Prospective multidisciplinary audit of obstetric general anaesthesia in a District General Hospital

General Versus Regional Anesthesia for Emergency Cesarean Delivery in a High-volume High-resource Referral Center: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective

The choice of anesthesia for emergency cesarean delivery (CD) is one of the most important choices to make in obstetric anesthesia. In this study, we examine which type of anesthesia was used for emergency CD in our hospital, and how the choice affected the time from entry to the operation room until incision (TTI), time until delivery (TTD), and maternal/neonatal outcomes.

Methods

Retrospectively, we examined all emergency CD's performed in Shaare Zedek Medical Center between January-December 2018. Results: 1059 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 7.7% underwent general anesthesia (GA), 36.2% - conversion from labor epidural analgesia to surgical anesthesia, 52% - spinal anesthesia and 4.1% - combined spinal epidural. We did not find a significant difference between the GA and conversion epidural groups in terms of TTI or TTD. Nevertheless, GA was found to be correlated to a high rate of blood-products requirement and ICU admission. The rate of newborns with an APGAR score of less than 7, in both first and fifth second after birth, was significantly higher in the GA group, as well as the need for NICU admission.

Conclusion

This study clearly emphasizes that the TTI are shortest when using GA or conversion of labor epidural analgesia to surgical anesthesia. Meanwhile, GA is also linked to higher rates of admissions to ICU as well as poorer neonatal outcomes compared to the other groups. Additionally, our study uncovered a low rate of GA, and relatively low rate of regional anesthesia failure, which meets the accepted standards.

Comparison of Intravenous Nalbuphine and Paracetamol on Maternal Hemodynamic Status, Neonatal APGAR Score, and Postoperative Pain given before Induction of General Anesthesia for Elective Cesarean Section

Background:

Stress response to endotracheal intubation and surgery is associated with exaggerated hemodynamic response and an increase in catecholamine levels which is deleterious to both the mother and fetus. We aimed to compare the effects of intravenous nalbuphine and paracetamol on maternal hemodynamic status, neonatal APGAR score, and postoperative pain using the visual analog scale for elective cesarean section under general anesthesia.

Study Design:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical study.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty full-term pregnant patients, belonging to the American Society of Anaesthesiologist physical status Classes I and II, scheduled for elective cesarean section under general anesthesia were enrolled for the study. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 30 patients each to receive paracetamol (15 mg.kg^{− 1}) in Group Pand nalbuphine (0.2 mg.kg⁻¹) in Group N before induction of general anesthesia. Maternal heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded before infusion of study drugs, after induction, after intubation, and during surgery across all periods. APGAR score of neonates was recorded by a pediatrician. Time to reach visual analogue score-1 was recorded.

Results:

Significant attenuation of maternal hemodynamic response was observed with nalbuphine compared to the paracetamol group (P < 0.05). The time to achieve visual analogue score-1 in the postoperative period was higher in the nalbuphine group. APGAR score at 1 min was significant between the groups and at 5 min, nonsignificant difference was observed (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Nalbuphine and paracetamol are effective in perioperative hemodynamic stability of mother and APGAR score of neonates. However, nalbuphine had better hemodynamic stability as compared to paracetamol with a comparable APGAR score at 5 min.

Randomized Controlled Simulation Trial to Compare Transfer Procedures for Emergency Cesarean

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that capping intravenous and epidural lines would reduce time to transfer women in labor to the operating room and time to readiness for general anesthesia for emergency cesarean. The secondary purpose was to identify latent threats to patient safety.

DESIGN

Mixed methods analysis of a randomized, controlled, in situ simulation trial.

SETTING

Labor and delivery unit at high-risk referral center.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen interprofessional teams that included labor and delivery nurses and anesthesiology residents.

METHODS

Immediately before simulation, we randomized bedside nurses and anesthesiology residents to one of two groups: usual transfer or the cap and run procedure. Simulation scenarios started with fetal heart rate decelerations that necessitated position changes followed by emergency cesarean. An embedded simulated obstetrician announced the decision for cesarean; completion of an OR checklist confirmed team readiness to induce general anesthesia. Postsimulation debriefing was focused on teamwork and opportunities to improve safety, and we used qualitative analysis to synthesize results.

RESULTS

We found no statistically significant difference in the overall time from decision for cesarean to readiness for general anesthesia between the two groups (usual transfer median = 445 seconds [interquartile range, 425-465] vs. cap and run 390 seconds [interquartile range, 383-443], p = .12). The time in the operating room was less in the cap and run group than in the usual transfer group (median = 300 seconds vs. 250 seconds, p = .038). Qualitative analysis of the debriefing data indicated advantages of the capping procedure, including better bed maneuverability and fewer tangled lines.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of decreased overall time from decision for cesarean to readiness for general anesthesia based on whether the nurse capped the intravenous and epidural lines or pushed the intravenous pole alongside the bed. However, nurses perceived improved patient safety with the cap and run procedure.

Comparing grades of urgency for classification of cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the agreement between the traditional binary system and a new system for classifying urgency of cesarean delivery among obstetricians in The Netherlands and Belgium.

METHODS

A total of 212 obstetricians were requested to grade a list of 18 obstetric scenarios using 3 classification systems: traditional binary classification; a new classification using 4 grades of urgency without additional interpretation; and the new classification with additional interpretation. Agreement was assessed by weighted kappa.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine obstetricians responded (The Netherlands 62.2%, Belgium 9.9%). There was substantial agreement among them for all 3 classification systems (kappa=0.71, traditional classification; kappa=0.70, new classification; kappa=0.67, new classification with additional interpretation).

CONCLUSION

The traditional binary system and the new classification of cesarean delivery based on 4 grades of urgency, with and without additional interpretation, have similar but relatively low interobserver agreement. We suggest that the new classification should be used, but future studies are necessary to evaluate the effect of this implementation.

Assessment of a modified four-category classification of urgency of caesarean section

A four-category urgency classification for caesarean section (CS) based on clinical definitions was introduced in 2000. However, clinical application remains inconsistent. We proposed that modification of the wording of these definitions might improve consistency of assignment of urgency. A total of 349 maternity professionals applied an urgency category to 10 hypothetical cases of CS, using either the original or a modified classification. There was a supplementary question relating to urgency category in relation to the 30 minute decision-to-delivery time standard. The commonest urgency categories applied to the cases by the respondents were: Category 1: cord prolapse, significant placental abruption, maternal cardiorespiratory distress; Category 2: late fetal heart rate decelerations, CS pre-booked to avoid vaginal delivery but woman presents in advanced labour, bleeding placenta praevia without hypovolaemia, failed instrumental delivery with no fetal compromise; Category 3: deteriorating but compensated maternal medical condition; Category 4: operation at short notice but no clinical urgency. Consistency of responses in individual cases varied from 0.92 down to 0.55. Some 66% of respondents believe that only Category 1 cases should be included in a 30 minute decision-to-delivery time standard, whereas 34% would include Category 2 as well as Category 1 in this standard. The consistency of responses did not differ between the original and modified urgency classifications. Inter-rater reliability was better when comparing the answers from obstetricians compared with anaesthetists or midwives. This study found that the proposed modifications did not improve the consistency of application, and that any changes to the current classification should not be introduced without thorough investigation.

Emergency Caesarean section: best practice*

Good multidisciplinary communication is crucial to the safe management of women requiring non-elective Caesarean section. Anaesthetists should participate actively in resuscitation of the fetus in utero; relief of aortocaval compression is paramount. Epidural top-up with levobupivacaine 0.5% is the anaesthetic of choice for women who have been receiving labour epidural analgesia. If epidural top-up fails to provide bilateral light touch anaesthesia from S5 - T5, a combined spinal-epidural technique with small intrathecal dose of local anaesthetic is a useful approach. Pre-eclampsia is not a contra-indication to single-shot spinal anaesthesia, which is the technique of choice for most women presenting for Caesarean section without an epidural catheter in situ. Induction and maintenance doses of drugs for general anaesthesia should not be reduced in the belief that the baby will be harmed. Early postoperative observations are geared towards the detection of overt or covert haemorrhage.