Skip to main content
Download PDF

Postspinal anesthesia shivering in lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries: a randomized controlled comparison between paracetamol and dexamethasone

BMC Anesthesiology volume 21, Article number: 262 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Shivering is known to be a frequent complication in patients undergoing surgery under neuraxial anesthesia with incidence of 40–70%. Although many pharmacological agents have been used to treat or prevent postspinal anesthesia shivering (PSAS), the ideal treatment wasn’t found. This study evaluated the efficacy of paracetamol and dexamethasone to prevent PSAS in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries.

Methods

Three hundred patients scheduled for surgeries under spinal anesthesia (SA) were allocated into three equal groups to receive a single preoperative dose of oral paracetamol 1 g (P group), dexamethasone 8 mg intravenous infusion (IVI) in 100 ml normal saline (D group) or placebo (C group), 2 h preoperatively, in a randomized, double-blind trial. The primary endpoint was the incidence of clinically significant PSAS. Secondary endpoints included shivering score, the change in hemodynamics, adverse events (e.g., nausea, vomiting and pruritis) and patients` satisfaction.

Results

Clinically significant PSAS was recorded as (15%) in P group, (40%) in D group and (77%) in C group (P < 0.001). The mean blood pressure values obtained over a 5-25 min observation period were significantly higher in the D group (P < 0.001). Core temperature 90 min after SA was significantly lower in the 3 groups compared to prespinal values (P < 0.001). Nausea, vomiting and pruritis were significantly higher in the C group (P < 0.001). P and D groups were superior to C group regarding the patients’ satisfaction score (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Paracetamol and dexamethasone were effective in prevention of PSAS in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries compared to placebo controls.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03679065 / Registered 20 September 2018 - Retrospectively registered, http://www.ClinicalTrial.gov.

Peer Review reports

Background

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is a safe anesthetic technique used for both elective and emergency operations. Shivering is known to be a frequent complication in patients undergoing surgery under neuraxial anesthesia with incidence of 40–70% [1]. SA inhibits tonic vasoconstriction and causes redistribution of core heat from the trunk (below the block level) to the peripheral tissues predisposing patients to hypothermia and shivering [2]. Postspinal anesthesia shivering (PSAS) is an involuntary, repetitive activity of skeletal muscles as a physiological response to core hypothermia to raise the metabolic heat production [3]. PSAS increases O2 consumption, CO2 production, plasma catecholamines and cardiac output. Shivering may interfere with the monitoring of ECG, blood pressure and oxygen saturation [4]. The mainstay of prophylaxis and treatment of PSAS remain pharmacological [1, 2, 4] due to inadequate control of central hypothermia by techniques based on physical principles (e.g., intravenous infusion (IVI) of warm fluids and forced air warmers) [5]. It appears logical to prevent PSAS rather than to treat it once it develops.

Paracetamol [Acetaminophen (ACT)] is an effective, safe synthetic non-opioid analgesic and antipyretic [6, 7]. Acetaminophen acts by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-mediated prostaglandin synthesis to decrease the hypothalamic temperature set point [7, 8]. Although the onset of action of IV paracetamol is much faster compared with its oral form and bioavailability is 63–84% of administered dose, there were no significant difference in overall efficacy between the two routes [6]. Rectal administration of acetaminophen proved to be effective for prevention of shivering in the therapeutic hypothermia [9].

Dexamethasone has an anti-inflammatory, analgesic effects and significantly improved the duration of sensory block in spinal anesthesia when added to hyperbaric bupivacaine [10]. The use of preoperative dexamethasone (8 mg), with a biologic half-life of 36–72 h, improved postdischarge quality of recovery [11] and decreased nausea, vomiting [11, 12], pain, and fatigue in the early postoperative period [11]. As it reduces the gradient between skin and body core temperature and modifies the inflammatory response, dexamethasone has been reported to be effective in reducing shivering after cardiac surgeries [13]. Dexamethasone may cause unpleasant symptoms following rapid IV injection [14].

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a prophylactic dose of 1 g oral paracetamol tablet compared with a prophylactic dose of 8 mg dexamethasone IVI to prevent shivering in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia.

Methods

Patients

This double blind randomized controlled study was conducted between the 1st of March to the 31st of August 2018 at Ain-Shams University hospitals after approval by the institute ethics committee (FMASU R 49 / 2018) and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03679065). This study included 300 patients, of both sexes, aged 18–60 years, ASA I or II scheduled for elective lower abdominal or lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia and a written informed consent was obtained by every patient. “ The study protocol was performed in accordance to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki” [15].

Patients with generalized infection or localized infection at level of blockade, thyroid disease, cardiopulmonary disease, coagulation disorder, liver dysfunction, neurologic disease, psychological disorder, a known history of alcohol or substance abuse, a body mass index > 35 kg/m2 or refusal to participate in clinical research were excluded. Patients with an initial body temperature > 38 °C or < 36.5 °C, receiving medications likely to alter thermoregulation or vasodilators, required blood transfusion during surgery, operated for more than 120 min or with known allergy to the study medications were also excluded.

All patients were medically evaluated preoperatively. Preoperative fasting started 6 h before surgery and water intake was possible until 2 h before surgery.

Randomization and blinding

Randomization of the patients was performed using a computer-generated random numbers concealed in sealed opaque envelopes and a nurse randomly chose the envelope that determined the group of assignment [16]. Patients were allocated into three equal groups (100 each) with 1:1:1 ratio according to shivering prophylaxis; Paracetamol (P) group:(n = 100) each patient received 1 g paracetamol tablet orally with sips of water and 100 ml 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline [NS]) (IVI) over 15 min as a placebo for dexamethasone solution; dexamethasone (D) group: (n = 100) each patient received a placebo tablet identical to paracetamol tablet orally with sips of water and dexamethasone 8 mg ampoule diluted in 100 ml 0.9% NS IVI over 15 min; Control (C) group: (n = 100) each patient received a placebo tablet identical to paracetamol tablet orally with sips of water and 100 ml 0.9% NS IVI over 15 min as a placebo for dexamethasone solution 2 h preoperatively. The study medications including matching placebo tablets and fluids were given 2 h preoperatively.

Paracetamol was presented as (Novaldol® 1000 mg (1 g) tablets manufactured by SANOFI, Egypt) and dexamethasone was presented as (Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate ampoules 8 mg in 2 ml, MUP Egypt). The study drugs were prepared by the hospital pharmacy and presented by a nurse who wasn’t involved in patients’ management. The attending anesthesiologists, surgeons and patients were blinded to the patients’ groups assignments. All follow up notes were recorded by anesthesia residents who followed-up the patients and were unaware of the nature of medications and were not involved in any other part of the study [16].

Study protocol

The anesthetic management of the patients was standardized without any premedication. Before commencing spinal anesthesia, standard monitoring with a five-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), and peripheral arterial oxygenation (SPO2%) (Datex-Ohmeda S/5, GE Health Care, Finland) were established and all patients received IV lactated Ringer’s solution (at room temperature) at 10 ml/kg within 30 min and then at 6 ml/kg/h. All patients were given supplementary oxygen by a face mask at a rate of 5 L/min. Patients were covered with surgical drapes before and during the procedure and cotton blankets postoperatively. No patient received any active perioperative warming, as per our current practice standard of care. The operating and recovery rooms temperatures were maintained at 23–25 °C (measured by a wall thermometer) with approximately 60–70% humidity. The core body temperature was measured as the tympanic membrane temperature using an ear thermometer (ThermoScan IRT 4020, Braun, Kronberg, Germany) [17] and a core temperature below < 36.5 °C was considered hypothermia.

Following the guidelines for asepsis and antisepsis, subarachnoid anesthesia was instituted at either the L3–4 or L4–5 interspaces (midline approach) with the patient at sitting posture. A volume of (2.5–3.5 ml) (12. 5-17.5 mg) of hyperbaric bupivacaine (Marcaine® Spinal Heavy 0.5%; Sunny pivacaine, Manufactured by Sunny Pharmaceutical - Cairo - Egypt) was injected over 60 s using a 25 G Quincke spinal needle (Spinocaine, B. Braun Melsungen, Germany) to achieve a desirable level in accordance with the surgical procedure (considering height and weight of the patient). After completing the spinal block, withdrawal of the needle and covering the site of injection with a sterile gauze, the patient was positioned supine and a urinary catheter was inserted.

The time to peak sensory block level (min) (time taken from the end of injection to loss of pin prick sensation at a bilateral T4-T8 dermatomes), highest level of sensory blockade, duration of sensory blockade (2 segment regression time from highest level of sensory blockade), complete motor blockade (time taken from the end of injection to the development of grade 4 motor block, modified Bromage criteria [18]), duration of motor blockade (time required for motor blockade return to Bromage grade 1 from the time of onset of motor blockade), time to first analgesic rescue (min), changes produced in heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), peripheral arterial oxygen saturation (SPO2%), tympanic membrane temperature (T) and side effects were recorded at prespinal, 2, 5,10, 15, 20,25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 min after intrathecal injection. If patients did not develop sensory block up to T4-T8 and grade 4 motor block. The procedure was abandoned, general anesthesia was administered and those patients were excluded from the study.

After completion of the subarachnoid injection, the incidence and severity of shivering were recorded during the operation till 90 min after SA. Shivering severity was assessed with a four-point scale [19]:

  1. 1.

    None (Grade 0): no shivering noted on palpation of the masseter, neck, or chest wall

  2. 2.

    Mild (Grade 1): shivering localized to the neck and/or thorax only

  3. 3.

    Moderate (Grade 2): shivering involved gross movement of the upper extremities (in addition to neck and thorax)

  4. 4.

    Severe (Grade 3): shivering involved gross movements of the trunk and upper and lower extremities.

If the shivering grade was ≥2 after 15 min after completion of the subarachnoid injection, the prophylaxis was regarded as ineffective and 25 mg meperidine IV (diluted to 10 mL with NS) was slowly injected as a rescue agent. Parameters such as onset of shivering (the time in minutes at which shivering started after intrathecal injection), the patients` percentage at each grade of shivering among the three groups, response rate (number of cases in whom shivering ceased after administered meperidine in 10 min) and shivering recurrence were also recorded. PSAS was documented visually by 2 anesthesia residents who were un aware of the study group allocation. They were also carefully briefed on the shivering intensity assessment used in the study. Patients` satisfaction with shivering prophylaxis was recorded using a 7-point Likert verbal rating scale [20].

Side-effects like hypotension (MAP < 20% from baseline), bradycardia (HR < 50 beats/min), respiratory depression (respiratory rate ≤ 8/min or SPO2 ≤ 92%), nausea, vomiting and headache were recorded. Hypotension was treated with a bolus infusion of crystalloid (250 ml) and/or incremental dose of ephedrine 6 mg IV. Bradycardia was treated with atropine (0.01 mg/kg) IV. If a patient had both nausea and hypotension, incremental dose of ephedrine 6 mg IV was administered. If desaturation was detected, the patients were treated with supplemental oxygen via a nasal cannula at 3 l per minute (LPM) to keep SpO2 > 94%. if two or more emetic episodes occurred or nausea persisted for more than 10 min with normal BP or HR, metoclopramide 10 mg IV was given as rescue antiemetic. Patients with pruritus were treated with IV clemastine (TavegylR) (2 mg / ampoule). Sedation was checked every 15 min over 90 min and was assessed with a four-point scale as per Filos et al. [21].

The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant PSAS which required IV pethidine for treatment (Grade 2 (moderate) and Grade 3 (severe)) after the first 90 min (end point of the study) after the completion of the subarachnoid drug injection (start point of the study). The shivering score, the patients` satisfaction and the incidences of safety-related outcomes including nausea, vomiting, bradycardia, hypotension and sedation were the secondary outcomes.

Statistical analysis

Based on a similar previous study, a minimal sample size of 19 cases in each group was required to provide statistical significance when the assumed differences between the three groups; group C, group P and group D were 33.3, 0.0 and 0.0% respectively [22] with setting the power = 0.80 and α = 0.017 [23] and using PASS 11th release [24]. The investigators recruited 100 cases in each group to compensate for patient’s dropout, protocol violation, further comparisons and finding possible side effects.

The collected data were coded tabulated and statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software version 22.0, IBM Corp., Chicago, USA, 2013. Quantitative normally distributed data were described as mean ± SD (standard deviation) and were compared by ANOVA test and repeated measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA). In addition, quantitative non-normally distributed data were described as median and 1st& 3rd inter-quartile range and were compared by Kruskal Wallis test. On the other hand, qualitative data were described as number and percentage and were compared by Chi square test and Fisher’s Exact test for variables with small expected numbers. Over and above, post hoc testing was done using Bonferroni test with adjusting significant P value cut point to be < 0.017 in cases of paired groups comparisons and Log rank test was used to compare rates. The level of significance was considered significant if P value < 0.050, otherwise was non-significant. Effect size was calculated for the relative value of each medication over the other tested medications.

Results

Three hundred thirty-four patients were assessed for eligibility; of those 300 patients completed the study and were randomized (100 patients for each group) between the 3 groups and their data were included in the final analysis. Thirty-four patients were excluded from this study on account of patients did not meet inclusion criteria (23 patients) and patients’ refusals (11 patients) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The study flow diagram

Full size image

As shown in Table 1, no significant differences (P > 0.05) were noted between the 3 groups regarding age, sex, BMI, ASA status, bupivacaine dose, duration of surgery, types of operations and total IV fluid used. The time to peak sensory block level was statistically significant higher in the D group compared to P and C groups (P < 0.001) with no statistically significant differences between P and C groups (Table 2). Both of time to two-segments regression and time to first analgesic rescue were statistically significant lower in C group compared to the P and D groups with no statistically significant differences between P and D groups (P < 0.001, P < 0.001 respectively) (Table 2). The peak sensory block level, time to reach complete motor block and the duration of motor block were comparable between the three studied groups (P = 0.103, P = 0.069, P = 0.132 respectively) (Table 2).

Table 1 Demographic characteristics and perioperative data
Full size table
Table 2 Characteristics of neuraxial anesthesia techniques
Full size table

The changes in heart rate values during the study period were comparable between the three studied groups (Fig. 2). The Repeated measured values of MBP (5 min, 10 min, 15 min, 20 min and 25 min after intrathecal injection) were statistically significant lower at P group than D group with mean difference (− 14.2. 95% CI: − 15.3–-13.1) while they were statistically significant higher in D group than in C group with mean difference (13.8. 95% CI: 12.6–15.0) (P < 0.001) with no statistically significant differences between P and C groups (Fig. 3). There were no significant differences between groups in the changes in SpO2 (%) values at any time point in the study (P > 0.05).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Changes in Heart rate (beats/min) with time

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Changes in Mean arterial blood pressure (mmHg) with time. *Significant

Full size image

The 90-min after intrathecal injection core temperature was statistically significant lower in P, D and C groups compared to prespinal core temperature in the 3 groups (P < 0.001) with no statistically significant differences between P, D and C groups at any time point of the study period (Fig. 4). The incidence of shivering was significantly higher in C group compared to P and D groups with statistically significant differences between P and D groups (P < 0.001) while the onset of shivering was significantly lower in C group compared to P and D groups with statistically significant differences between P and D groups (P < 0.001) (Table 3) (Fig. 5). Clinically significant shivering (shivering grade ≥ 2) was recorded in 15/100 patients (15.0%) in P group, 40/100 (40.0%) in D group and 77/100 (76.0%) in C group (P < 0.001) (Table 3) (Fig. 6). The need for anti-shivering treatment showed statistically significant differences between the studied groups, was the least frequent in P group (15.0%) with relative rate when compared to D group (0.38; 95% CI: 0.22–0.63) and relative rate when compared to C group (0.19; 95% CI: 0.12–0.31), followed in frequency by D group (40.0%) with relative rate when compared to C group (0.52; 95% CI: 0.40–0.68), and was the most frequent in C group (77.0%). The mean dose of IV meperidine required to treat shivering was significantly higher in C group compared to P and D groups with statistically significant differences between P and D groups (P < 0.001) (Table 3). The response rate (complete cessation of shivering activity within 10 min of one dose of meperidine 25 mg) was 100.0%% in P group, 70.0% in D group and 40.3% in C group (P < 0.001). The recurrence of shivering was significantly higher in D and C groups compared to P group with statistically significant differences between D and C groups (P < 0.001) (Table 3).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Changes in Core (Tympanic membrane) Temperature (C°) 90 min after intrathecal injection when compared with the pre-spinal values. *Significant. RMANOVA test was used

Full size image
Table 3 Shivering profile in the studied groups
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Kaplan-Meier plot of the percentage of patients in each group not in shivering

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

The percentage of patients at each grade of shivering

Full size image

The incidence of hypotension, the percentage of patients who required ephedrine to treat post-spinal anesthesia (PSA) hypotension and the mean dose of IV ephedrine required were significantly higher in P and C groups compared to D group with no statistically significant differences between P and C groups (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001 respectively) (Table 4). Twenty-six patients (24.0%) complained from pruritus in C group, while 7 and 9 patients (2.0 and 3.0%) complained from pruritus in P and D groups respectively (P < 0.001) (Table 4). The number of nausea episodes, vomiting episodes, and rescue antiemetic usage were statistically significant lower in the P and D groups compared to C group (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001 respectively) with no statistically significant differences between the P and D groups (Table 4). Post-intervention sedation was grade I in all study groups (Table 4). Higher patients` satisfaction mean scores about shivering prophylaxis were recorded in P and D groups compared with C group with no statistically significant differences between P and D groups (P < 0.001) (Table 4).

Table 4 Adverse effects, administered drugs for treatment and patients` satisfaction score
Full size table

Discussion

The analysis of results across groups by primary outcome measure of clinically significant shivering (shivering grade ≥ 2) showed clinically and statistically significant superiority of both a prophylactic dose of oral paracetamol 1 g tablet and a prophylactic dose of dexamethasone 8 mg IVI compared with placebo controls for prophylaxis of shivering in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia. Moreover, patients in P and D groups showed significant longer time to two segments regression, increased time to first analgesic rescue, reduced incidence of nausea, vomiting and pruritus compared to C group with no significant differences between P and D groups.

