Key result
General anaesthesia for emergency caesarean delivery was associated with a higher incidence of Apgar scores <7 at five minutes (7.4% vs 1.8%) and higher intensive care admission (OR 2.46).
Why the study?
Does general anaesthesia worsen neonatal outcomes compared to regional anaesthesia in emergency caesarean delivery for fetal distress?
Population
533 babies after emergency caesarean delivery for fetal distress at Mater Health Services, Brisbane
Comparison
General anaesthesia vs Regional anaesthesia
Design
Editorial
Authors
Loading...
While general anaesthesia for emergency caesarean delivery is faster, it is associated with poorer neonatal outcomes, highlighting the need to carefully weigh risks and benefits.
Does general anaesthesia worsen neonatal outcomes compared to regional anaesthesia in emergency caesarean delivery for fetal distress?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.4% vs 1.8%
While general anaesthesia for emergency caesarean delivery is faster, it is associated with poorer neonatal outcomes, highlighting the need to carefully weigh risks and benefits.
McDonnell et al. (2012) conducted an editorial in Emergency caesarean delivery for fetal distress (n=533). General anaesthesia vs. Regional anaesthesia was evaluated on Apgar scores <7 at five minutes. General anaesthesia for emergency caesarean delivery was associated with a higher incidence of Apgar scores <7 at five minutes (7.4% vs 1.8%) and higher intensive care admission (OR 2.46).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: