Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2005 Jul;60(7):636-53.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04223.x.

Anaesthesia for Caesarean section and neonatal acid-base status: a meta-analysis

Affiliations
Free article
Review

Anaesthesia for Caesarean section and neonatal acid-base status: a meta-analysis

F Reynolds et al. Anaesthesia. 2005 Jul.
Free article

Abstract

Spinal anaesthesia is generally preferred for Caesarean section. Its superiority for the baby is often assumed. Umbilical artery acid-base status provides a valid index of fetal welfare. Twenty-seven studies reporting neonatal acid-base data with different types of anaesthesia were used to compare umbilical artery or vein pH and base deficit, using random-effect meta-analysis. Cord pH was significantly lower with spinal than with both general (difference: -0.015; 95% CI -0.029 to -0.001; 13 studies, 1272 subjects) and epidural anaesthesia (difference -0.013; 95% CI -0.024 to -0.002; 11 studies, 828 subjects). Larger doses of ephedrine contributed to the latter effect (p = 0.023). Sixteen studies reported a base deficit, which was significantly higher for spinal than for general (difference 1.109; 95% CI 0.434-1.784 mEq.l(-1); seven studies, 695 subject) and epidural anaesthesia (difference 0.910; 95% CI 0.222-1.598 mEq.l(-1); seven studies, 497 subjects). Spinal anaesthesia cannot be considered safer than epidural or general anaesthesia for the fetus.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by