kg (in the average female this is around 25ml) checking the block height regularly, aiming for loss of cold sensation to T4 (nipples) and signs of sacral spread also (difficulty lifting legs off the bed). If after the maximal dose you have an inadequate block you should consider doing a CSE or spinal (using a smaller dose than usual as there is a risk of a high spinal) rather than causing local anaesthetic toxicity with even more lignocaine. I often also give pethidine 50mg (personal practice not dept) as it decreases the severity / incidence of shivering.
You give your top-up, get her ready and the Obs team start cutting.  As soon as they hit the peritonela layer she winces and says she feels sick.  A minute later and she is crying in pain – her husband is looking very scared.
And how do you go about making this decision?]  This description suggests she has an inadequate block and you should stop the surgeons before they proceed to making a uterine incision. The critical issue here is that once the surgeons incise the uterus they are commited to continuing, placental perfusion and foetal oxygenation is impaired and maternal haemorrhage starts, the surgeons cannot / should not be asked to stop for 15min whilst you try to “fiddle with your block”! You need to make a decision prior to this point. Clarify with the patient are they feeling pain or merely touch, believe them if they say it is pain. Check the dermatomes with ice and get the surgeons to “check with forceps etc in the surgical field. If the patient has significant pain at the point of peritoneal incision as in this scenario, and the block appears to be obviously inadequate I would err on the side of converting to a GA before then letting the surgery proceed. If you have already “topped up” with a decent volume of lignocaine 2% + adr (ie 15-25ml) and given this time to work (15-30min) it is unlikely that stopping for another 10min and giving another 5-10ml will make it into a working block. Having said that if they have a difficult airway or look high risk for a GA and you think some more time and more drugs will make a difference then it might be worthwhile to persist, this is an individual risk/benefit decision and you need to talk to the patient /surgeon and explain all of these issues. The most common scenario for pain during a caesarean occurs post delivery, is usually only mild, and related to temporary surgical stimulation whilst swabbing high in the abdomen or fiddling with the ovaries etc. Often you can get a patient through this with iv opioids, inhaled N20, some surgical infiltration of LA (beware max dose if you used alot in the epidural) and distraction with the baby! Sometimes you still need to do a GA to allow the surgery to finish though…
OK – that is epidurals through the eyes of an expert.   Big thanks to Dr Browning for taking the time to answer my questions. This is certainly a part of medicine with plenty of art, less science and a lot of inter-individual variation.  I am keen to hear your tricks and techniques.  Let us know on the comments.
Casey

A few weeks ago Rob Orman (ER Cast) did a great interview with Dr Ingrid Lim at ACEP which looked at the diagnosis of the possible appendicitis in pregnant women.  Go and check out the 20 minute podcast at ERCast (click here) , then come back here to hear the sequel….

There are some great pearls that came out of this talk – HCG uses and interpretation (my review of some old literature), the role of US and CT as diagnostic tools in pregnancy and when to operate?  But, after this I had some acute onset confusion – as an ED doc your job is to make the diagnosis, try and sell it to a surgeon – then off to OT or not.  But what are the risks of going to do an exploratory laparoscopy / laparotomy in the common scenario where you are just not sure, don’t think a CT is worth the risk or you have no imaging available???

So after Rob O poked the fate Gods in the eye with a stick I ended up seeing 2 pregnant ?appendixes in one shift!  Thanks Rob.  So I spent the time it takes to “fast a pregnant lady” looking at the evidence, reviews and opinion that is out there in the surgical literature.  And now I am even more confused – more so than after listening to the average SMART EM podcast!  So many twists and turns – David Newman, can you help me?

All the evidence is retrospective analysis – ethics make it tough to do it any other way.  There are a couple of really big registry studies that give a big picture of the problem:

McGory et al analyzed over 3000 pregnant women undergoing appendectomy around the turn of the millenium and discovered a few points:

  • The rate of “negative appendix” was higher in pregnant vs. non-pregnant women (23% vs 18%; p <0.05) – I am gonna guess this is due to the technical difficulty with US in pregnancy and the reluctance to do a CT – so more going to OT with less ‘diagnostic’ work up.
  • The rate of perf / complex appendix was the same as in the general population ~ 30%
  • If you looked at Fetal loss and preterm delivery (bad, patient oriented outcomes) – there was an interesting pattern:
    • It was high in those with perforation / complex appendix – as you might expect – around 6% fetal loss
    • The women with simple appy, ie. not perfed, did better – around 2 % fetal loss
    • The surprise was that women with “negative appendix” – no disease had a rate of fetal loss slightly greater than the ‘simple appendicitis’ group
    • I have no idea why, maybe their pain was related to a uterine / ovarian problem – so the appy was an innocent bystander?

So the conclusion is that you need to decrease your “negative appy” rate in pregnant women – which I assume means doing more CTs and USS.  Watchful waiting may not be a good option – because they do a lot worse if they perforate and get systemically unwell etc.  I think the risk of CT (about 2x rate of childhood cancers) is small when you compare it to the risk of fetal loss (6+%)  BUT…. you are asking a woman to compare apple seeds and oranges – I think this is so dependent on the individuals world view, beliefs and maybe religion that it is just too hard to make a sweeping statement.  HMMMM…difficult…

 

So lets say – you dont have a CT (or patient refused it), the USS is inconclusive, but you are 66% sure on clinical grounds with a bit of a white-cell bump that is is an appendicitis.  You sell it to the surgeon, she says:

“well, OK it might be.  I’ll stick in a laparoscope and have a look, then proceed with appy if positive…  Oh, and then I can look and see if there is anything else going on at the same time”   Sounds like a sweet plan on first hearing it – but what does the evidence show?

Dr Walsh and colleagues in the UK did a review of the data (Int Jour Surgery) and showed more telling points in this debate:

  • Rates of fetal loss at laparoscopic appendicectomy were 6%, and significantly worse than open appendicectomy.
  • Fetal loss was greatest in the complex / perforated appendix group as with McGory
  • Fetal loss was the same for simple appendicitis as the “negative appy” groups – as in McGory
  • Showed the same higher “negative appendectomy” rate – around 27% – in non-pregnant women
  • Tocolytic agents did not make a difference in rates of preterm labour etc
  • “entry related complications” – (stabbing the uterus?) were low, but you should go with open Hasson technique – not the Veress needle.

So where does this leave us?  The data suggests a few points to me – maybe you can read it differently:

  • Lowering the “false appendicitis” at surgery will reduce the fetal loss / complications – so you should be doing all the tests, including USS and maybe CT to reduce the risk of unnecessary operations.  Admittedly – this is far from a perfect science – there will always be some ‘lily white’ appys.
  • Cast you diagnostic net fine and wide – get a good urine off for microscopy – the commonest “final diagnosis” in the false appendix patients was pyelonephritis
  • If you are going to operate – maybe minimalism is the best bet – minimal anaesthetics drugs, shortest sleep time, maybe open is better than laparoscopic techniques for these women?
  • Of course if you go in with a gridiron incision – you might miss the other pathology – eg. torsion of ovary. So here is a downside there too.
Let me know if you have another way of thinking about all this?  KNow of any good studies that change the strategy?  I would love to know…
Casey

Hi – Apologies for recent sluggish activity- I have been a busy Doc lately and working on what I hope are some good posts / resources for you all.

The first Big project I am wanting your feedback on is my “Massive Transfusion Protocol” which you can click here – or I have added as a permanent resource in the “Clinical Resources” section at the bottom of the blog.

Why have I decided to spend hours on this? 

I have always found the current published Massive Bleeding Protocols to be either too simplistic or not descriptive enough.  There are a few crucial decision points – such as” when to activate” – which are glossed over frequently.

Most protocols deal only with trauma – and in my world, the big bleeding happens on the labour ward, in theatre… etc NOT just in the ED resus bay.

So I have written a protocol for me – one which I can with a click on a page access and remind myself of the steps and “recipes” for resuscitaing in major trauma / bleeding.  I have downgraded the role of platelets – because – we do not use them in smaller hospitals and the evidence is not great for empirical use.

I have tried to include some evidence in a ‘hidden’ way to keep it simple in a crisis – or you can read at your leisure later.

Be aware: this protocol relies heavily on your hospital having in place a system-wide approach to this emergency. Your lab have to have a predefined system, your surgeon should be aware of the protocol and the concepts associated with “damage control” operations. This is not the time to get into a territorial dispute, you need to have your chickens all lined up before it happens!

