Dataset Information

The decision to delivery interval in emergency caesarean sections: Impact of anaesthetic technique and work shift.

ABSTRACT: Background: One important task of the emergency anaesthesia service is to provide rapid, safe and effective anaesthesia for emergency caesarean sections (ECS). A Decision to Delivery Interval (DDI) <30 minutes for ECS is a quality indicator for this service. The aim of this study was to assess the DDI and the impact of chosen anaesthetic technique (general anaesthesia (GA), spinal anaesthesia (SPA) with opioid supplementation, or "top-up" of labour epidural analgesia (tEDA) with local anaesthesia and fentanyl mixture) and work shift for ECS at Danderyds Hospital, Sweden. Methods: A retrospective chart review of ECS at Danderyds Hospital was performed between January and October 2016. Time between decision for CS, start of anaesthesia, time for incision and delivery, type of anaesthetic technique, and time of day, working hours or on call and day of week, Monday - Friday, and weekend was compiled and analysed. Time events are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Non-parametric tests were used. Results: In total, 135 ECS were analysed: 92% of the cases were delivered within 30 minutes and mean DDI for all cases was 17.3±8.1 minutes. GA shortened the DDI by 10 and 13 minutes compared to SPA and tEDA (p<0.0005). DDI for SPA and tEDA did not differ. There was no difference in DDI regarding time of day or weekday. Apgar <7 at 5' was more commonly seen in ECS having GA (11 out of 64) compared to SPA (2/30) and tEDA (1/41) (p<0.05). Conclusion: GA shortens the DDI for ECS, but the use of SPA as well as tEDA with opioid supplementation maintains a short DDI and should be considered when time allows. Top-up epidural did not prolong the DDI compared to SPA. The day of week or time of ECS had no influence on the anaesthesia service as measured by the DDI.

SUBMITTER: Hein A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710389 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile foetal distress is typically associated with ischaemic injury, few studies have assessed neonatal morbidity for emergency caesarean section. Moreover, the decision of the anaesthetic technique may be of paramount importance in emergency caesareans, because of the limited time and increased risk. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the anaesthetic technique on neonatal morbidity in emergency caesarean indicated for foetal distress.MethodsThis was a single-centre, prospective observational study, conducted between July-2015 and December-2015. The study enrolled parturient with indication for emergency caesarean section after diagnosis of foetal distress, who received either regional or general anaesthesia. The outcome measures were: 1, 5-minute Apgar scores; umbilical blood pH; length of hospitalization; and morbidity, defined as a 5-minute Apgar score <7, need for mechanical ventilation, admittance to a neonatal intensive care unit, or respiratory insufficiency symptoms.Results61 patients were included in the study, of whom 31 received regional anaesthesia. Neonatal morbidity was noted in 5 and 9 cases with regional and general anaesthesia, respectively. The 1-minute Apgar score was significantly lower(p = 0,045) for cases with general anaesthesia, which was not true for the 5-minute Apgar score. Regional anaesthesia was non-significantly associated with shorter length of hospitalization, lower incidence of morbidity, and higher umbilical blood pH. When we take regional anaesthesia cases as a reference point, we detected that general anaesthesia cases are showing 2,2 times more morbidity risk. But these results did not reach any statistically significant levels.ConclusionsWhile we did find some improved results for regional anaesthesia group, we found no statistical evidence that neither anaesthesia technique is superior regarding neonatal morbidity. We think that regional anaesthesia should be preferred whenever possible because of our improved results of length of hospital stay, APGAR and morbidity and we think that general anaesthesia is indicated for very urgent cases or regional anaesthesia contraindicated patients.Trial registrationhttp://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15181117.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Category-1 emergency caesarean section delivery is the commonly performed surgical procedure in pregnant women associated with significant mortality and morbidity both in the mother and fetus. The decision to delivery time interval is recommended to be less than 30?min by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as well as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This study was designed to evaluate the decision to delivery time interval and its effect on feto-maternal outcomes and the associated factors during category-1 emergency caesarean section deliveries. METHOD:A prospective observational cohort study was conducted from March to May 2018 at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital obstetrics Operation Theater and postnatal ward. A total of 163 clients who were undergone category-1 emergency caesarean section were included in this study. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corporate). Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression with a 95% confidence interval was used to determine the association of decision to delivery time interval with predictor variables and feto-maternal outcomes. RESULTS:Only 19.6% of women had a decision to delivery time interval below 30?min. The average decision to delivery time interval was 42?±?21.4?min, the average time from the decision of category-1 emergency caesarean section arrival to the operation theater was 21.58?±?19.76?min and from theater to delivery of anesthesia was 11.5?±?3.6?min. Factors that were associated with prolonged decision to delivery time interval were: time taken to collect surgical materials (AOR?=?13.76, CI?=?1.12-168.7), time taken from decision and arrival to the operation theater (AOR?=?0.75, CI?=?0.17-3.25) and time taken from arrival at the operation theater to the immediate start of skin incision (AOR?=?0.43, CI?=?0.28-0.65). CONCLUSION:Delivery was not achieved within the recommended time interval in the majority of category-1 emergency caesarean sections. The average decision to delivery time interval was longer than the recommended time but it did not affect feto-maternal outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundCaesarean delivery has increased worldwide, however, the effects on fertility are largely unknown. This systematic review aims to compare subsequent sub-fertility (time to next pregnancy or birth) among women with a Caesarean delivery to women with a vaginal delivery.MethodsSystematic review of the literature including seven databases: CINAHL; the Cochrane Library; Embase; Medline; PubMed; SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge (1945 - October 2012), using detailed search-strategies and reference list cross-checking. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies were included. Two assessors reviewed titles, abstracts, and full articles using standardised data abstraction forms and assessed study quality.Results11 articles were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, of these five articles which adjusted for confounders were combined in a meta-analysis, totalling 750,407 women using fixed-effect models. Previous Caesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of sub-fertility [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.86, 0.93]. Subgroup analyses by parity [primiparous women: OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.87, 0.96; not limited to primiparous women: OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73, 0.90]; by publication date (pre-2000: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68, 0.94; post-2000: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86, 0.94); by length of follow-up (<10 years: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90; >10 years: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87, 0.96); by indication for mode of delivery (specified: 0.92, 95% CI 0.88, 0.97; not specified: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90); by cohort size (<35,000: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67, 0.92; >35,000: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87, 0.95), by definition of sub-fertility used divided into (birth interval [BI]: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94; inter-pregnancy interval [IPI]: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85, 0.97; and categorical measures: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90); continuous measures: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87, 0.96) were performed. Results of the six studies not included in the meta-analysis (which did not adjust for confounders) are presented individually.ConclusionsThe meta-analysis shows an increased waiting time to next pregnancy and risk of sub-fertility among women with a previous Caesarean delivery. However, included studies are limited by poor epidemiological methods such as variations in the definition of time to next pregnancy, lack of confounding adjustment, or details of the indication for Caesarean delivery. Further research of a more robust methodological quality to better explore any underlying causes of sub-fertility and maternal intent to delay childbearing is warranted.

