Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review.
Anaesthesia. 2022 05; 77(5):598-604.A

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.

Links

Publisher Full Text (DOI)

Authors+Show Affiliations

Patel R
Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, Centre for Peri-Operative Medicine, University College London, UK.
Kua J
Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, Centre for Peri-Operative Medicine, University College London, UK.
Sharawi N
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, USA.
Bauer ME
Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Blake L
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, USA.
Moonesinghe SR
Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, Centre for Peri-Operative Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Sultan P
Department of Anesthesiology, Peri-Operative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.

MeSH

Anesthesia, EpiduralAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, ObstetricalAnesthesia, SpinalCesarean SectionFemaleHumansPregnancy

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

35064923

Citation

Patel, R, et al. "Inadequate Neuraxial Anaesthesia in Patients Undergoing Elective Caesarean Section: a Systematic Review." Anaesthesia, vol. 77, no. 5, 2022, pp. 598-604.
Patel R, Kua J, Sharawi N, et al. Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2022;77(5):598-604.
Patel, R., Kua, J., Sharawi, N., Bauer, M. E., Blake, L., Moonesinghe, S. R., & Sultan, P. (2022). Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review. Anaesthesia, 77(5), 598-604. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15657
Patel R, et al. Inadequate Neuraxial Anaesthesia in Patients Undergoing Elective Caesarean Section: a Systematic Review. Anaesthesia. 2022;77(5):598-604. PubMed PMID: 35064923.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review. AU - Patel,R, AU - Kua,J, AU - Sharawi,N, AU - Bauer,M E, AU - Blake,L, AU - Moonesinghe,S R, AU - Sultan,P, Y1 - 2022/01/22/ PY - 2021/12/17/accepted PY - 2022/1/23/pubmed PY - 2022/8/4/medline PY - 2022/1/22/entrez KW - caesarean section KW - neuraxial anaesthesia KW - pregnancy KW - regional anaesthesia SP - 598 EP - 604 JF - Anaesthesia JO - Anaesthesia VL - 77 IS - 5 N2 - 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. SN - 1365-2044 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/35064923/Inadequate_neuraxial_anaesthesia_in_patients_undergoing_elective_caesarean_section:_a_systematic_review_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -