The Choice of Anesthesia after First Failed Spinal Block and Its Impact on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Cesarean Delivery: A Cross-Sectional Study

{"title":"The Choice of Anesthesia after First Failed Spinal Block and Its Impact on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Cesarean Delivery: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"","doi":"10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.08.13875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The preferred choice of anesthesia for cesarean delivery is spinal block, which has a failure rate of 0.5% to 17.0%. The present study investigated the incident rate of second choice of anesthesia following a failed block, as well as the factors influencing the anesthesiologist’s selection.\n\nMaterials and Methods: A single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using electronic medical records of parturients who had experienced a failed spinal block for cesarean deliveries between 2014 and 2019. Each rate of repeated spinal block and the conversion to general anesthesia were calculated. Factors associated with the decision-making were examined, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were reviewed.\n\nResults: Three hundred four women were recruited. The rates of repeated block and conversion to general anesthesia were 81.2% and 18.8%, respectively. Dural puncture with more than one attempt (p=0.022) and anesthesia level at the thoracic dermatome (p<0.001) were associated with a lower decision to repeat the block. Maternal in the repeated block group had a higher incidence of hypotension at 59.5% (p<0.001) and shivering at 16.2% (p=0.008). Neonates in the repeat block group had a lower incidence of any complications than those in the conversion to general anesthesia group at 4% versus 29.8% (p<0.001).\n\nConclusion: Following an unsuccessful spinal block for cesarean section, the repeated block was still preferred. The level of anesthesia and the spinal attempts were the significant factors in this choice.\n\nKeywords: Cesarean delivery; Conversion to general anesthesia; Failed spinal block; Maternal and neonatal outcomes; Repeat block","PeriodicalId":17486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.08.13875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The preferred choice of anesthesia for cesarean delivery is spinal block, which has a failure rate of 0.5% to 17.0%. The present study investigated the incident rate of second choice of anesthesia following a failed block, as well as the factors influencing the anesthesiologist’s selection. Materials and Methods: A single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using electronic medical records of parturients who had experienced a failed spinal block for cesarean deliveries between 2014 and 2019. Each rate of repeated spinal block and the conversion to general anesthesia were calculated. Factors associated with the decision-making were examined, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were reviewed. Results: Three hundred four women were recruited. The rates of repeated block and conversion to general anesthesia were 81.2% and 18.8%, respectively. Dural puncture with more than one attempt (p=0.022) and anesthesia level at the thoracic dermatome (p<0.001) were associated with a lower decision to repeat the block. Maternal in the repeated block group had a higher incidence of hypotension at 59.5% (p<0.001) and shivering at 16.2% (p=0.008). Neonates in the repeat block group had a lower incidence of any complications than those in the conversion to general anesthesia group at 4% versus 29.8% (p<0.001). Conclusion: Following an unsuccessful spinal block for cesarean section, the repeated block was still preferred. The level of anesthesia and the spinal attempts were the significant factors in this choice. Keywords: Cesarean delivery; Conversion to general anesthesia; Failed spinal block; Maternal and neonatal outcomes; Repeat block
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
剖宫产首次脊髓阻滞失败后麻醉的选择及其对产妇和新生儿结局的影响:一项横断面研究
目的:剖宫产术首选麻醉方式为脊髓阻滞,其失败率为0.5% ~ 17.0%。本研究调查了阻滞失败后再次选择麻醉的发生率,以及影响麻醉医师选择的因素。材料与方法:利用2014年至2019年剖宫产脊柱阻滞失败的产妇电子病历进行单中心、回顾性横断面研究。计算每次脊髓阻滞重复率及转全麻率。研究了与决策相关的因素,并审查了孕产妇和新生儿的结局。结果:共招募了340名女性。重复阻滞率为81.2%,转全麻率为18.8%。多次尝试硬脑膜穿刺(p=0.022)和胸皮段麻醉水平(p<0.001)与较低的重复阻滞决定相关。重复阻滞组产妇低血压发生率为59.5% (p<0.001),寒战发生率为16.2% (p=0.008)。重复阻滞组新生儿的并发症发生率低于全麻组,分别为4%和29.8% (p<0.001)。结论:剖宫产术脊柱阻滞失败后,仍可选择重复阻滞。麻醉水平和脊柱尝试是这一选择的重要因素。关键词:剖宫产;转为全身麻醉;脊髓阻滞失败;孕产妇和新生儿结局;重复块
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) and Conventional Lumbar Discectomy for Herniated Nucleus Pulposus (HNP) Behavioral Risk Score for Predicting Well-Controlled HbA1c Level in Diabetes Type 2 Patients The Choice of Anesthesia after First Failed Spinal Block and Its Impact on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Cesarean Delivery: A Cross-Sectional Study Efficacy of Levetiracetam versus Phenytoin in Neonatal Seizure in Rural Area of Thailand Spontaneous Sternal Fracture in Multiple Myeloma: A Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1