Literature DB >> 30601216

Anesthesiologist Specialization and Use of General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery.

Benjamin T Cobb1, Meghan B Lane-Fall, Richard C Month, Onyi C Onuoha, Sindhu K Srinivas, Mark D Neuman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for obstetric anesthesia recommend neuraxial anesthesia (i.e., spinal or epidural block) for cesarean delivery in most patients. Little is known about the association of anesthesiologist specialization in obstetric anesthesia with a patient's likelihood of receiving general anesthesia. The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare utilization of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery among patients treated by generalist versus obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists.
METHODS: The authors studied patients undergoing cesarean delivery for live singleton pregnancies from 2013 through 2017 at one academic medical center. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The authors estimated the association of anesthesiologist specialization in obstetric anesthesia with the odds of receiving general anesthesia for cesarean delivery.
RESULTS: Of the cesarean deliveries in our sample, 2,649 of 4,052 (65.4%) were performed by obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists, and 1,403 of 4,052 (34.6%) by generalists. Use of general anesthesia differed for patients treated by specialists and generalists (7.3% vs. 12.1%; P < 0.001). After adjustment, the odds of receiving general anesthesia were lower among patients treated by obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists among all patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.92; P = 0.011), and in a subgroup analysis restricted to urgent or emergent cesarean deliveries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99; P = 0.049). There was no association between provider specialization and the odds of receiving general anesthesia in a subgroup analysis restricted to evening or weekend deliveries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.03; P = 0.085).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment by an obstetric anesthesiologist was associated with lower odds of receiving general anesthesia for cesarean delivery; however, this finding did not persist in a subgroup analysis restricted to evening and weekend deliveries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30601216     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002534

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  5 in total

1.  Effect of encouraging a combined spinal epidural technique for cesarean delivery anesthesia.

Authors:  Alexa Borja; Jessica Ehrig; Kristen Vanderhoef; Kendall Hammonds; Michael P Hofkamp
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2022-05-18

2.  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

3.  Analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (espb) in general anesthesia for cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jia Hu; Qi Chen; Qian Xu; Yun Song; Ke Wei; Xiao-Feng Lei
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 2.376

Review 4.  General anesthesia for cesarean section: are we doing it well?

Authors:  Sung Uk Choi
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med (Seoul)       Date:  2022-07-26

5.  The relationship between core temperature and perioperative shivering during caesarean section under intrathecal anesthesia with bupivacaine and ropivacaine: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Guangju Feng; Yu Wang; Jiehua Feng; Xiaomin Luo; Chaoyang Li; Shanglong Yao
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2021-09-02       Impact factor: 2.078

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.