Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a comparison of time efficiency, costs, charges, and complications

Intravenous Dexmedetomidine as an Adjunct to Neuraxial Anesthesia in Cesarean Delivery: A Retrospective Chart Review

Background

Dexmedetomidine is a selective α-2 agonist commonly used for sedation that has been used in obstetric anesthesia for multimodal labor analgesia, postcesarean delivery analgesia, and perioperative shivering. This study evaluated the role of intravenous dexmedetomidine to provide rescue analgesia and/or sedation during cesarean delivery under neuraxial anesthesia.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all parturients undergoing cesarean delivery under neuraxial anesthesia between December 1, 2018, and November 30, 2019, who required supplemental analgesia during the procedure. Patients were divided into two groups: patients who received intravenous dexmedetomidine (Dexmed group) and patients who received adjunct medications such as fentanyl, midazolam, ketamine, and nitrous oxide (Standard group). Primary outcome was incidence of conversion to general anesthesia.

Results

During the study period, 107 patients received adjunct medications. There was no difference in conversion to general anesthesia between the Dexmed group and the Standard group (6% (4/62) vs. 9% (4/45); p=0.718). In the Dexmed group, the mean dexmedetomidine dose received was 37 μg (range 10 to 140 μg). While the use of inotropic/vasopressor medications was common and similar in both groups, there was an increase in the incidence of bradycardia (Dexmed 15% vs. Standard 2%; p=0.042) but not hypotension (Dexmed 24% vs. Standard 24%; p=1.00) in the Dexmed group.

Conclusion

In patients who required supplemental analgesia for cesarean delivery, those who received dexmedetomidine versus other medications had a similar rate of conversion to general anesthesia, a statistically significant increase in bradycardia, but no difference in the incidence of hypotension.

Uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair in Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on maternal outcomes associated with uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair in women undergoing Cesarean delivery.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing uterine exteriorization with in situ repair during Cesarean delivery. Primary outcomes were intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) and perioperative decrease in hemoglobin concentration. Secondary outcomes were postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), estimated blood loss, fever, endometritis, wound infection, intraoperative and postoperative pain, postoperative analgesic use, duration of surgery and hospital stay, and time to return of bowel function.

RESULTS

Twenty studies with 20,909 parturients were included. Exteriorization was associated with higher risk of IONV (odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66 to 2.63; I² = 0%), with no difference in perioperative hemoglobin concentration decrease (mean difference, - 0.06 g·dL^-1; 95% CI, - 0.20 to 0.08; I² = 97%) compared with in situ repair. There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, PONV, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, time to return of bowel function, fever, endometritis, or wound infection. Postoperative pain (incidence of pain graded > 5/10) at six hours (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.31 to 2.03; I² = 0%) was higher with exteriorization, but there was no difference in need for rescue analgesia (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.89 to 6.90; I² = 94%) or pain scores at 24 hr compared with in situ repair.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, uterine exteriorization was associated with an increased risk of IONV but no significant change in perioperative hemoglobin decrease compared with in situ repair.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020190074); registered 5 July 2020.

The Current Practice of Spinal Anesthesia in Anesthetists at a Comprehensive Specialized Hospital: A Single Center Observational Study

Background

Spinal anesthesia block is the most widely practiced anesthesia technique due to its safety margin. It is an invasive procedure that could be associated with a variety of complications like total spinal, cardiovascular collapse, meningitis, paralysis, and even death. The aim of this study to assess the current practice of spinal anesthesia.

Methods

A Cross-sectional study design was conducted in Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital from November 01 to December 15, 2020. All anesthesia professionals who are working in the study Hospital were surveyed by the Purposive sampling technique. A standardized structured checklist prepared from recommendations of New York school of regional anesthesia guideline regarding the current Practice of spinal anesthesia was used to collect the data after taking written informed consent. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the results.

Results

A total of 24 anesthetists were observed of their practice before, during, and after administer of spinal anesthesia. All of the anesthetists were practicing the preparation and assembling of all necessary anesthesia equipments, resuscitation drugs, and basic monitors while all of the anesthetists did not wash their hands, wore a sterile gown, and draped the back of the patient with fenestrated drapes in a sterile fashion.

Conclusion

Most of the anesthesiology professionals in our setting have a good preparation of all necessary anesthesia equipments, and resuscitation drugs, while the assessment of patient’s emotional reaction and pain during injection, the skin preparation allowed to being dry and assessment of the degree of sensory and motor block of the patient were insufficient.

Anesthesia for Cesarean Section: Retrospective Comparative Study

Background

Cesarean section is a widely performed surgery.

Objective

To compare anesthetic types regarding feto-maternal outcomes.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective comparative study of 3599 cesarean sections (emergency and elective categories).

Results

Mean APGAR score was statistically higher in the spinal than general anesthesia among the emergency category, P = 0.000 and 0.026, respectively, with no significant difference in the elective category. Estimated blood loss among the elective category was statistically significantly higher in the spinal than general anesthesia, P = 0.001. However, among the emergency category, it was significantly higher in the general than in spinal or epidural anesthesia, P = 0.000. Diclofenac sodium was used more after spinal than general anesthesia (P = 0.000), with no significant difference between epidural and general or between epidural and spinal anesthesia. Pethidine hydrochloride (HCL) was used more after general than after spinal anesthesia (P = 0.000). However, pethidine HCL use was not statistically significantly different between spinal and epidural anesthesia. In the elective category, paracetamol was requested more after spinal than epidural or general anesthesia, P = 0.000. No significant difference was seen between epidural and general anesthesia, P = 1.000. No statistically significant difference was found among the anesthetic types in both categories regarding tramadol HCL. Length of hospital stay, operative time and neonatal intensive care unit admission were not statistically different between anesthetic modes. In the emergency category, significantly higher percentage of patients were satisfied with and would recommend epidural anesthesia.

Conclusion

There was no statistically significant difference among the three types of anesthesia regarding neonatal intensive care admission and length of hospital stay for emergency and elective categories. APGAR score was higher with spinal than with general anesthesia in the emergency category with no significant difference in the elective category. More diclofenac sodium and paracetamol and less opioids were used after regional than after general anesthesia. Satisfaction was higher with epidural anesthesia.

Limitations

Retrospective and single centered.

Fixed Dose versus Height-Adjusted Conventional Dose of Intrathecal Hyperbaric Bupivacaine for Caesarean Delivery: A Prospective, Double-Blinded Randomised Trial

The optimal intrathecal dose of local anaesthetic for caesarean section (CS) anaesthesia is still being debated. We performed a study to compare the effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia with 12.5 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine and a dosing regimen of conventional doses adjusted to parturient height. One hundred and forty parturients scheduled for elective CS were enrolled. The fixed-dose group (FD) received a spinal block with 12.5 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine with fentanyl, whereas the adjusted-dose group (AD) received a height-adjusted dose of bupivacaine (9-13 mg) with fentanyl. Sensory block ≥ T5 dermatome within 10 min and no need for supplementary analgesia were set as the composite primary outcome (success). Rates of successful blocks and complications were compared. Complete data were available for 134 cases. Spinal anaesthesia was successful in 58 out of 67 patients in the FD group and 57 out of 67 in the AD group (p > 0.05). Eight spinals in each group failed to produce a block ≥ T5 in 10 min, and one patient in the FD group and two in the AD group required i.v. analgesics despite sensory block ≥ T5. No differences were noted in terms of hypotension, bradycardia and nausea between the FD and AD groups. Compared to the height-adjusted dose regimen based on conventional doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine, the fixed dose regimen of 12.5 mg was equally effective and did not increase the risk of spinal block-related complications.