So please read it- this is my draft, I hope to make it more useful with your feedback.

Let me know what you think.  Casey

When I went to med school we were taught that the B-HCG level doubles every 48 hrs in early pregnancy – and if it wasn’t – you either had an ectopic or a miscarriage until proven otherwise. However, it turns out that this is not the case  - just when you thought it was safe to go back to office gynae – along comes some data that completely muddies the waters and makes it all difficult again.

Barnhart et al in 2004 showed the HCG was slower to rise in many women with normal viable intrauterine pregnancies – the 99% confidence for slowest rise (going on to normal pregnancy) was only 53% at 48 hours [eg. from 1000 iu  to 1530 2 days later] – tthis is precisely what I thought an ectopic looked like!  So I think you need to be careful when interpreting these numbers.

This study out of Oregon in 1990 [Rob Orman was at the peak of his grunge career?] followed a small group of women with high risk pregancies – and  2/3 of the women with ectopics actually had a normal “doubling”.

Kadar et al in 1994 looked at women’s uteri for an intrauterine sac based on both HCG and ‘dates’ and found that ‘dates’ are much better predictors of gestation that HCG. So if you have an idea of LMP or when the HCG first went up – you are better off than using a single HCG.

So that is the bad news – the HCG can really lead you down the garden path if you are not careful.  So do NOT rely on a single HCG, be careful of interpreting 48 hour “doubling” HCG levels and if you know the dates-  this is actually useful!

The good news – we ED types are actually pretty good when it comes to finding normal IUPs.  There was a meta-analysis in 2010 by Stein et al which showed US in ED docs hands was up in the high 90s for sensitivity and specificity for detecting IUP or its absence.

Caveat: you have to practice and get good at interpreting what you see.  For a great guide and resources check out Ultrasound Villagetheir cheat sheets are cool – I use them all the time in my practice.

Apologies to the smart ones reading this – but I have been trying to explain this concept to my students for a while – so I thought I would share.

Shock: this is defined by hypoperfusion of the tissues resulting in insufficient substrates (oxygen, sugar etc) for aerobic cellular respiration.

The good news is that evolution has supplied us with a back up plan in the event of “inadequate substrate for aerobic respiration” – namely anaerobic respiration – neat eh!  But there is a limit to this – you eventually need to get back to Aerobic metabolism, clear the toxic byproducts of anaerobic respiration and repay the oxygen debt.

Ok that is the technical bit done.  Now onto the clinical application of this science.

In order to maintain tissue perfusion (and fuel / oxygen supply) you need to have blood passing through those little terminal arterioles / capillaries at a rate fast enough to keep up with the demands of the tissue – this can vary also.

Here we meet the problem – we (clinicians) have got no good direct way of measuring the flow or demand in those little vessels.  At the bedside we can just guess as to what is going on.  Unfortunately our instincts for this “guess work” are a bit skewed and that is the point of this post – we need to develop better instincts here.  So this is how I do it.

The blood pressure is an important piece of information – very important – but it is not the only player when it comes to working out the perfusion of the important organs.

Problem is – we all cut our teeth on relatively stable, healthy patients who have good physiological reserve and are operating towards the centre of the comfort zone of perfusion.  In these patients the BP is probably a good proxy for “perfusion”.  BUT – in the patient who is sick (ie. the one where you really want to know what is going on ) the physics are not ‘normal’ – you need more info and here the instinct needs to be developed.

Ok, some boring mathematics now :-

Cardiac output (CO) =   HR   x   stroke volume (SV)                  and              BP   =   CO  x   systemic vascular resistance (SVR)  or  CO  = BP  / SVR

So therefore:     HR  x  SV    =     BP  /  SVR.    Yep, I just tried to reduce CV physiology to 4 numbers. Not always so simple – but its a start.

You can read HR and BP off of the monitor, or even do it manually!

The SV  - hard to measure clinically – you can palp the radial pulse and guess its ‘volume’, you can ask the patient if they have some chronic cardiac disease / cardiomyopathy / IHD.  Or you can pick up an ECHO probe and eyeball it, or ask an ECHO tech to give you a number (LVEF).  Knowing that the preload is good certainly helps – so look at the IVC – is it collapsing?

So that just leaves the SVR – and this is tough.  In a sick patient – you cannot interpret the BP or guess the cardiac output without having some idea about the SVR.  So how can we measure this?  Look at the patient – are they red, flushed or pale and white.  Feel the hands and radial pulse – are they cool and thready or bounding and warm?  Urine output – if this is low – there is a good chance the normotensive patient has a high SVR.  Or you can get a fancy monitor which gives you a number – SVV (stroke volume variation) or Oesophageal Doppler etc.  None of these are perfect.

So once you have guessed the patient’s SVR you are in a position to interpret the BP and make an estimate of the perfusing  cardiac output / cardiac index  (NB: the cardiac index sounds impressive, but it is just the CO divided by the patient’s body surface area.  ie. big people need more CO to perfuse their body than little people)

Confused yet?  Lets look at a few common clinical scenarios to illustrate these points.  Also to look at the uses and abuses of inotropic meds in the hypotensive patient.

If you give a decent slug of propofol to anybody over about 60 – they will probably crash their BP. Is this a bad thing? well yes, but not as bad as you might think.

The propofol causes a loss of SVR by relaxing all the peripheral vessels.  So both the BP and SVR have fallen – the CO is proabably not crashing as much as the BP would suggest.  Of course if the propofool renders the heart bradycardic and negative inotropy reduces the ability of the heart to compensate – this is not great.  But any Anaesthetic doc will tell you – if you give them a whiff od metaraminol / phenylepherine  – the BP comes up quick.  And as soon as the surgeon inflicts pain – they settle quickly.  So here is an example of ‘relative’ hypotension – sure it is low – but so is the SVR – so it isn’t so bad.

This is usually a vasoplegic state – all those inflammatory cytokines cause a decrease in SVR,  the vascular bed expands – making the patient “relatively hypovolemic”.  There is a fall in CO due to poor venous return – so the BP drops as does the perfusing pressure – and shock occurs.  In some (maybe 15%) they get myocardial depression form the toxins of sepsis and also therfore suffer from “pump failure as well as the other mechanisms of shock at play.

So – for sepsis the rule of thumb is :-  give a heap of fluids – more than you think.  Give 2 litres and ask questions later.  If they remain hypotensive / acidotic / high lactate then you might need to give inotropes.  BUT you have to “prime the pump first” – check the IVC / SVV (or CVP if you believe in it) to ensure they are fluid loaded adequately.  So which fluid?   The SAFE trial - no difference between saline and albumin, though there was a trend towards benefit in giving albumin in the septic subgroup.  To me, in a small place Hartman’s (Ringer’s) seems to make sense – it is chaep, easy and doesn’t screw with your acidosis too much?

Then, and only then give inotropes…which one?    I think the answer is noradrenaline – it is widely used for sepsis and makes sense as it has good alpha agonism – so combats the low SVR.  You could also use phenylepherine if you cannot get a CVC.  If htere is evidence of myocardial depression – then you might need to get smarter and use adrenaline or call a friend for help! Having said that Myburgh et al (Aussie ICU crew) showed no difference between norad and epi – so it is a bit theoretical.

This is not the same as the septic patient.  In my mind this is the opposite of sepsis in a way.  Consider a 30 yo. motorcyclist with crush chest and pelvic fracture.  The BP is lowish, you guess he is bleeding into his chest, pelvis, ?abdo… and his endogenous adrenaline is surging – so he has a massive SVR.  So here – a lowish BP equals a crappy CO and his perfusion of the terminal vessels is terrible.  This is not a place to use vasopressors – you will make his SVR go higher and kill the perfusion further.

The patient with hypovolemic shock needs volume +++ – see recent post on Massive transfusion in trauma.  Blood, clotting factors, keep them warm and manage acidosis.  And acidosis is the result of the anaerobic metabolism in the O2-starved tissues – muscles, livers etc.

So here what you want to do is open up the vascular bed, get the perfusion happening ASAP – you actually want to drop the SVR – the catch phrase is “sympatholytic resuscitation”.  You do this by filling them up with volume, then giving fentanyl (or your favourite alternative) to reduce the endogenous sympathetic drive and allow the red cells you are pumping in to get to the areas that need the oxygen.

Remember – target MAP is 65 initially – so if your patient has a comfy MAP of 85, yet you know they have bleed a lot – your BP is giving you a seriously false sense of goodness. The best guide here is the pH, or lactate or base deficit or the temp of the hands – these are the markers of poor perfusion – not the BP so much!

This is pretty uncommon… unless you are an Obstetric Anaesthetic doc – then you come across it everytime you do a C-section. So I will use this as an example.

When you do a spinal – the first nerves to go ofline are those little sympathetic fibres – so you lose your peripheral vascular tone and the SVR drops quick – and your patient vomits, looks very grey and sweaty.  If the spinal goes higher, you lose the sympathetic fibres to the cardiac plexus – and your patient gets bradycardic, maybe some aorto-caval compression = a problem (CO = HR x SV), a double whammy – SVR crash, then CO crash – not good at all. {pray there isn’t a big bleed mid-op!}

So how to manage this – well it depends on the level of the cord lesion / block.  Lower levels, without bradycardia – maybe just a phenylepherine infusion.  Higher blocks with slow heart – you might need some chronotropy to help – good old adrenaline is my choice (ephedrine is an option – though a bit weak)  The high-spinal is the one emergency that goes C, B, A  - not A, B, C in real time!

So that is my super-simple and pragmatic approach to SHOCK.  In my experience – the big problem with SHOCK is recognizing it.  Once you have made the diagnosis he management is easier – but just remember – the BP is just part of the story.

If you don’t think about the other players – CO, SVR etc then it is a bit like walking into a movie theatre half way through a good “who-dun-it” murder mystery.  You might never guess who the killer was!

This clinical question comes from Dr Tim (KI Docs).

He got talking to some specialist O&G and Anaesthesia docs about the timing of prophylactic ABs for LUSCS.  Doesn’t ssound too controversial – but it is one of those ‘memes’ of medicine that persist even well after the evidence is in and accounted for with clear benefits demonstrated.

When do you squirt in your IV ABs if you are doing an anaesthetic for LUSCS?

  • The classic teaching is:  after the umbilical cord has been clamped
  • The new way of thinking – ideally give them 30 – 60 mins prior to the skin incision.
So when I was training in Anaesthesia I was taught to give them after clamping.  I don’t even remember asking “why?” – I just did it.  We would give them, then announce over the drapes we had done it – and the Obs doc would say thankyou and we would go back to small talk with the new mum. Everybody happy…. well maybe not
 
In 2007 Sullivan et al from South Carolina did this RCT which was pretty neat, comparing the two regimes for ABs – they found a decrease in the rate of infections, especially endometritis in the early AB group.  The kids all did the same – no change in neonatal outcomes or the need for a sepsis screen.
 
I changed my practice a few years back when I did a refresher block in Anaesthesia in the big tertiary centre for Anaesthetics – basically i just changed because it seemed to be the done thing there – nobody said “hey, we’ve got evidence for this”.  This is how a lot of us ‘head down – bum up’ doctors get out info, no time to look around – just keep doing what we do until someboby tells us different.
 
Have you got any other memes / myths that need busting?  Let me know
Casey

Had an interesting case this week.  25 yo G3P2 presented after about 6 weeks amenorrhea with typical sxs of early pregnancy – breast tenderness, nausea and vomiting.  She had done a home urine HCG which was positive 3 days earlier.

Tonight she has come in with persistent vomiting, poor oral intake and feeling like crap.  Urinalysis showed 4+ ketones and SG = 1.030, no glucose.  But – here it the but – on questioning, she never really got any morning sickness with her 2 previous pregnancies.  So what is going on?  Is this “normal emesis gravidarum” or is there another cause?

I think we sometimes get a bit casual with this scenario – we all know how to manage the early pregnancy chucking, but we still need to consider the possible differentials before going down the well trodden treatment pathways.

Emesis / hyperemesis gravidarum – idiopathic

Urinary tract infection / pyelo

Gastroenteritis / peptic ulcer disease / Helicobacter

Surgical causes – think gallbladder, appendix

Endocrine – Thyrotoxic state, DKA,

Multiple gestation

Molar pregnancy

Medications – Fe supps are common

Transabdo Us = twin yolk sacs in the same GS

Dehydration is the big one – often requiring admsission for IV rehydration.

Rare complications include – Wernicke’s encephalopathy, other neurological lesions (myelinolytic), ketoacidosis

Mental health problem are common – depression and anxiety.

Well, a 2010 Cochrane review of the subject basically came up dry! They looked at acupressure, ginger, pyridoxine, antiemetics etc and saw no consistent benefit from any study or intervention.

So what do we do?

IV rehydration seems to help – usually when you have ketosis and objective evidence of dehydration

Antiemetics – metocloramide, promethazine

Steroids have been used

I like 5HT drugs – ondansetron – comes in a wafer, so women can use it at home and attempt to stay away from the hospital

Ginger can help, unlikely to harm.

Consider using thiamine supplemenation / multiB vitamins and watch out for low calcium – risk of later osteoporosis.

Nice review here on the topic. Surprisingly the babies of these poor women do well, there is an increased incidence of small-for-age, low birth weight and premature delivery. The miracle is that the outcomes are not worse given the sometimes severe and prolonged nutritional problems!

This story is stolen from my big Dutch mate:

It is 6 AM, you get a call from the labour ward from the night midwife.  “Hey, I am looking after a primip and she has been progressing well, and I just did a VE – not sure if she is fully yet, it felt a bit odd - can you come and give a second opinion?”   So you wonder into the ward and don the latex…. after a quick feel you have made the following observation:

“Not sure if she is fully, but it is definitely a boy!”   AHH ! The undiagnosed breech rears its head (or bum) again.

If you are like me this is one of the scary moments in O&G.  I have only seen 3 breech births and they all were less than fun.  Breech vaginal birth was dealt a ‘final blow’by the Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group in Lancet 2000.  So I thought I would look at the evidence and ask the following questions:

Well, yes and no. The incidence of short-term poor neonatal outcomes is higher. However, this does not translate into more longer term neurological problems. So is a bad Apgar or a dodgy cord blood a good end-point to measure? The maternal stats were worse for CS as opposed to vaginal birth – basically having a big operation is bad, having a vaginal birth – not so bad for major problems – infection, bleeding, VTE etc All of this data comes from ëxperienced operators” ie. not people like me who have read a few textbooks and gone to a course about breech delivery. Mauriceau-Smellie-Veit: if you don’t know what I mean then don’t attempt a vaginal breech at home. (Hint- it isn’t a French guy with a bit of tinea) Review article here.

Hmmm… no good evidence it seems. The risk of vaginal birth is probably overblown in our minds. I think this depends on the situation and the operator a bit. Doing a CS late in the 2nd stage can be tricky, and you have already exposed the fetus to all the risk of labour, than the mother to the risk of CS. I am going to be pragmatic and say – once the breech is below the spines in 2nd stage it is probably too late to back out from a risk POV. This is really just my opinion. I decided to ask my local Expert – Dr Wendy Hughes -O&G of the Kimberley for her opinion

The bottom line is that 1 in 20 vaginal breech deliveries will have serious consequences for the baby – death or injury. The rest will be okay – completely okay. Unfortunately it’s the “rest that are okay” that sometimes leads us to be rather complacent about missing the diagnosis of breech both antenatally and in labour until it’s too late to do anything about it – until we experience a bad vaginal breech delivery. The second concern is avoiding unnecessary damage to mother from undertaking a C/S where the uterus is damaged by trying to drag the baby back up and out. Thankfully I haven’t personally been involved in a difficult C/S breech “retrieval” but I have heard horror stories from colleagues – I think one woman ended up with hysterectomy. If the baby is crowning this is definitely a case for vaginal delivery. I believe late first stage with rapid progression in labour is ditto. Early first stage (when many are diagnosed – you know SROM with niggles – oops, it’s bum first) I offer mum the choice and they almost always elect C/S. My belief is the best guide to proceeding with vaginal delivery is how quickly labour is progressing, both dilatation and descent. And the best way to avoiding the situation is to always question whether you have definitely felt the head – both abdominally and vaginally – and have a low threshold to resort to a quick scan – and ditto at antenatal clinic, particularly beyond 36 weeks – most breeches haven’t “just turned” but been that way unrecognized all along.

OK, it is too late to do ECV once labour is upon us! But it is worth doing. See this Cochrane review of ECV at 37/40. Another study by Dr Hannah (busy lady) looked at doing breech earlier – 34 – 36 weeks, with some success, though maybe a few more preterm labours

Go to an ALSO (Advanced Life Support in Obstetrics) course. This is a really fun and educational course, loads of evidence and a lot of practical skills to learn. Go to the ALSO website to check out courses near you

Ok here is my first Obs case.  Ultimately a poor outcome, but one where I think we can all learn some important stuff about pregnancy and the type of medical errors that can occur.  Here is the case:

26 yo, G2P1 – previous straightforward vaginal birth 2 years ago.  Unremarkable antenatal history this pregnancy. Thin, normotensive, all screening NAD. Normal USs at 12/40 and then 20 weeks – normal anatomy scan.  Rhesus +, OGC – negative  Shared antenatal care between GP and local hospital.  PMhx:

  • Recurrent SVTs, eventually treated with AV-node ablation, no ongoing symptoms.
  • Anxiety disorder with panic symptoms, responded to CBT, now well.
  • Appendectomy age 13

Now, skip forwards to labour day – presented mid-afternoon in spontaneous labour 39 + weeks.  Admitted to labour ward, commenced on partogram.  Requested an epidural at 4 cm around sunset.  Gp-Anaesthetist attended – noted high BP, 160/100 and asked for a UA – this showed 4+ protein.                  On examination:  noted to have clonus on ankle jerks.     GP sited an epidural and called the on-call O&G for further assessment

On review the BP had fallen to 140/85, pulse = 100, in active labour, afebrile, no headache / visual disturbance, abdo pain or oedema.  Decision was made to expedite labour and augmentation resulted in an SVB at 20:00 – healthy boy, Apgars 9 + 10.  The family were moved to the ward around 10 pm.

Over the next 8 hours the obs changed dramatically, in a nearly linear fashion…

  • pulse increased from 90 to 130/min
  • BPs were consistently increasing – up to 170/110
  • RR was normal, but climbed in the early hours of the morning to 28/min
  • SpO2 started falling just before sunrise – down to 90% on nasal prongs by morning

The O&G team were called several times and the obs were explained as being due to pain and then a recurrence of the panic episodes the patient had previously suffered…  the patient agreed “it felt just like my previous panic episodes!”   Treated with Panadeine forte and then temazepam 20 mg.

The following morning the team reviewed and made a diagnosis of pre-ecclampsia.  Patient was commenced on MgSO4 infusion as per protocol.

Became increasingly SOB and hypoxic despite being placed on a non-rebreather mask.  Best SpO2 in high 80′s.

Around 11AM a code blue call went out and I attended to the ward bed with the senior RNs and MWs.  The patient looked grey – combination of severe cyanosis and poor peripheral perfusion.  Marked dyspnoea, exam revealed a rapid, barely-palpable radial pulse and bilateral rales up to the shoulders.

Moved to Resus area for a trial of NIV, however became unconscious en route and was intubated on arrival to the Resus room.

Resuscitation with ventilation via ETT and CPR commenced.  Copious pink, frothy sputum coming up the tube with compressions.

Prolonged resuscitation attempts, lots of adrenaline and investigations – no return of circulation.

Fulminant ecclampsia with acute pulmonary oedema was the diagnosis that I wrote in the chart. Any other possibilities?
Large (L) adrenal pheochromocytoma. Widespread hypertensive changes – kidneys, retinae…

(1) The phaeo was not reported on the USs, though it was likely large enough to be visible if you were looking for it (2) The SVTs were investigated by a cardiologist including EPS and eventually the patient had an “empirical ablation” as nothing else was working (3) The panic symptoms were so severe that the patient’s GP had referred her to a Psychiatrist as they represented a clear change from her usual happy demeanor. (4) Never recorded a single high BP in antenatal clinic – likely due to the transient nature of the disease and the vasodilatation of pregnancy.

- Sometimes the hooves are zebras, this is a tough truth when it comes to general practice. You can spend years screening and never come up with a diagnosis like this, but you must keep it in your head, be vigilant and recognise patterns – Don’t be reassured by a specialist’s review and opinion. Go back to first principles and look at the details yourself rather than just assume the specialist has it all covered – I could spend all day on early recognition of clinical deterioration, but that is a whole other topic. Needless to say – don’t explain bad obs away and always be prepared to escalate if you are not getting good results / answers

Check out this review

Another review