The potential additive or synergistic effects of prophylactic administration of nonpharmacological and pharmacological methods to minimize core temperature loss are favored to prevent PSAS. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines suggest that patients should have their core temperatures maintained at ≥36.5 °C using forced-air warming devices and meperidine received the highest validation [25]. However, meperidine has adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus, sedation, hypotension, bradycardia and respiratory depression [4]. These data encouraged the investigators to seek for medications with minimal side effects that could replace the use of IV meperidine for prevention of PSAS.

The time frame of 90 min of the study was chosen based on studying the three main mechanisms of spinal anesthesia causing core hypothermia which reach their maximal effects during the first 30–60 min after intrathecal injection and patients should be monitored, actively warmed and receive antishivering treatment if needed [26]. Moreover, the dose and the timing of administration of 1 g oral paracetamol 2 h preoperatively was selected to achieve adequate shiver control according to the Columbia anti-shivering protocol and Raffa et al., who reported a significantly prolonged mean time to peak plasma concentration of oral paracetamol when co-administered with morphine infusion compared to oral paracetamol alone [8, 27]. Over and above, Fenlon et al., had advocated clinicians to avoid the additional costs and risks attached to the IV paracetamol due to the perceived benefits of IV paracetamol over oral are less than may be imagined and unlikely to significantly alter the patient’s perception of pain after surgery [6]. While the timing of administration of a preoperative single dose of 8 mg dexamethasone IVI was selected based on data obtained from a previous study [14] which validated the optimal effective dose [11, 14] in the prevention of postoperative nausea or vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

The three groups in terms of basic and demographic variables of age, sex, body mass index, ASA, bupivacaine dose, duration of surgery, types of operations and total IV fluid used weren’t significantly different (Table 1). The confounding effect of these factors in this study was neutralized and the observed differences were likely due to the taken drug.

There was a significant longer time to two segments regression and increased time to first analgesic rescue in P group compared to C group. Different mechanisms for the antinociceptive action of paracetamol, including cannabinoid receptor type 1(CB1) agonistic activity, reinforcement of descending serotonergic inhibitory pain pathways and prostaglandin synthesis inhibition [7, 9, 28]. Furthermore, plethora of studies supported results of this study in patients under spinal anesthesia receiving a prophylactic dose of 1 g oral paracetamol tablet regarding prolonged duration of sensory loss [28] and increased time to first analgesic rescue [6, 7, 9, 28]. On the other hand, our results coincided with the studies evaluating the efficacy of dexamethasone whether IV [11, 14, 29] or intrathecally [4, 10] when it was added to bupivacaine in decreasing the mean time to peak sensory block level and increasing both the time to two-segment regression and the mean time to requirement of the first rescue analgesia. There was a significant attenuation of PSA hypotension in D group which could be explained by the beneficial effects of increasing peripheral vascular resistance (PVR) by a variety of mechanisms and its anti 5HT3 effects which might influence the Bezold Jarish reflex (BJR) [16].

The intense vasodilation below the level of the spinal blockade will result in loss of thermoregulation and core hypothermia regardless of the other factors (e.g., ambient temperature and duration of surgery). Furthermore, vasoconstriction and shivering are thermoregulatory mechanisms that are required to increase core body temperature in patients with core hypothermia and are restricted to the upper body during spinal anesthesia [26]. Although a high level of spinal blockade [30] was achieved in this study (Block height) (dermatome level) (T5-T6) and a significant relationship between prespinal and 90 min after intrathecal injection core body temperature readings in the 3 study groups was documented by the investigators, a clinically significant shivering was significantly lower in P and D groups compared to C group. This could be explained due to paracetamol acts by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-mediated prostaglandin synthesis to lower the hypothalamic set point [8] while dexamethasone decreases the temperature gradient between core and skin temperatures via its anti-inflammatory action and inhibition of the release of vasoconstrictor and pyrogenic cytokines [13].