Evaluation of changes in anesthetic methods for cesarean delivery: an analysis for 5 years using the big data of the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service

Background

As an anesthesia induced during cesarean section, spinal anesthesia is preferred over general and epidural anesthesia. This study aimed to review the trend of anesthetic methods for cesarean section based on data obtained from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service from 2013 to 2018.

Methods

The anesthetic methods were analyzed in 753,285 parturients who underwent a cesarean section in Korea from 2013 to 2018. We determined the association between each anesthetic method and hospital type and maternal and fetal factors. We also evaluated whether the anesthetic method was associated with the parturients’ length of hospital stay.

Results

General anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, and epidural anesthesia were induced in 28.8%, 47.7%, and 23.6% of parturients from 2013 to 2018, respectively. Trend analyses showed that spinal anesthesia increased from 40.0% in 2013 to 53.7% in 2018. The opposite trend applied to general anesthesia, decreasing from 37.1% in 2013 to 22.2% in 2018. The factors that were significantly associated with the anesthetic method were parturient’s parity, emergency condition, gestational age, and fetal weight. The type of hospital, parturient’s age, and multiple birth were also associated with the anesthetic methods. There was a strong association between general anesthesia and hospital stay longer than 7 days.

Conclusions

Spinal anesthesia is currently the main anesthetic method used for cesarean delivery, and the rate of spinal anesthesia is gradually increasing in Korea.

Obesity And Obstetric Anesthesia: Current Insights

Obesity is a significant global health problem. It results in a higher incidence of complications for pregnant women and their neonates. Cesarean deliveries are more common in obese parturients as well. The increased burden of comorbidities seen in this population, such as obstructive sleep apnea, necessitates antepartum anesthetic consultation. These patients pose unique challenges for the practicing anesthesiologist and may benefit from optimization prior to delivery. Complications from anesthesia and overall morbidity and mortality are higher in this population. Neuraxial anesthesia can be challenging to place in the obese parturient, but is the preferred anesthetic for cesarean delivery to avoid airway manipulation, minimize aspiration risk, prevent fetal exposure to volatile anesthetic, and decrease risk of post-partum hemorrhage from volatile anesthetic exposure. Monitoring and positioning of these patients for surgery may pose specific challenges. Functional labor epidural catheters can be topped up to provide conditions suitable for surgery. In the absence of a working epidural catheter, a combined spinal epidural anesthetic is often the technique of choice due to relative ease of placement versus a single shot spinal technique as well as the ability to extend the anesthetic through the epidural portion. For cesarean delivery with a vertical supraumbilical skin incision, a two-catheter technique may be beneficial. Concern for thromboembolism necessitates early mobilization and a multimodal analgesic regimen can help accomplish this. In addition, thromboprophylaxis is recommended in this population after delivery—especially cesarean delivery. These patients also need close monitoring in the post-partum period when they are at increased risk for several complications.

A Review of the Impact of Obstetric Anesthesia on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes

Obstetric anesthesia has evolved over the course of its history to encompass comprehensive aspects of maternal care, ranging from cesarean delivery anesthesia and labor analgesia to maternal resuscitation and patient safety. Anesthesiologists are concerned with maternal and neonatal outcomes, and with preventing and managing complications that may present during childbirth. The current review will focus on recent advances in obstetric anesthesia, including labor anesthesia and analgesia, cesarean delivery anesthesia and analgesia, the effects of maternal anesthesia on breastfeeding and fever, and maternal safety. The impact of these advances on maternal and neonatal outcomes is discussed. Past and future progress in this field will continue to have significant implications on the health of women and children.

Vasopressors for the management of maternal hypotension during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: A Systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia is the standard technique for elective cesarean section, but the incidence of maternal hypotension in this setting is reportedly about 80%, without any prophylactic management. Vasopressors are the most reliable method for counteracting the hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia. However, studies investigating the effects of vasopressors have yielded inconsistent and debatable results. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to identify the most effective vasopressor to prevent maternal hypotension, and to decrease fetal acidosis in women undergoing spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section.

