Regional versus general anesthesia for cesarean section delivery
a Student 2nd year, graduate program of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Colombia
b Associate Professor, Anesthesiology and Resuscitation, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia
KeywordsCesarean section. General anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia. Epidural anesthesia.
There is no standard anesthesia technique for cesarean section. General anesthesia has been associated with higher morbidity–mortality; however, recent studies seem to disagree with such statement.Objective
Based on a search in the literature, to reflect on the comparative results of regional vs. general anesthesia for C-section considering three aspects: mortality, morbidity and neonatal outcomes.Methods
Article for reflection. A non-systematic search of the literature on the topic was performed in the Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Lilacs databases, using Mesh terms included in the key words.Results
Although the rates for cesarean sections have been constant, the use of general anesthesia has decreased progressively. Maternal mortality associated to general anesthesia during cesarean section has dropped to practically the same level as regional anesthesia: 1.7 (95% CI, 0.6–4.6). Mortality is lower with regional anesthesia: less bleeding, lower risk of surgical site infection, less post-operative pain. The neonatal outcomes are practically the same.Conclusion
As long as they are not contraindicated, neuraxial anesthetic techniques are the method of choice for C-section delivery, because they are associated with lower morbidity, though mortality and neonatal outcomes are similar as compared to general anesthesia.
In 1999 a review article was published in the journal that evaluated the available evidence on the use of regional versus general anesthesia for cesarean section delivery.1 The findings indicated that general anesthesia was associated with higher morbidity–mortality. Since then, several randomized trials and meta-analysis have been published denying that statement. The objective of this article is reflect on the results of trials comparing regional versus general anesthesia for cesarean section from three aspects: mortality, morbidity and neonatal outcomes.General observations
Neuraxial anesthesia techniques are currently most widely used for cesarean section surgery and they are even used in situations that used to be considered an indication for general anesthesia (cord prolapse, preeclampsia, placenta previa).4, 5. In the United States the use of neuraxial anesthesia has been increasing since 1980s, particularly subarachnoid anesthesia (80% of C-sections are done under neuraxial anesthesia).5 A retrospective study from a third tier hospital in the United Kingdom6 found that despite a constant rate of cesarean sections (23.1–30%), the use of general anesthesia has dropped considerably (0.8% of all C-sections.
The rise in epidural anesthesia during labor, the use of mixtures of local anesthetic and opiates and the desire to avoid fetal exposure to depressant medications and to allow the mother to remain awake during delivery have been instrumental to these changes.4Mortality
Randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have been unable to prove that any of the techniques is associated to increased mortality.7 Hawkins et al.8 published a preliminary study in 1997, analyzing all anesthesia-related maternal deaths between 1979 and 1990; they found 129 anesthesia-related maternal deaths; 67 under general anesthesia and 33 with neuraxial anesthesia. The relative risk of maternal death during general anesthesia was 2.3 (CI 95% 1.9–2.9) for 1974–1984 and 16.7 (CI 95% 12.9–21.8) from 1985 to 1990. Probably these patients exhibited more critical clinical conditions. A second trial in 2011,9 identifying anesthesia-related maternal deaths from 1979 to 2002, 86 anesthesia-related maternal deaths were found from 1991 through 2001. The ratio of maternal death associated with anesthesia was 2.9 per million live births from 1979 to 1990 and 1.2 per million live births from 1991 to 2002, a 59% decrease. The relative risk of anesthesia-related maternal death dropped to 1.7 (95% CI 0.6–4.6 [non-significant]) from 1997 to 2002. Probably these findings reflect an improvement in the general anesthesia techniques; implementation of algorithms for managing the difficult airway and prevention of pulmonary aspirate; and increased use of regional anesthesia for high-risk C-section patients.Morbidity Bleeding
One trial in Thailand found a lower post-operative hematocrit associated with anesthesia as compared to epidural or subarachnoid anesthesia for cesarean section.10 Two clinical trials11, 12 and one meta-analysis7 found that intraoperative bleeding was less with epidural anesthesia (−126mL) and with spinal anesthesia (−0.59mL) than with general anesthesia. Although these data are statistically relevant, their clinical significance must be evaluated, keeping in mind that the average bleeding in a cesarean section is 500–1000mL.Surgical wound infection
In Cochrane's meta-analysis no studies reporting surgical wound infections were found;7 however, a retrospective study was recently published with an OR finding for surgical site infection within the 30days after general anesthesia versus neuraxial anesthesia cesarean section of 3.73 (95% CI 2.07–4.53).13Pain
Pain perception during the C-section intraoperative period is more severe in patients under regional anesthesia;10 however, postoperative pain is less in patients with neuraxial techniques, since the time for the first boost of analgesia is longer (690min versus 190min in the general anesthesia group)11 and the VAS scores for pain are lower (54mm vs. 72mm, p<0.001).12Nausea and vomiting
Nausea is more frequent in epidural anesthesia (OR 3.17 [95% CI 1.64–6.12]) and in spinal anesthesia (OR 23.2 [95% CI 8.69–62.30]), while vomiting is more frequent only in the spinal anesthesia group of patients (OR 7.05 [95% CI 3.06–16.23]), when compared against general anesthesia.6, 9 A more recent study found no differences.14Patient satisfaction
Lertakyamanee found no differences in terms of patient satisfaction when comparing spinal, epidural or general anesthesia patients.10 In contrast, Fassoulaki measured patient satisfaction using the VAS and found higher scores among the neuraxial anesthesia patients (77 versus 52 with general anesthesia, p=0.001).14 81% preferred neuraxial anesthesia for a third C-section.Other outcomes
The percentage of patients who walked during the first 24h was higher in neuraxial anesthesia patients (51% versus 29%, p=0.003) and the percentage of mothers who saw their baby during the first post-op day was also higher (98% versus 51% in the general anesthesia group, p<0.001).14Neonatal outcomes Umbilical arterial and venous pH
These trials have been contradictory. Sener et al., published in 2003 a study that randomized 30 patients to general or epidural anesthesia for C-section;15 the umbilical vain pH and arterial PO2 arterial were higher in the epidural anesthesia group (p<0.05 and p<0.001, respectively). In Cochrane's7 meta-analyses, 8 studies found no difference in the umbilical arterial pH, when the indication for C-section was not an emergency. Three trials12, 16, 17 have found that the umbilical artery pH was significantly lower in neuraxial anesthesia patients as compared to general anesthesia. A recent study found no differences in the umbilical artery pH values.18Neurological adaptation scores Apgar score
Two studies reported 1-min Apgar scores that were significantly lower in children from mothers who underwent general anesthesia C-section, as compared against epidural anesthesia.7, 19, 20 However, there were no differences with subarachnoid anesthesia. The trend is similar at 5min. Korkmas in 2004,21 found no differences in the 1-min and 5-min Apgar scores, when comparing epidural – spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia.
When considering the neonates with Apgar scores less than 4 or 6 at 1 and 5min, the proportion receiving general anesthesia is no different from those receiving regional anesthesia.7
In the study by Mancuso et al.18 the percentage of neonates with Apgar scores less than 7 at 1min was 25.9% for the general anesthesia group and 1.1% for the spinal anesthesia group (p<0.001); however, after 5min, all neonates had a score over 9.Supplementary oxygen requirement of ventilation during adaptation
Petropoulos et al.16 found no differences in the need for supplementary oxygen in neonates born with general or epidural anesthesia C-section (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.30–2.41]). Another more recent trial did find differences: the percentage of neonates requiring oxygen or positive pressure ventilation during neonatal adaptation was 14% for the general anesthesia group, versus 0% for the spinal anesthesia group (p=0.001).18 None required tracheal intubation or ICU admission.Conclusion
Although the preferred anesthetic technique for cesarean section delivery is neuraxial anesthesia, when the indication for the procedure is under general anesthesia, there is no increased risk of maternal death or unfavorable neonatal clinical outcomes. Mortality may be more linked to the indication for cesarean section rather than with the anesthetic technique.
The scale tips in favor of neuraxial anesthesia when considering variables such as post-operative pain, bleeding, surgical site infection and patient satisfaction.Funding
Own resources.Conflict of interests
☆ Please cite this article as: Páez L. JJ, Navarro V. JR. Anestesia regional versus general para parto por cesárea. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2012;40:203–6.
Received 16 January 2012
Accepted 1 May 2012
Corresponding author at: Calle 44 # 22-29 Bogotá, Colombia. email@example.com
Bibliography1.Navarro JR. Anestesia para cesárea regional vs. Gen Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 1999;27:227-36.
2.Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21:98-113.
3.Rizo A. Partos atendidos por cesárea: análisis de los datos de las encuestas nacionales de demografía y salud de Colombia 1995–2005. Revista EAN. 2009;67:59-74.
4.Tsen LC. Anesthesia for cesarean delivery. 521.
5.Bucklin BA, Hawkins JL, Anderson JR, Ullrich FA. Obstetric anesthesia workforce survey: twenty-year update. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:645-53.
6.Palanisamy A, Mitani AA, Tsen LC. General anesthesia for cesarean delivery at a tertiary care hospital from 2000 to 2005: a retrospective analysis and 10-year update. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2011;20:10-6.
7.Afolabi BB, Lesi FE, Merah NA. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:CD004350.
8.Hawkins JL, Koonin LM, Palmer SK, Gibbs CP. Anesthesia-related deaths during obstetric delivery in the United States, 1979–1990. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:277-84.
9.Hawkins JL, Chang J, Palmer SK, Gibbs CP, Callaghan WM. Anesthesia-related maternal mortality in the United States: 1979–2002. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:69-74.
10.Lertakyamanee J, Chinachoti T, Tritrakarn T, Muangkasem J, Somboonnanonda A, Kolatat T. Comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section: success rate, blood loss and satisfaction from a randomized trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 1999;82:672-80.
11.Hong JY, Jee YS, Yoon HJ, Kim SM. Comparison of general and epidural anesthesia in elective cesarean section for placenta previa totalis: maternal hemodynamics, blood loss and neonatal outcome. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2003;12:12-6.
12.Dyer RA, Els I, Farbas J, Torr GJ, Schoeman LK, James MF. Prospective, randomized trial comparing general with spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in preeclamptic patients with a nonreassuring fetal heart trace. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:561-9.
13.Tsai PS, Hsu CS, Fan YC, Huang CJ. General anaesthesia is associated with increased risk of surgical site infection after Caesarean delivery compared with neuraxial anaesthesia: a population-based study. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:757-61.
14.Fassoulaki A, Staikou C, Melemeni A, Kottis G, Petropoulos G. Anaesthesia preference, neuraxial vs general, and outcome after caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30:818-21.
15.Sener EB, Guldogus F, Karakaya D, Baris S, Kocamanoglu S, Tur A. Comparison of neonatal effects of epidural and general anesthesia for cesarean section. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2003;55:41-5.
16.Petropoulos G, Siristatidis C, Salamalekis E, Creatsas G. Spinal and epidural versus general anesthesia for elective cesarean section at term: effect on the acid–base status of the mother and newborn. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13:260-6.
17.Wallace DH, Leveno KJ, Cunningham FG, Giesecke AH, Shearer VE, Sidawi JE. Randomized comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean delivery in pregnancies complicated by severe preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:193-9.
18.Mancuso A, De Vivo A, Giacobbe A, Priola V, Maggio Savasta L, Guzzo M, De Vivo D, Mancuso A. General versus spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean sections: effects on neonatal short-term outcome. A prospective randomised study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23:1114-8.
19.Yegin A, Ertug Z, Yilmaz M, Erman M. The effects of epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia on newborns at cesarean section. Turk J Med Sci. 2003;33:311-4.
20.Kolatat T, Somboonnanonda A, Lertakyamanee J, Chinachot T, Tritrakarn T, Muangkasem J. Effects of general and regional anesthesia on the neonate (a prospective, randomized trial). J Med Assoc Thai. 1999;82:40-5.
21.Korkmaz F, Eksioglu B, Hanci A, Basgul A. Comparison of combined spinal epidural block and general anesthesia for cesarean section. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004;29(Suppl. 2):77.