Consistent with our results, Kinjo et al., assumed that the administered acetaminophen prevented postoperative shivering by suppressing the postoperative increase in the core body temperature set point, rather than lowering the threshold for shivering [31]. In addition, Honasoge et al., also reported that shivering was effectively suppressed using rectal administration of buspirone and acetaminophen in the setting of therapeutic hypothermia for cardiac arrest [32]. Concomitant with our results, previous studies [11, 13] reported that dexamethasone significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative shivering. Moreover, Moeen et al., reported that intrathecal dexamethasone was as effective as intrathecal meperidine in attenuation of PSAS compared to placebo in patients scheduled for prostate surgery under spinal anesthesia with less side effects [4]. Over and above, previous studies supported our results regarding the mean dose of IV meperidine, used to treat clinically significant shivering, which was significantly reduced in P and D groups compared to C group [4, 9, 22].

Saglam et al., supported the results of this study regarding the lower incidence of pruritis in P group and they speculated that paracetamol attenuates the scratching behavior with its higher doses [33] while Apfel et al., attributed the antiemetic effect of acetaminophen to the reduction of postsurgical pain and not to the reduction of postoperative opioid consumption [34]. Over and above, the lack of an antipruritic effect of dexamethasone is disappointing in light of its antiemetic and anti-inflammatory properties [35]. Banihashem et al., however, documented that the severity of pruritus was significantly less in the dexamethasone treatment group than in the control group which could support our results [36]. On the other hand, the higher incidence of pruritus, nausea and vomiting in patients of C group could be due to increased consumption of IV meperidine possessing potential side effects such as pruritus, nausea and vomiting [4]. Also, the investigators reported increased consumption of IV ephedrine in patients of C group which may account for possibility of systemic hypersensitivity reactions [37].

Chen et al., reported that paracetamol had a direct anxiolytic effect through action on mood mechanisms [38]. Furthermore, previous investigators have reported that dexamethasone has a mood-altering effect and ability to produce a general sense of well-being due to a primary central nervous system effect of steroids [11]. Considering all the above-mentioned advantages of paracetamol and dexamethasone, this could explain the higher satisfaction score in P and D groups and reduced side effects of SA compared to C group.

This study had several limitations. First, this study was carried out at a single center. However, the investigators believed that the randomized double-blind design and the effect size estimation decreased the possibility of bias and the relatively large sample size achieved significant differences in the adverse events encountered. Second, the results of this study didn’t include patients with cardiovascular instability, endoscopic urosurgical procedures, invasive operations associated with increased blood loss nor major fluid shift. Despite that, the research team demonstrated that paracetamol and dexamethasone attenuated the effect of high levels of spinal blockade which decreased the core temperature threshold for shivering [30]. Moreover, dexamethasone demonstrated beneficial responses to avoid the methods that are used to avoid the PSA hypotension (e.g., volume loading or vasopressor administration) which may add the risk of hypervolemia and/or myocardial ischemia [16]. Third, this study lacked warmed intravenous fluids. In our hospitals, the use of warmed intravenous fluids is reserved for emergency operations and operations suspected to be of prolonged duration. However, the investigators believed that the use of paracetamol and dexamethasone in this study provided a simple, proved efficacy as antiemetic, less adverse effects and cost-effective management protocol for PSAS that could be easily applied in resource-limited areas. Fourth, the research team did not use a standard anti-shivering drug like meperidine as a control group as we considered it the rescue medication for all patients if paracetamol and dexamethasone failed to prevent distressing shivering. Fifth, glycemic profile in the hours after dexamethasone administration and the rate of infection should have been documented. Sixth, difficulties with patients` satisfaction assessment [20] might be invincible because perceptions of quality of care are subjective. In the future studies, the reasons for dissatisfaction should be mentioned for both satisfied and dissatisfied patients, to give a validity check of the global satisfaction questions for both groups [39].

The use of paracetamol or dexamethasone in this study offered several notable benefits without eminent side effects. Aside from its well-established analgesic and antipyretic effects, a prophylactic dose of 1 g oral paracetamol tablet proved efficacy in prevention of PSAS. As the dictum says, “prevention is better than cure,” it holds true for shivering also and it should be practiced. Since the suggested prevention of PSAS was efficacious, simple, inexpensive, available in many of operating rooms (ORs) and relatively safe, the research team strongly suggests trying the use of paracetamol and dexamethasone to prevent PSAS in patients exposed to risk factors [30].

Conclusion

Paracetamol and dexamethasone were effective in prevention of PSAS in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia compared to placebo controls. Our results indicated that decreasing the threshold of shivering might be more important than increasing the core temperature in terms of preventing PSAS with less adverse events.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study were available from Ain-Shams University Hospitals and they were not publicly available. Data were however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Ain-Shams University.

Abbreviations

5HT3 :

5-Hydroxytryptamine 3

ALT:

Alanine Aminotransferase

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

AST:

Aspartate Aminotransferase

BJR:

Bezold Jarish reflex

DBP:

Diastolic blood pressure

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

HR:

Heart rate

IQR:

Interquartile range

IV:

Intravenous

MBP:

Mean blood pressure

NIBP:

Non-invasive blood pressure

NS:

Normal saline

ORs:

Operating rooms

PSA:

Postspinal anesthesia

PSAS:

Postspinal anesthesia shivering

SA:

Spinal anesthesia

SBP:

Systolic blood pressure

SD:

Standard deviation

SNOSE:

Sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes

References

  1. Shukla U, Malhotra K, Prabhakar T. A comparative study of the effect of clonidine and tramadol on post-spinal anesthesia shivering. Indian J Anesth. 2011;55:242–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdel-Ghaffar HS, Mohamed SA, Fares KM, Osman MA. Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in Treating Post Spinal Anesthesia Shivering: A Randomized Clinically Controlled Dose-Finding Trial. Pain Physician. 2016;19(4):243–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. De Witte J, Sessler DI. Perioperative shivering: physiology and pharmacology. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:467–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moeen SM, Moeen AM. Intrathecal dexamethasone vs. meperidine for prevention of shivering during transurethral prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017;61:749–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cobb B, Cho Y, Hilton G, Ting V, Carvalho B. Active warming utilizing combined IV fluid and forced-air warming decreases hypothermia and improves maternal comfort during cesarean delivery: a randomized control trial. Anesth Analg. 2016;122(5):1490–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fenlon S, Collyer J, Giles J, Bidd H, Lees M, Nicholson J, et al. Oral vs intravenous paracetamol for lower third molar extractions under general anesthesia: is oral administration inferior? Br J Anesth. 2013;110:432–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sharma CV, Mehta V. Paracetamol: mechanisms and updates. Contin Educ Anesth Crit Care Pain. 2014;14(4):153–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi HA, Ko SB, Presciutti M, Fernandez L, Carpenter AM, Lesch C, et al. Prevention of shivering during therapeutic temperature modulation: the Columbia anti-shivering protocol. Neurocrit Care. 2011;10:9474–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gholami AS, Hadavi M. Prophylactic intravenous paracetamol for prevention of shivering after general anesthesia in elective cesarean section. J Obstet Anaesth Crit Care. 2016;6:81–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bani-hashem N, Hassan-nasab B, Pour EA, Maleh PA, Nabavi A, Jabbari A. Addition of intrathecal dexamethasone to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in orthopedic surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5:382–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Greenberg SB, Avram MJ, Vender JS, Nisman M, et al. Preoperative dexamethasone enhances quality of recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: effect on in-hospital and postdischarge recovery outcomes. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:882–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chu CC, Hsing CH, Shieh JP, Chien CC, Ho CM, Wang JJ. The cellular mechanisms of the antiemetic action of dexamethasone and related glucocorticoids against vomiting. Eur J Pharmacol. 2014;722:48–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yared JP, Starr NJ, Hoffman-Hogg L, Bashour CA, Insler SR, O’ Connor M, et al. Dexamethasone decreases the incidence of shivering after cardiac surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. Anesth Analg. 1998;87(4):795–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. De Oliveira GS Jr, Almeida MD, Benzon HT, McCarthy RJ. Perioperative single dose systemic dexamethasone for postoperative pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 2011;115:575–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Jahrb Wissenschaft Und Ethik. 2009;14(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208856.233.

  16. Ashoor TM, Hussien NS, Anis SG, Esmat IM. Dexamethasone blunts postspinal hypotension in geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a double blind, placebo-controlled study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hong J, Kim S, Hwang M. Comparison of effect of electroacupuncture and nefopam for prevention of postanesthetic shivering in patients undergoing urologic operation under spinal anesthesia. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016;69(6):579–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Graham AC, McClure JH. Quantitative assessment of motor block in laboring women receiving epidural analgesia. Anesthesia. 2001;56(5):470–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Badjatia N, Strongilis E, Gordon E, Prescutti M, Fernandez L, Fernandez A, et al. Metabolic impact of shivering during therapeutic temperature modulation: the bedside shivering assessment scale. Stroke. 2008;39(12):3242–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alhashemi JA. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for monitored anesthesia care during cataract surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96(6):722–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Filos KS, Goudas LC, Patroni O, Polyzou V. Hemodynamic and analgesic profile after intrathecal clonidine in humans. A dose-response study. Anesthesiology. 1994;81:591–601.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. El Bakry AA, Ibrahim ES. Prophylactic dexamethasone or pethidine for the prevention of postoperative shivering during transurethral resection of the prostate under spinal anesthesia. ASJA. 2016;9(3):349–52.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jaccard J, Becker MA, Wood G. Pairwise multiple comparison procedures: a review. Psychol Bull. 1984;96(3):589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hintze J. PASS 11. NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA. 2011; www.ncss.com.

  25. Choi KE, Park B, Moheet AM, Rosen A, Lahiri S, Rosengart A. Systematic quality assessment of published Antishivering protocols. Anesth Analg. 2017;124:1539–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu SS, McDonald SB. Current issues in spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2001;94(5):888–906.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Raffa RB, Pawasauskas J, Pergolizzi JV Jr, Lu L, Chen Y, Wu S, et al. Pharmacokinetics of Oral and Intravenous Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) When Co-Administered with Intravenous Morphine in Healthy Adult Subjects. Clin Drug Investig. 2018;38(3):259–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Choudhuri R, Adhikari D, Kar SK, Dasgupta CS, Som A. Effect of Paracetamol intravenous infusion on duration and quality of spinal blockade in patients undergoing major Gynaecological surgeries: a prospective, randomised, double-blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study. Prensa Med Argent. 2014;100:3.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shalu PS, Ghodki PS. To Study the Efficacy of Intravenous Dexamethasone in Prolonging the Duration of Spinal Anesthesia in Elective Cesarean Section. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11(2):321–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Frank SM, El-Rahmany HK, Cattaneo CG, Barnes RA. Predictors of hypothermia during spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2000;92(5):1330–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kinjo T, Tadokoro T, Tokushige A, Zamami T, Taira S, Ikehara Y, et al. Effects of Perioperative Administration of Acetaminophen on Postoperative Shivering: A Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Anesth Analg. 2020;130(4):983–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Honasoge A, Parker B, Wesselhoff K, Lyons N, Kulstad E. First Use of a New Device for Administration of Buspirone and Acetaminophen to Suppress Shivering During Therapeutic Hypothermia. Ther Hypothermia Temp Manag. 2016;6(1):48–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Saglam G, Gunduz O, Ulugol A. Blockade of cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors does not prevent the antipruritic effect of systemic paracetamol. Acta Neurol Belg. 2014;114(4):307–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Apfel CC, Turan A, Souza K, Pergolizzi J, Hornuss C. Intravenous acetaminophen reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2013;154(5):677–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Allen TK, Jones CA, Habib AS. Dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting associated with neuraxial morphine administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(4):813–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Banihashem N, Hasannasab B, Alereza H. Does dexamethasone prevent subarachnoid meperidin-induced nausea, vomiting and pruritus after cesarean delivery? Saudi J Anaesth. 2013;7(2):138–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tanno LK, Fillard A, Landry Q, Ramdane C, Bourrain JL, Demoly P, et al. Ephedrine-induced erythrodermia: Clinical diagnostic procedure and cross-sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79(1):43–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen Z, Wei H, Pertovaara A, Wang J, Carlson S. Anxiety- and activity-related effects of paracetamol on healthy and neuropathic rats. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2018;6(1):1–11.

  39. Alsaif A, Alqahtani S, Alanazi F, Alrashed F, Almutairi A. Patient satisfaction and experience with anesthesia: A multicenter survey in Saudi population. Saudi J Anaesth. 2018;12(2):304–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anesthesia residents who helped completing this study.

Funding

No funding was obtained for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Ibrahim M. Esmat, Marwa M. Mohamed, Wail A. Abdelaal & Tarek M. Ashoor

  2. Community Medicine Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt

    Hazem M. El-Hariri

Authors
  1. Ibrahim M. Esmat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marwa M. Mohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wail A. Abdelaal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hazem M. El-Hariri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tarek M. Ashoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IM E invented the main idea of research, searched the database, designed the study, shared in data analysis, write the primary and final manuscript and final manuscript editing. TM A helped in the study design, helped in clinical cases, collected the data, searched the database and shared in data analysis. MM M invented the main idea of research, helped in clinical cases, collected the data, and searched the database. WA A helped in clinical cases, collect the data, and search the database. HM E searched the database, shared in data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarek M. Ashoor.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval from Ain-Shams University Hospitals research committee was obtained (FMASU R 49 / 2018) and was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03679065). Written informed consents were taken from all the patients, their parents or their guardians before any study procedure was conducted. The study protocol was performed in accordance to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declared that they had no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Esmat, I.M., Mohamed, M.M., Abdelaal, W.A. et al. Postspinal anesthesia shivering in lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries: a randomized controlled comparison between paracetamol and dexamethasone. BMC Anesthesiol 21, 262 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01483-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01483-7

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us