Key result
General anaesthesia significantly reduced vasopressor consumption compared to spinal anaesthesia (SMD -1.19) but increased the maternal adverse event rate (RR 2.00) in women with preeclampsia undergoing caesarean section.
Why the study?
The study aimed to reveal the effects of anaesthesia strategies on maternal hemodynamics, vasopressor consumption, adverse events, and neonatal resuscitation during caesarean section in women with preeclampsia.
Does general anaesthesia compared to spinal anaesthesia improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with preeclampsia undergoing caesarean section?
Meta-Analysis (n=782)
Does general anaesthesia compared to spinal anaesthesia improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with preeclampsia undergoing caesarean section?
In women with preeclampsia undergoing cesarean section, general anesthesia reduces vasopressor consumption but increases maternal adverse events compared to spinal anesthesia, highlighting the need for individualized shared decision-making.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No anesthesia strategy shows clear superiority for balanced maternal-neonatal outcomes in preeclamptic cesarean delivery; supports individualized shared decision-making.
The aim of this study was to reveal the effects of anaesthesia strategies on maternal mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, vasopressor consumption, adverse events, and neonatal resuscitation when women with preeclampsia (PE) undergo caesarean section (CS). Three major databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCSs). Two authors independently screened, extracted, and checked eligibility and outcome data. Outcomes involved MAP, vasopressor use, maternal adverse events, APGAR scores, and neonatal resuscitation. Pooled estimates were carried out by contrast-based network meta-analysis, and pooled effect sizes were presented with 95% confidence interval (CI). Eleven RCTs and one PCS (n = 782) formed three-node network meta-analysis, and non-significant differences were observed in MAP, 5-min APGAR score, and neonatal intubation rate among the three anaesthesia strategies. General anaesthesia had significantly lower vasopressor consumption than spinal anaesthesia did (standardised mean difference = - 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.76 to - 0.63), but it had higher maternal adverse event rate (risk ratio = 2.00, 95% CI 1.16-3.47). Because no optimal anaesthesia strategy has been shown to achieve a balanced maternal and neonatal outcome, therefore a shared decision-making process may be required regarding the most suitable choice of anaesthetic strategy for individual preeclamptic mother undergoing CS. Future larger studies may need to focus on evaluating the role of vasopressors on maternal hemodynamic as well as factors affecting maternal outcomes for different anaesthetic techniques in preeclamptic women undergoing CS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chu et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Preeclampsia undergoing caesarean section (n=782). General anaesthesia vs. Spinal anaesthesia was evaluated on Vasopressor consumption (SMD -1.19, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.63). General anaesthesia significantly reduced vasopressor consumption compared to spinal anaesthesia (SMD -1.19) but increased the maternal adverse event rate (RR 2.00) in women with preeclampsia undergoing caesarean section.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: