Literature DB >> 29633251

Operating room-to-incision interval and neonatal outcome in emergency caesarean section: a retrospective 5-year cohort study.

E Palmer1,2, S Ciechanowicz1, A Reeve1, S Harris1,2, D J N Wong3, P Sultan1,2.   

Abstract

We conducted a 5-year retrospective cohort study on women undergoing caesarean section to investigate factors influencing the operating room-to-incision interval. Time-to-event analysis was performed for category-1 caesarean section using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Covariates included: anaesthetic technique; body mass index; age; parity; time of delivery; and gestational age. Binary logistic regression was performed for 5-min Apgar score ≥ 7. There were 677 women who underwent category-1 caesarean section and who met the entry criteria. Unadjusted median (IQR [range]) operating room-to-incision intervals were: epidural top-up 11 (7-17 [0-87]) min; general anaesthesia 6 (4-11 [0-69]) min; spinal 13 (10-20 [0-83]) min; and combined spinal-epidural 24 (13-35 [0-75]) min. Cox regression showed general anaesthesia to be the most rapid method with a hazard ratio (95%CI) of 1.97 (1.60-2.44; p < 0.0001), followed by epidural top-up (reference group), spinal anaesthesia 0.79 (0.65-0.96; p = 0.02) and combined spinal-epidural 0.48 (0.35-0.67; p < 0.0001). Underweight and overweight body mass indexes were associated with longer operating room-to-incision intervals. General anaesthesia was associated with fewer 5-min Apgar scores ≥ 7 with an odds ratio (95%CI) of 0.28 (0.11-0.68; p < 0.01). There was no difference in neonatal outcomes between the first and fifth quintiles for operating room-to-incision intervals. General anaesthesia is associated with the most rapid operating room-to-incision interval for category-1 caesarean section, but is also associated with worse short term neonatal outcomes. Longer operating room-to-incision intervals were not associated with worse neonatal outcomes.
© 2018 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apgar score; anaesthesia: general; anaesthesia: obstetrical; caesarean section; neonatal outcome; urgency category

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29633251     DOI: 10.1111/anae.14296

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesia        ISSN: 0003-2409            Impact factor:   6.955


  7 in total

Review 1.  Conversion of labour epidural analgesia to surgical anaesthesia for emergency intrapartum Caesarean section.

Authors:  N Desai; B Carvalho
Journal:  BJA Educ       Date:  2019-11-19

Review 2.  Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Levobupivacaine.

Authors:  Chantal A A Heppolette; Derek Brunnen; Sohail Bampoe; Peter M Odor
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Labor Epidural Analgesia to Cesarean Section Anesthetic Conversion Failure: A National Survey.

Authors:  Neel Desai; Andrew Gardner; Brendan Carvalho
Journal:  Anesthesiol Res Pract       Date:  2019-06-02

Review 4.  The Current Role of General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery.

Authors:  Laurence Ring; Ruth Landau; Carlos Delgado
Journal:  Curr Anesthesiol Rep       Date:  2021-02-24

5.  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.

Authors:  Ji In Park; Sang Hi Park; Min Seok Kang; Gil Won Kang; Sang Tae Kim
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med (Seoul)       Date:  2020-07-31

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

Authors:  K Bhatia; M Columb; A Bewlay; N Tageldin; C Knapp; Y Qamar; A Dooley; P Kamath; M Hulgur
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 12.893

7.  Using machine learning to identify quality-of-care predictors for emergency caesarean sections: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Betina Ristorp Andersen; Ida Ammitzbøll; Jesper Hinrich; Sune Lehmann; Charlotte Vibeke Ringsted; Ellen Christine Leth Løkkegaard; Martin G Tolsgaard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.