METHODS

A systematic and comprehensive search to detect all the randomized controlled studies on vasopressors for the management of maternal hypotension during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia will be performed using information in the databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar, beginning from their inception to October 2018. We will conduct a network meta-analysis to combine the direct and indirect comparisons of the vasopressors. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms to present the hierarchy of vasopressors. A comparison-adjusted funnel plot will be used to assess the presence of small-study effects. The quality of the studies included will be assessed using the risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses will be performed using Stata SE version 15.0.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethical approval and informed consent are not required, as the study will be a literature review and will not involve direct contact with patients or alterations to patient care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The protocol for this review has been registered in the PROSPERO network (registration number: CRD42018111852).

Managing anesthesia for cesarean section in obese patients: current perspectives

Obesity is a worldwide epidemic. It is associated with increased comorbidities and increased maternal, fetal, and neonatal complications. The risk of cesarean delivery is also increased in obese parturients. Anesthetic management of the obese parturient is challenging and requires adequate planning. Therefore, those patients should be referred to antenatal anesthetic consultation. Anesthesia-related complications and maternal mortality are increased in this patient population. The risk of difficult intubation is increased in obese patients. Neuraxial techniques are the preferred anesthetic techniques for cesarean delivery in obese parturients but can be technically challenging. An existing labor epidural catheter can be topped up for cesarean delivery. In patients who do not have a well-functioning labor epidural, a combined spinal epidural technique might be preferred over a single-shot spinal technique since it is technically easier in obese parturients and allows for extending the duration of the block as required. A continuous spinal technique can also be considered. Studies suggest that there is no need to reduce the dose of spinal bupivacaine in the obese parturient, but there is little data about spinal dosing in super obese parturients. Intraoperatively, patients should be placed in a ramped position, with close monitoring of ventilation and hemodynamic status. Adequate postoperative analgesia is crucial to allow for early mobilization. This can be achieved using a multimodal regimen incorporating neuraxial morphine (with appropriate observations) with scheduled nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen. Thromboprophylaxis is also important in this patient population due to the increased risk of thromboembolic complications. These patients should be monitored carefully in the postoperative period, since there is increased risk of postoperative complications in the morbidly obese parturients.

The effect of anaesthesia technique on caesarean section

Objective:

When conducting a caesarean section under regional anaesthesia, either epidural anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia can be used. Patients who underwent caesarean section in our hospital were surveyed retrospectively to confirm and compare the merits and demerits of spinal anaesthesia and epidural anaesthesia to determine the most efficient approach.

Methods:

Mothers meeting the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system (ASA) I or II, who underwent caesarean sections at our hospital were surveyed retrospectively. The survey targeted one hundred patients each who received spinal anaesthesia and epidural anaesthesia. The time from anaesthesia to surgical incision (A to S time), entire anaesthesia time, and the usage of vasopressor and midazolam were compared according to anaesthetic approach.

Results:

The A to S time and the entire anaesthesia time of the group that underwent spinal anaesthesia were significantly short compared to the times recorded for the group who underwent epidural anaesthesia, and the use of vasopressor was more frequent in the spinal anaesthesia group because their blood pressure decline was larger.

Conclusion:

The A to S time and the entire anaesthetic time were longer for epidural anaesthesia than for spinal anaesthesia. However, the haemodynamic change was smaller and vasopressor was hardly used in the former group. Therefore, the choice of the technical method will depend on the clinical, anaesthetic, and obstetric situation.

Anaesthetic challenges and management during pregnancy: Strategies revisited

During pregnancy, an obstetrician can encounter various complications and sometimes require surgery or operative intervention for delivery. However, the role of anaesthesiologists during such clinical scenario is grossly under-estimated. Without any close coordination and team work among obstetricians, neonatologists and an anaesthesiologist, morbidity and mortality can increase during these surgical interventions. The clinical scenario can become more challenging if the parturient suffers from any comorbid diseases. The present article reviews some of the common challenging scenarios during pregnancy that an anaesthesiologist frequently encounters during routine practice. Anaesthetic management has been discussed briefly and separately for each trimester and post-partum period. The article also aims at gaining in-depth knowledge of these obstetrical and surgical emergencies so as to ensure close-knit team work among obstetricians, anaesthesiologists, intensivists and a neonatologist.

The effect of addition of intrathecal clonidine to hyperbaric bupivacaine on postoperative pain after lower segment caesarean section: A randomized control trial

Background:

Intrathecal clonidine prolongs spinal anesthesia but the optimum dose to be used in cesarean delivery is not yet known. We evaluated the effect of addition of intrathecal clonidine to hyperbaric bupivacaine on postoperative pain after lower segment caesarean section.

Methods:

A total of 105 parturients carrying a singleton fetus at term, scheduled to undergo elective LSCS under spinal anesthesia were randomized in a double blind fashion to one of the three groups. Group BF (n=35) received 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine+25 μg fentanyl, Group BC₅₀ (n=35) received 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine+50 μg clonidine, Group BC₇₅ (n=35) received 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine+75 μg clonidine.

Results:

The duration of postoperative analgesia was 184.73±68.64 min in group BF, 360.71±86.51 min in group BC₅₀ and 760.50±284.03 min in group BC₇₅, P<0.001. The incidence of hypotension was comparable, P=0.932, whereas the incidence of nausea and pruritis was significantly lower in groups BC₅₀ and BC₇₅ as compared to group BF, P<0.001. No other side effects of intrathecal clonidine were detected. Neonatal outcome was similar in all the three groups.

Conclusions:

Addition of 75 μg clonidine to hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for LSCS significantly prolongs the duration of postoperative analgesia without any increase in maternal side effects. There was no difference in neonatal outcome.

A comparative study of infusions of phenylephrine, ephedrine and phenylephrine plus ephedrine on maternal haemodynamics in elective caesarean section

INTRODUCTION

This randomized double blind study was started with an objective of management of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in elective caesarean section by combining two commonly used vasopressors - ephedrine and phenylephrine in half of their usual doses with an expectation of reducing their foetomaternal side effects.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty two patients were randomized into three groups to receive either 100 μg/ml phenylephrine (group-P, n=31) or 3 μg/ml ephedrine (group-E, n=33) or 50 mg phenylephrine plus 1.5 mg ephedrine/ml (group-PE, n=29). Immediately after spinal injection the study solution was started prophylactically in every patient at the rate of 40 ml/h. A predefined algorithm was used to adjust the infusion rate according to the systolic blood pressure (SBP).

RESULTS

Mean fall of SBP was significantly more in group-E than group-P (P=0.009) and group-PE (P=0.013). This was not significantly different when compared between group-P and group-PE (P=0.9). Episodes of hypotension and tachycardia were more in group-E than the other two groups. Statistically significant tachycardia was seen in Group-E than that in other two groups. Incidence of bradycardia and hypertension did not differ significantly among the groups. Maternal nausea and Apgar score were also comparable in three groups.

CONCLUSION

Current study claims that prophylactic phenylephrine 100 mg/ml is a better choice than ephedrine (3 mg/ml) or 50 mcg phenylephrine plus 1.5 mg ephedrine/ml in prevention of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in elective caesarean section. Combination of two drugs in half the usual dose has no added advantage over phenylephrine, but this is better than ephedrine alone.

Anaesthesia for lower-segment caesarean section: Changing perspectives

The number of caesarean sections has increased over the last two decades, especially in the developed countries. Hence, it has increasingly become a greater challenge to provide care for the parturient, but this has given obstetric anaesthetists a greater opportunity to contribute to obstetric services. While caesarean deliveries were historically performed using general anaesthesia, there is a recent significant move towards regional anaesthesia. Unique problems that patients with obesity and pre-eclampsia present will be discussed in the present article. New medications and devices now used in obstetric anaesthesia will change the practice and perspectives of our clinical practice.

Comparison of fentanyl and sufentanil added to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing cesarean section

BACKGROUND

Subarachnoid block is widely used for cesarean section due to the rapid induction, the complete analgesia, the low failure rate and the prevention of aspiration pneumonia. The addition of intrathecal opioids to local anesthetics seems to improve the quality of analgesia & prolong the duration of analgesia. Therefore we compared the effects of fentanyl 20 µg and sufentanil 2.5 µg, which were added to intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine.

METHODS

SEVENTY TWO HEALTHY TERM PARTURIENTS WERE RANDOMLY DIVIDED INTO THREE GROUPS: Group C (control), Group F (fentanyl 20 µg) and Group S (sufentanil 2.5 µg). In every group, 0.5% heavy bupivacaine was added according to the adjusted dose regimen by Harten et al. We observed the maximal level of the sensory block and motor block, the quality of intraoperative analgesia, the duration of effective analgesia and the side effects.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the control and the fentanyl 20 µg and sufentanil 2.5 µg groups for the degree of muscle relaxation, the quality of intraoperative analgesia, the maximal sedation level and the duration of effective analgesia. The frequencies of side effects such as nausea and pruritis in the opioid groups were higher than those in the control group. But there were no differences between fentanyl 20 µg and sufentanil 2.5 µg for the frequencies of nausea and pruritis.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of fentanyl 20 µg or sufentanil 2.5 µg for spinal anesthesia provides adequate intraoperative analgesia without significant adverse effects on the mother and neonate.

Quality of life following permanent neurological damage after subarachnoid block

Introduction. Caesarean section is the commonest operation carried out in females of the reproductive age group. Spinal anaesthesia is commonly used for caesarean section with its risk. Permanent paralysis of the lower limbs following subarachnoid block is a rare complication but can occur even in the best of hands. Case Summary. This is a 29-year-old final-year university student now 34 years old who had emergency caesarean section for cephalopelvic disproportion in 2005 under spinal anaesthesia in a low-resource setting in a developing country. She developed permanent neurological deficit thereafter. She had urinary and faecal incontinence for one year. She lost one academic session at her school because of long hospital stay and is now confined to a wheel chair. She celebrated her daughter's fifth birthday in October, 2010. Although there is ability in inability, she is now disabled. Conclusion. It is important for clinicians to recognise the complications of subarachnoid block promptly to avoid delay in treatment and severe neurological deficits.

A survey of perioperative and postoperative anesthetic practices for cesarean delivery

The aim of this survey was to review cesarean delivery anesthetic practices. An online survey was sent to members of the Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP). The mode of anesthesia, preferred neuraxial local anesthetic and opioid agents, postoperative analgesic regimens, and monitoring modalities were assessed. 384 responses from 1,081 online survey requests were received (response rate = 36%). Spinal anesthesia is most commonly used for elective cesarean delivery (85% respondents), with 90% of these respondents preferring hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75%. 79% used intrathecal fentanyl and 77% used morphine (median [range] dose 200 mcg [50–400]). 91% use respiratory rate, 61% use sedation scores, and 30% use pulse oximetry to monitor for postoperative respiratory depression after administration of neuraxial opioids. Postoperative analgesic regimens include: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, acetaminophen, oxycodone, and hydrocodone by 81%, 45%, 25%, and 27% respondents respectively. The majority of respondents use spinal anesthesia and neuraxial opioids for cesarean delivery anesthesia. There is marked variability in practices for monitoring respiratory depression postdelivery and for providing postoperative analgesia. These results may not be indicative of overall practice in the United States due to the select group of anesthesiologists surveyed and the low response rate.

Pelvic floor consequences of cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The potential benefit in preventing pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) is a frequently cited reason for requesting or performing cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR). However, for primigravid women without medical/obstetric indications, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of CDMR remains unknown, particularly with regard to lifelong pelvic floor consequences. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CDMR in comparison to trial of labor (TOL) for primigravid women without medical/obstetric indications with a single childbirth over their lifetime, while explicitly accounting for the management of PFD throughout the lifetime.

METHODS

We used Monte Carlo simulation of a decision model containing 249 chance events and 101 parameters depicting lifelong maternal and neonatal outcomes in the following domains: actual mode of delivery, emergency hysterectomy, transient maternal morbidity and mortality, perinatal morbidity and mortality, and the lifelong management of PFDs. Parameter estimates were obtained from published literature. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. All costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted to the present value at childbirth.

RESULTS

The estimated mean cost and QALYs were $14,259 (95% confidence interval [CI] $8,964-$24,002) and 58.21 (95% CI 57.43-58.67) for CDMR and $13,283 (95% CI $7,861-$23,829) and 57.87 (95% CI 56.97-58.46) for TOL over the combined lifetime of the mother and the child. Parameters related to PFDs play an important role in determining cost and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

When a woman without medical/obstetric indications has only one childbirth in her lifetime, cost-effectiveness analysis does not reveal a clearly preferable mode of delivery.

Risk factors for failure to extend labor epidural analgesia to epidural anesthesia for Cesarean section

OBJECTIVE

To identify parturients at risk of inability to extend labor epidural analgesia in whom alternative methods of anesthesia should be considered for Cesarean section (CS).

METHODS

For 6 months, we prospectively studied women undergoing a CS with a functioning epidural catheter in place from the delivery ward. All parturients received the same epidural protocol: bolus of bupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl, then bupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl (2 microg/ml) 10-15 ml/h and an additional 5 ml of bupivacaine 0.125% top-ups according to patient request. Sixteen millilitres of lidocaine 2%, 1 ml of bicarbonate, and 100 microg of fentanyl were given for CS. Failed epidural analgesia was defined as the need to convert to general anesthesia.

RESULTS

Of the 101 parturients studied, 20 (19.8%) required conversion to general anesthesia. In univariate analysis, the likelihood of failed epidural anesthesia was inversely correlated with parturient's age (P = 0.014) and directly correlated with pre-pregnancy weight (P = 0.019), weight at the end of pregnancy (P = 0.003), body mass index (BMI) at the end of pregnancy (P = 0.0004), gestational week (P = 0.008), number of top-ups (P = 0.0004) and visual analog scale (VAS) 2 h before CS (P = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, the number of top-ups in the delivery ward was the best predictor of epidural anesthesia failure (odds ratio 4.39, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Younger, more obese parturients at a higher gestational week, requiring more top-ups during labor, having a higher VAS in the 2 h before CS are at risk of inability to extend labor epidural analgesia to epidural anesthesia for CS.

Risk factors for failure to extend labor epidural analgesia to epidural anesthesia for Cesarean section

AIM

To identify parturients at risk of inability to extend labor epidural analgesia in whom alternative methods of anesthesia should be considered for Cesarean section (CS).

METHODS

For 6 months, we prospectively studied women undergoing CS with a functioning epidural catheter in place from the delivery ward. All parturients received the same epidural protocol: bolus of bupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl, followed by bupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl (2 microg/ml) 10-15 ml/h and an additional 5 ml of bupivacaine 0.125% as top-up according to patient request. Sixteen milliliters of lidocaine 2%, 1 ml of bicarbonate and 100 microg of fentanyl were given for CS. Failed epidural analgesia was defined as the need to convert to general anesthesia.

RESULTS

Of the 101 parturients studied, 20 (19.8%) required conversion to general anesthesia. In univariate analysis, the likelihood of failed epidural anesthesia was inversely correlated with parturient age (P = 0.014) and directly correlated with pre-pregnancy weight (P = 0.019), weight at the end of pregnancy (P = 0.003), body mass index at the end of pregnancy (P = 0.0004), gestational week (P = 0.008), number of top-ups (P = 0.0004) and visual analog scale (VAS) score 2 h before CS (P = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, the number of top-ups in the delivery ward was the best predictor of epidural anesthesia failure (odds ratio, 4.39; P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Younger, more obese parturients at a higher gestational week, requiring more top-ups during labor and having a higher VAS score in the 2 h before CS are at risk for inability to extend labor epidural analgesia to epidural anesthesia for CS.

Change in anaesthetic practice for Caesarean section in Germany

BACKGROUND

Initial data from 1996 revealed that in contrast to several other countries general anaesthesia was the preferred anaesthetic technique for Caesarean section in Germany. However, anaesthetic practice for Caesarean section has changed during the last decades world-wide. This investigation was performed to obtain more actual data on anaesthetic procedures in obstetric patients in German hospitals.

METHODS

Questionnaires on the practice of anaesthesia for Caesarean section were mailed to 918 German departments of anaesthesiology. Furthermore, the survey evaluated severe perioperative complications in obstetric patients.

RESULTS

The 397 completed replies in this survey represent 41.3% of all German deliveries in 2002. Spinal anaesthesia is now the most common technique (50.5%) for elective Caesarean section. In case of urgent and emergency Caesarean, delivery figures decrease to 34.6% and 4.8%, respectively. Epidural anaesthesia is performed in 21.6% of scheduled and 13.2% and 1.0% of non-scheduled urgent or emergency Caesarean sections, respectively. Four maternal deaths and several non-fatal episodes of gastric content aspiration were reported by the respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to data obtained 6 years ago a significant increase in regional anaesthesia for Caesarean section has developed, with spinal anaesthesia being the preferred technique. Surveys can help to initiate discussion and improve current practice of anaesthetic care.

Comparison of combined spinal epidural anesthesia and epidural anesthesia for cesarean section

BACKGROUND

Epidural anesthesia (EA) is popular for cesarean section, but has some drawbacks such as incomplete block, inadequate muscle relaxation and delayed onset. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) has gained increasing interest as it combines the reliability of a spinal block and the flexibility of an epidural block. We investigated the efficacy of CSEA that combines the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, comparing with pH-adjusted EA, for cesarean section.

METHODS

Sixty-four pregnant women at full term were divided into two groups. Patients in the CSEA group (n=32) were given 1.5-1.6 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally, followed by 10 ml of 0.25% plain bupivacaine through the epidural catheter 10 min later. Patients in the EA group (n=32) received 20-25 ml of 2% lidocaine which was already mixed with 0.1 ml of 0.1% epinephrine, 100 g of fentanyl and 1.5 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The quality and side effects of surgical anesthesia, neonatal state, and postoperative course were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the EA group, 22% (7 cases) complained of intraoperative pain but none in the CSEA group (P=0.011). Muscle relaxation and motor block were much better in the CSEA group (P<0.001 and P=0.011 each). Significantly more women in the EA group had shivering (P=0.001). They also had more nausea and vomiting but the differences were not significant. Not only the time to T4 block (9.7 vs. 18.3 min, mean, P<0.001) but also the stay in the postanesthesia care unit, recovery of sensory and motor block and start of postoperative pain were all significantly shorter in the CSEA group. No one in either group had postdural puncture headache (PDPH).

CONCLUSION

We can conclude that, when combining the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, CSEA has greater efficacy and fewer side effects than the pH-adjusted EA in cesarean sections.

Surveys on the use of regional anaesthesia in obstetrics

Regional anaesthetic techniques in obstetrics have gained more and more importance during the last few years. Several surveys published recently show a remarkable increase in caesarean sections performed under regional anaesthesia, in many countries. Furthermore, epidural analgesia has proved to be one of the most effective methods of pain relief during vaginal delivery. Especially in patients at risk of an abdominal delivery, an epidural catheter already in place during labour can be used for consecutive caesarean section without delay and is used as a strong argument in favour of epidural anaesthesia. This article gives an overview of recent surveys of regional anaesthesia in obstetrics.