Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review
- PMID: 35064923
- DOI: 10.1111/anae.15657
Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review
Abstract
Neuraxial anaesthesia is widely utilised for elective caesarean section, but the prevalence of inadequate intra-operative anaesthesia is unclear. We aimed to determine the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia for elective caesarean section; prevalence of conversion from neuraxial anaesthesia to general anaesthesia following inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia; and the effect of mode of anaesthesia. We searched studies reporting inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia that used ≥ ED95 doses (effective dose in 95% of the population) of neuraxial local anaesthetic agents. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia, defined as the need to convert to general anaesthesia; the need to repeat or abandon a planned primary neuraxial technique following incision; unplanned administration of intra-operative analgesia (excluding sedatives); or unplanned epidural drug supplementation. Fifty-four randomised controlled trials were included (3497 patients). The overall prevalence of requirement for supplemental analgesia or anaesthesia was 14.6% (95%CI 13.3-15.9%); 510 out of 3497 patients. The prevalence of general anaesthesia conversion was 2 out of 3497 patients (0.06% (95%CI 0.0-0.2%)). Spinal/combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia was associated with a lower overall prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia than epidural anaesthesia (10.2% (95%CI 9.0-11.4%), 278 out of 2732 patients vs. 30.3% (95%CI 26.5-34.5%), 232 out of 765 patients). Further studies are needed to identify risk factors, optimise detection and management strategies and to determine long-term effects of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia.
Keywords: caesarean section; neuraxial anaesthesia; pregnancy; regional anaesthesia.
© 2022 Association of Anaesthetists.
Comment in
-
What is 'genuine' failure of neuraxial anaesthesia?Anaesthesia. 2022 May;77(5):523-526. doi: 10.1111/anae.15723. Epub 2022 Mar 25. Anaesthesia. 2022. PMID: 35332526 No abstract available.
-
Pain during caesarean section: whose decision is it?Anaesthesia. 2022 Aug;77(8):941. doi: 10.1111/anae.15739. Epub 2022 Apr 11. Anaesthesia. 2022. PMID: 35403703 No abstract available.
-
Observations on inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia and patient-centred care.Anaesthesia. 2023 Apr;78(4):533. doi: 10.1111/anae.15937. Epub 2022 Dec 8. Anaesthesia. 2023. PMID: 36480420 No abstract available.
References
-
- Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0148343.
-
- NHS Digital. NHS maternity statistics, England 2017-18. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs... (accessed 14/05/2019).
-
- Purva M, Kinsella S. Caesarean section anaesthesia: technique and failure rate. In: Chereshneva M, Johnston C, Colvin J, Peden C, eds. Raising the Standard: RCoA Quality Improvement Compendium. 4th ed. London: Royal College of Anaesthetists, 2020: 254.
-
- Mhyre JM, Sultan P. General anesthesia for cesarean delivery: occasionally essential but best avoided. Anesthesiology 2019; 6: 864-6.
-
- Lumbiganon P, Moe H, Kamsa-ard S, et al. Outcomes associated with anaesthetic techniques for caesarean section in low- and middle-income countries: a secondary analysis of WHO surveys. Scientific Reports 2020; 10: 10176.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources