K S Khaw1, W D Ngan Kee, A Lee, C C Wang, A S Y Wong, F Ng, M S Rogers. 1. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, China. KimKhaw@cuhk.edu.hk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefit of administering supplementary oxygen during elective Caesarean section under regional anaesthesia is controversial. It has been hypothesized that its use would improve fetal oxygenation in the event of a prolonged uterine incision-to-delivery (U-D) interval. Our aim was to test this hypothesis in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study. METHODS: We allocated randomly 204 women having elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia to breathe 21, 40 or 60% oxygen. We recorded the U-D interval, umbilical arterial (UA) and venous (UV) blood gases and oxygen content and Apgar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed according to whether the U-D interval was prolonged (>180 s) or not. RESULTS: The U-D interval was <180 s in 159 patients and >180 s in 45 patients. There were no differences in UV or UA blood gases, oxygen content or Apgar scores between cases with and without a prolonged U-D interval. In cases without a prolonged U-D interval, administering 60% oxygen increased UV PO(2) (mean 4.3 (SD 1.1) vs 3.7 (1.0) kPa, P=0.003) and oxygen content (14.4 (3.3) vs 12.9 (2.7) ml dl(-1), P=0.007) compared with air. In cases with a prolonged U-D interval, administering 60% oxygen increased UV PO(2) (4.6 (0.6) vs 3.9 (0.8) kPa, P=0.019) compared with air but there was no difference in UV oxygen content. There was no increase in the UV PO(2) or oxygen content when 40% oxygen was administered compared with air. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementary oxygen did not increase fetal oxygenation in cases where the U-D interval was prolonged. Our data do not support the routine administration of supplementary oxygen during elective Caesarean section for this purpose.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The benefit of administering supplementary oxygen during elective Caesarean section under regional anaesthesia is controversial. It has been hypothesized that its use would improve fetal oxygenation in the event of a prolonged uterine incision-to-delivery (U-D) interval. Our aim was to test this hypothesis in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study. METHODS: We allocated randomly 204 women having elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia to breathe 21, 40 or 60% oxygen. We recorded the U-D interval, umbilical arterial (UA) and venous (UV) blood gases and oxygen content and Apgar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed according to whether the U-D interval was prolonged (>180 s) or not. RESULTS: The U-D interval was <180 s in 159 patients and >180 s in 45 patients. There were no differences in UV or UA blood gases, oxygen content or Apgar scores between cases with and without a prolonged U-D interval. In cases without a prolonged U-D interval, administering 60% oxygen increased UV PO(2) (mean 4.3 (SD 1.1) vs 3.7 (1.0) kPa, P=0.003) and oxygen content (14.4 (3.3) vs 12.9 (2.7) ml dl(-1), P=0.007) compared with air. In cases with a prolonged U-D interval, administering 60% oxygen increased UV PO(2) (4.6 (0.6) vs 3.9 (0.8) kPa, P=0.019) compared with air but there was no difference in UV oxygen content. There was no increase in the UV PO(2) or oxygen content when 40% oxygen was administered compared with air. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementary oxygen did not increase fetal oxygenation in cases where the U-D interval was prolonged. Our data do not support the routine administration of supplementary oxygen during elective Caesarean section for this purpose.