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency caesarean sections (ECS) are time-sensitive procedures. Multiple factors may affect team efficiency but their relative importance remains unknown. This study aimed to identify the most important predictors contributing to quality of care during ECS in terms of the arrival-to-delivery interval.DesignA retrospective cohort study. ECS were classified by urgency using emergency categories one/two and three (delivery within 30 and 60 min). In total, 92 predictor variables were included in the analysis and grouped as follows: 'Maternal objective', 'Maternal psychological', 'Fetal factors', 'ECS Indication', 'Emergency category', 'Type of anaesthesia', 'Team member qualifications and experience' and 'Procedural'. Data was analysed with a linear regression model using elastic net regularisation and jackknife technique to improve generalisability. The relative influence of the predictors, percentage significant predictor weight (PSPW) was calculated for each predictor to visualise the main determinants of arrival-to-delivery interval.Setting and participantsPatient records for mothers undergoing ECS between 2010 and 2017, Nordsjællands Hospital, Capital Region of Denmark.Primary outcome measuresArrival-to-delivery interval during ECS.ResultsData was obtained from 2409 patient records for women undergoing ECS. The group of predictors representing 'Team member qualifications and experience' was the most important predictor of arrival-to-delivery interval in all ECS emergency categories (PSPW 25.9% for ECS category one/two; PSPW 35.5% for ECS category three). In ECS category one/two the 'Indication for ECS' was the second most important predictor group (PSPW 24.9%). In ECS category three, the second most important predictor group was 'Maternal objective predictors' (PSPW 24.2%).ConclusionThis study provides empirical evidence for the importance of team member qualifications and experience relative to other predictors of arrival-to-delivery during ECS. Machine learning provides a promising method for expanding our current knowledge about the relative importance of different factors in predicting outcomes of complex obstetric events.

Project description:BackgroundCaesarean sections (CS) in Bangladesh have risen eight-fold in the last 15 years. Few studies have explored why. Anecdotally, physicians suggest maternal request for CS is a reason. Women and families suggest physicians influence their decision-making. The aim of this research was to understand more about the decision-making process surrounding CS by exploring physician-patient communication leading to informed-consent for the operation.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-method study using structured observations with the Option Grid Collaborative's OPTION5 tool and interviews with physicians and women between July and December 2018. Study participants were recruited from eight district public-sector hospitals. Eligibility criteria for facilities was ≥ 80 births every month; and for physicians, was that they had performed CSs. Women aged ≥ 18 years, providing consent, and delivering at a facility were included in the observation component; primigravid women delivering by CS were selected for the in-depth interviews. Quantitative data from observations were analysed using descriptive statistics. Following transcription and translation, a preliminary coding framework was devised for the qualitative data analysis. We combined both inductive and deductive approaches in our thematic analysis.ResultsIn total, 306 labour situations were observed, and interviews were conducted with 16 physicians and 32 women who delivered by CS (16 emergency CS; 16 elective CS). In 92.5% of observations of physician-patient communication in the context of labour situations, the OPTION5 mean scores were low (5-25 out of 100) for presenting options, patient partnership, describing pros/cons, eliciting patient preferences and integrating patient preferences. Interviews found that non-clinical factors prime both physicians and patients in favour of CS prior to the clinical encounter in which the decision to perform a CS is documented. These interactions were both minimal in content and limited in purpose, with consent being an artefact of a process involving little communication.ConclusionsInsufficient communication between physicians and patients is one of many factors driving increasing rates of caesarean section in Bangladesh. While this single clinical encounter provides an opportunity for practice improvement, interventions are unlikley to impact rates of CS without simultaneoulsy addressing physician, patient and health system contextual factors too.

Dataset Information

The decision to delivery interval in emergency caesarean sections: Impact of anaesthetic technique and work shift.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets