[Epidural anesthesia for fetoscopy : Retrospective analysis of a one-year cohort]

The introduction of routine prenatal screening using ultrasound has led to a substantial increase in diagnoses of fetal disorders that are amenable to intrauterine treatment. While an ultrasound guided insertion of small bore cannulas can be performed under local anesthesia, insertion of a fetoscope usually requires anesthetic management for the mother and the fetus. Additionally, the fetus' intrauterine position may have to be manipulated in order to enable access. Such manoeuvres depend on relaxation of the mother's abdominal wall. General anesthesia has been the preferred method, but it involves substantial risks both to the mother and possibly the fetus, especially when combined with aggressive uterine relaxation. Epidural anesthesia (EA) may provide an alternative. Only little systematic data on the efficacy, requirements or untoward effects of epidural anesthesia for fetoscopy exists in the literature, yet a high rate of arterial hypotension following EA has been reported. We therefore aimed to assess the hemodynamic reaction to EA in a mixed population of pregnant women undergoing fetoscopy for a variety of fetal conditions and performed a retrospective analysis of a one-year cohort in a single university hospital.

The local ethics committee approved this retrospective analysis and waived patient consent (local study identifier 304/14). We extracted anesthesiologic and hemodynamic data from the anesthesia charts of 23 consecutive cases of elective fetoscopic procedures requiring anesthesia between May 2011 and 2012 at a German university medical centre.

Twenty-three cases of fetoscopy were included in this study. Indications for fetoscopy were congenital diaphragmatic hernia (n = 9), aortic valve stenosis (n = 8), and feto-fetal transfusion syndrome (n = 6). Median gestational age was 26 (8, interquartile range) weeks. Lumbar epidural catheters were injected with a median dose of 0.09 (0.02, interquartile range) ml ropivacaine 0.75% per cm maternal height. In 11 patients, EA was titrated to a sufficient height whereas 12 patients received a single dose with a median volume of 0.08 (0.02) ml/cm maternal height. After injection, systolic arterial pressure did not change significantly, mean arterial pressure dropped from 93 (14) mm Hg to 88 (15) mm Hg (p = 0.03). Heart rate fell from 96 (29) to 89 (20) beats per minute (p = 0.02). At incision, neither blood pressure nor heart rate changed significantly. For hemodynamic support during the procedure, cafedrine/theodrenaline (Akrinor™) was injected in five patients (median dose in these patients 0.5 (1.5) ml). One patient carrying a fetus with a poor prognosis and who underwent two separate procedures demanded additional sedation, for which we chose remifentanil. Another patient was hypotensive after intravenous administration of the tocolytic drug atosiban. A stable hemodynamic condition was quickly restored in this patient with administration of cafedrine/theodrenaline and i. v. fluids. All procedures were performed without conversion to general anaesthesia.

This retrospective study demonstrates that fetoscopic procedures under EA in the range of indications treated in our institution can be performed safely. EA was associated with stable hemodynamic conditions in this mixed cohort of pregnant women. EA appears thus to be a suitable technique for fetoscopy, avoiding the risks inherent to general anesthesia in pregnant women.