Literature DB >> 16055576

Complications of anesthesia for cesarean delivery.

Steven L Bloom1, Catherine Y Spong, Steven J Weiner, Mark B Landon, Dwight J Rouse, Michael W Varner, Atef H Moawad, Steve N Caritis, Margaret Harper, Ronald J Wapner, Yoram Sorokin, Menachem Miodovnik, Mary J O'Sullivan, Baha Sibai, Oded Langer, Steven G Gabbe.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify anesthesia-related complications associated with cesarean delivery in a well-described, prospectively ascertained cohort from multiple university-based hospitals in the United States and to evaluate whether certain factors would identify women at increased risk for a failed regional anesthetic.
METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted of women (n = 37,142) with singleton gestations undergoing cesarean delivery in the centers forming the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Detailed information was collected regarding choice of anesthesia and procedure-related complications, including failed regional anesthetic and maternal death. Potential risk factors for a failed regional anesthetic were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the women studied, 34,615 (93%) received a regional anesthetic. Few (3.0%) regional procedures failed, and related maternal morbidity was rare. Increased maternal size, higher preoperative risk, rapid decision-to-incision interval, and placement later in labor were all significantly related to an increased risk of a failed regional procedure. Of the general anesthetics, 38% were administered when the decision-to-incision interval was less than 15 minutes. Women deemed at the greatest preoperative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists score > or = 4) were approximately 7-fold more likely to receive a general anesthetic (odds ratio 6.9, 95% confidence interval 5.83-8.07). There was one maternal death, due to a failed intubation, in which the anesthetic procedure was directly implicated.
CONCLUSION: Regional techniques have become the preferred method of anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Procedure-related complications are rare and attest to the safety of modern obstetric anesthesia for cesarean delivery in the United States.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16055576     DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000171105.39219.55

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  7 in total

1.  Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis.

Authors:  Kelly Yamasato; Bliss Kaneshiro; Jennifer Salcedo
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 1.730

2.  Current status of obstetric anaesthesia: improving satisfaction and safety.

Authors:  J Sudharma Ranasinghe; David Birnbach
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2009-10

3.  Epidemiology of anesthesia-related complications in labor and delivery, New York State, 2002-2005.

Authors:  Khadeen Cheesman; Joanne E Brady; Pamela Flood; Guohua Li
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Impact of obesity on incision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes at cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Shayna N Conner; Methodius G Tuuli; Ryan E Longman; Anthony O Odibo; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Effect of anaesthetic technique on neonatal morbidity in emergency caesarean section for foetal distress.

Authors:  Ipek Saadet Edipoglu; Fatma Celik; Elif Cirakoglu Marangoz; Gulin Haroglu Orcan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A Retrospective Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Opioid-free Anesthesia versus Opioid Anesthesia for General Cesarean Section.

Authors:  Garrett Enten; Mina A Shenouda; David Samuels; Naomi Fowler; Maha Balouch; Enrico Camporesi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-09-22

7.  Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study.

Authors:  Charles S Algert; Jennifer R Bowen; Warwick B Giles; Greg E Knoblanche; Samantha J Lain; Christine L Roberts
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 8.775

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.