General versus regional anaesthesia for caesarean section indicated for acute foetal distress: a retrospective cohort study

Junette Arlette Mbengono Metogo, Theophile Njamen Nana, Brian Ajong Ngongheh, Emelinda Berinyuy Nyuydzefon, Christoph Akazong Adjahoung, Joel Noutakdie Tochie, Jacqueline Ze Minkande, Junette Arlette Mbengono Metogo, Theophile Njamen Nana, Brian Ajong Ngongheh, Emelinda Berinyuy Nyuydzefon, Christoph Akazong Adjahoung, Joel Noutakdie Tochie, Jacqueline Ze Minkande

Abstract

Background: Acute foetal distress (AFD) is a life-threatening foetal condition complicating 2% of all pregnancies and accounting for 8.9% of caesarean sections (CS) especially in developing nations. Despite the severity of the problem, no evidence exists as to the safest anaesthetic technique for the mother and foetus couple undergoing CS for AFD. We aimed to compare general anaesthesia (GA) versus regional (spinal and epidural) anaesthesia in terms of their perioperative maternal and foetal outcomes.

Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study by reviewing the medical records of all women who underwent CS indicated for AFD between 2015 to 2018 at the Douala General Hospital, Cameroon. Medical records of neonates were also reviewed. We sought to investigate the association between GA, and regional anaesthesia administered during CS for AFD and foetal and maternal outcomes. The threshold of statistical significance was set at 0.05.

Results: We enrolled the medical records of 117 pregnant women who underwent CS indicated for AFD. Their mean age and mean gestational age were 30.5 ± 4.8 years and 40 weeks respectively. Eighty-three (70.9%), 29 (24.8%) and 05 (4.3%) pregnant women underwent CS under SA, GA and EA respectively. Neonates delivered by CS under GA were more likely to have a significantly low APGAR score at both the 1st (RR = 1.93, p = 0.014) and third-minute (RR = 2.52, p = 0.012) and to be resuscitated at birth (RR = 2.15, p = 0.015). Past CS, FHR pattern on CTG didn't affect these results in multivariate analysis. Adverse maternal outcomes are shown to be higher following SA when compared to GA.

Conclusion: The study infers an association between CS performed for AFD under GA and foetal morbidity. This, however, failed to translate into a difference in perinatal mortality when comparing GA vs RA. This finding does not discount the role of GA, but we emphasize the need for specific precautions like adequate anticipation for neonatal resuscitation to reduce neonatal complications associated with CS performed for AFD under GA.

Keywords: Acute foetal distress; Anaesthesia; Caesarean section; Maternal; Neonatal; Outcome.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. James A L. Intrapartum fetal asphyxia: definition, diagnosis, and classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176(5):957–959. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70385-5.
    1. Gravett C, Eckert LO, Gravett MG, Dudley DJ, Stringer EM, Mujobu TBM, et al. Non-reassuring fetal status: case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine. 2016;34(49):6084–6092. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.043.
    1. Maharaj D. Intrapartum fetal resuscitation: a review. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;9(2):11.
    1. Ajah LO, Ibekwe PC, Onu FA, Onwe OE, Ezeonu TC, Omeje I. Evaluation of clinical diagnosis of fetal distress and perinatal outcome in a Low resource Nigerian setting. J Clin Diagn Res JCDR. 2016;10(4):QC08–QC11.
    1. Pashte S. Diagnosis and management of fetal distress: a review based on modern concept and ancient ayurvedic granthas. Eur J Biomed Pharm Sci. 2016;3:560–562.
    1. Rueda Fuentes JV, Pinzón Flórez CE, Vasco RM. Anaesthetic management in emergency cesarean section: systematic literature review of anaesthetic techniques for emergency C-section. Colomb J Anesthesiol. 2012;40(4):273–286.
    1. Rollins M, Lucero J. Overview of anesthetic considerations for cesarean delivery. Br Med Bull. 2012;101(1):105–125. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldr050.
    1. Afolabi BB, Lesi FE. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(10) [cited 2020 Aug 28]. Available from. 10.1002/14651858.CD004350.pub3/full.
    1. Hemmings HC, Egan TD. Pharmacology and physiology for anesthesia E-book: foundations and clinical application: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012. p. 707.
    1. Ng KW, Parsons J, Cyna AM, Middleton P. Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2) [cited 2019 May 28];. Available from: .
    1. Ekane GEH, Mangala FGN, Obinchemti TE, Nguefack CT, Njamen TN, Kamgaing JT, et al. A review of maternal deaths at Douala general hospital, Cameroon: the referral system and other contributing factors. Int J Trop Dis Health. 2015;18:124–133. doi: 10.9734/IJTDH/2015/18111.
    1. Wahjoeningsih S, Witjaksono W. Evaluation of Anaesthesia methods in caesarean section for Foetal distress. Malays J Med Sci. 2007;14(2):41–46.
    1. Jayasooriya G, Djapardy V. Intrapartum assessment of fetal well-being. BJA Educ. 2017;17(12):406–411. doi: 10.1093/bjaed/mkx034.
    1. Sarnat HB. Neonatal encephalopathy following fetal distress: a clinical and electroencephalographic study. Arch Neurol. 1976;33(10):696. doi: 10.1001/archneur.1976.00500100030012.
    1. Thangaswamy CR, Kundra P, Velayudhan S, Aswini LN, Veena P. Influence of anaesthetic technique on maternal and foetal outcome in category 1 caesarean sections – a prospective single-Centre observational study. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62(11):844. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_406_18.
    1. Edipoglu IS, Celik F, Marangoz EC, Orcan GH. Effect of anaesthetic technique on neonatal morbidity in emergency caesarean section for foetal distress. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0207388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207388.
    1. Boldingh AM, Solevåg AL, Nakstad B. Outcomes following neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Tidsskr Den Nor Legeforening. 2018; 29 [cited 2020 Sep 3]; Available from: .
    1. Frazier MD, Werthammer J. Post-resuscitation complications in term neonates. J Perinatol. 2007;27(2):82–84. doi: 10.1038/sj.jp.7211644.
    1. Impey LWM, Greenwood CEL, Black RS, Yeh PS-Y, Sheil O, Doyle P. The relationship between intrapartum maternal fever and neonatal acidosis as risk factors for neonatal encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(1):49.e1–49.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.06.011.
    1. Lieberman E, Lang J, Richardson DK, Frigoletto FD, Heffner LJ, Cohen A. Intrapartum maternal fever and neonatal outcome. Pediatrics. 2000;105(1 Pt 1):8–13. doi: 10.1542/peds.105.1.8.
    1. Ashwal E, Salman L, Tzur Y, Aviram A, Bashi TB-M, Yogev Y, et al. Intrapartum fever and the risk for perinatal complications – the effect of fever duration and positive cultures. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(11):1418–1425. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1317740.
    1. Madkour. General versus spinal anesthesia during elective cesarean section in term low-risk pregnancy as regards maternal and neonatal outcomes: a prospective, controlled clinical trial. [cited 2020 May 1]. Available from:

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa