Immediate birth – an analysis of women and their babies undergoing time critical birth in a tertiary referral obstetric hospital

Analysis of the application effect of a rapid response team in emergency cesarean section

INTRODUCTION

Emergency cesarean section is one of the most critical methods in the treatment of high-risk emergency obstetric cases. The aim of this study was to explore the clinical effect of constructing a Rapid Response Team (RRT) in emergency cesarean section.

METHODS

This is a pre- and post-implementation study. The patients who underwent emergency cesarean section were retrospectively analyzed and divided into an experimental group and a control group. There were 52 patients (June-December 2020) in the control group who underwent routine emergency cesarean section without an RRT, and 51 patients (January-June 2021) in the experimental group who underwent emergency cesarean section with an RRT. The operation time indexes (DOI, decision-to-operating room interval; O-I, operating room-to-incision interval; DII, decision-to-incision interval; I-D, incision-to-delivery interval; DDI, decision-to-delivery interval), DDI pass rate, neonatal Apgar score and maternal complications in the two groups were compared. Moreover, the management time trends (DOI, DII, and DDI) in the experimental group were analyzed.

RESULTS

The DDI, DII, DOI, and O-I of the experimental group were shorter than those of the control group, and the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The DDI pass rate in the experimental group was higher than that in the control group, and the difference was significant (p < 0.01). The 1-min Apgar score of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group (p < 0.05). The key intervals of emergency cesarean section in the experimental group leveled off after approximately 3 to 4 months.

CONCLUSION

In the face of emergency situations, the implementation of an emergency cesarean section RRT can improve delivery intervals for emergency cesarean and would be conducive to maternal and infant safety.

Incidence of conversion to general anaesthesia and need for intravenous supplementation in parturients undergoing caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Conversion from spinal anaesthesia to general anaesthesia (GA) was shown to be associated with more complications. It has been postulated that spinal injection of a low dose of local anaesthetic is a risk factor. We aimed to discover the rate of conversion from spinal anaesthesia to GA in women who received at least 10 mg heavy bupivacaine and opioids and assess its risk factors.

METHODS

All women that underwent spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020 were included in this analysis. Spinal anaesthesia was performed according to department protocol using heavy bupivacaine 0.5% 10-13 mg, fentanyl 20 μg, and morphine 0.1 mg. We examined rate of conversion from spinal anaesthesia to GA and rate of need for analgesia/sedation.

RESULTS

There were 1.7% of women that required conversion to GA. Bupivacaine dose (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.38 to 0.75], p < 0.001), surgery time (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.04], p < 0.001), emergency caesarean section (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.16 to 3.76], p = 0.015), and postpartum haemorrhage (OR 5.96 [95% CI 1.09 to 25.18], p = 0.025) were independent predictors of need for conversion to GA. Of the women who had CS under spinal anaesthesia, 4.1% of parturients required intraoperative analgesics/sedatives and 9.1% required anxiolysis.

CONCLUSIONS

A small proportion of women required conversion to GA. This conversion occurred especially with emergency caesarean section and when low spinal bupivacaine doses were used.

Obstetric Emergencies requiring Rapid response team activation: A retrospective cohort study in a high-risk tertiary care centre

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to better understand obstetric codes requiring rapid response team (RRT) activation by examining their incidence, indications, team response and patient outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study in peripartum women who required activation of "Code 77 (C77)" (obstetric emergency), "Code Blue (CB)" (cardiopulmonary compromise) or "Code Omega (CO)" (massive transfusion) during hospitalization during January 2014-May 2018. Hospital database and health records were interrogated to identify and review cases. Data on code characteristics, resuscitative measures, and maternal/ neonatal outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

147 codes were identified (C77, n=110; CO, n=25; CB, n=12) during the study period, with an incidence of 1:203 deliveries (C77 - 1:271 deliveries, CO - 1:1,194 deliveries and CB - 1:2,488 deliveries). The common indications for C77 were cord prolapse (33%) and fetal bradycardia (32%), and for CO and CB were postpartum hemorrhage (84%) and cardiac arrest (42%), respectively. Most (67%) codes occurred afterhours. The median (IQR) decision-to-delivery interval (DDI) was 8 (5, 15) min after C77. Emergency cesarean delivery (CD) was performed after 57% of obstetric emergencies and general anesthesia was administered in 63% of CDs. Maternal and neonatal mortality rates were 0.68% and 7%, respectively. Major maternal morbidity was seen in 33% cases. Debrief was documented in 4% codes.

CONCLUSION

RRT activation was required more commonly in C77 than in CO or CB. Their response time and DDIs were rapid. Mortality was low, however, one-third parturients had major morbidity. We suggest closer patient monitoring, immediate availability of resources, and appropriate documentation and debriefing.

An audit of the effect of case selection on compliance with a 30-minute audit standard for decision-to-delivery interval at category 1 caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Our hospital has an audit standard that ≥90% of women having category 1 (emergency) caesarean section should have a decision-to-delivery interval (DDI) ≤30 min. This audit aimed to identify potential influences of case selection on compliance.

METHODS

A prospective audit of category 1 caesarean section recorded urgency at time of decision for surgery and any urgency changes, as well as whether caesarean section followed failed operative vaginal delivery in the operating theatre.

RESULTS

Among 405 women, 158 women had failed operative vaginal delivery in the operating theatre followed by caesarean section, 247 had the delivery decision made in the labour room, 43 had a change in urgency. Depending on case inclusion, the proportion of women with DDI room, and 43 >30 min ranged between 8.3% (30/362; no urgency change, failed operative vaginal delivery included) and 21.9% (54/247; change in urgency, failed operative vaginal delivery excluded). The proportion of women with a DDI >30 min was 18.5% (42/227) if the decision for category 1 caesarean section was made in the labour delivery room (excluding cases of failed operative vaginal delivery).

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with an audit standard for (DDI) at category 1 caesarean section is markedly influenced by the inclusion criteria. For comparability with other publications, it is suggested urgency should be reported as that applied at the point of decision for caesarean section, however, category 1 caesarean section cases following failed operative vaginal delivery in the operating theatre should be identified and reported separately.

Defining the decision-to-delivery interval at caesarean section: narrative literature review and proposal for standardisation

The decision-to-delivery interval is a widely used term at non-elective caesarean section. While the definition may appear self-evident, there is no universally agreed consensus about when this period begins and ends. We reviewed the literature for original research utilising the terms 'decision-to-delivery', 'decision-to-incision' or 'incision-to-delivery' and examined definitions used for decision, delivery, incision, as well as any additional time intervals that were assessed. Our analysis demonstrated an inconsistent non-standardised approach to defining these intervals, which might have clinical practice and medicolegal ramifications. We propose that the decision-to-delivery interval should be defined as follows: the interval between the time at which the senior obstetrician makes the decision that a caesarean section is required and the time at which the fetus (or first fetus in the case of multiples) is delivered. The decision time should ideally be recorded contemporaneously in the medical notes or partogram.

Decision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes for category-1 caesarean sections during the COVID-19 pandemic

General anaesthesia is known to achieve the shortest decision‐to‐delivery interval for category‐1 caesarean section. We investigated whether the COVID‐19 pandemic affected the decision‐to delivery interval and influenced neonatal outcomes in patients who underwent category‐1 caesarean section. Records of 562 patients who underwent emergency caesarean section between 1 April 2019 and 1 July 2019 in seven UK hospitals (pre‐COVID‐19 group) were compared with 577 emergency caesarean sections performed during the same period during the COVID‐19 pandemic (1 April 2020–1 July 2020) (post‐COVID‐19 group). Primary outcome measures were: decision‐to‐delivery interval; number of caesarean sections achieving decision‐to‐delivery interval < 30 min; and a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (Apgar 5‐min score < 7, umbilical arterial pH < 7.10, neonatal intensive care unit admission and stillbirth). The use of general anaesthesia decreased significantly between the pre‐ and post‐COVID‐19 groups (risk ratio 0.48 (95%CI 0.37–0.62); p < 0.0001). Compared with the pre‐COVID‐19 group, the post‐COVID‐19 group had an increase in median (IQR [range]) decision‐to‐delivery interval (26 (18–32 [4–124]) min vs. 27 (20–33 [3–102]) min; p = 0.043) and a decrease in the number of caesarean sections meeting the decision‐to‐delivery interval target of < 30 min (374/562 (66.5%) vs. 349/577 (60.5%); p = 0.02). The incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes was similar in the pre‐ and post‐COVID‐19 groups (140/568 (24.6%) vs. 140/583 (24.0%), respectively; p = 0.85). The small increase in decision‐to‐delivery interval observed during the COVID‐19 pandemic did not adversely affect neonatal outcomes.