Key result
Spinal anesthesia is linked to ~17 mmHg lower post-induction SBP versus general anesthesia in preeclampsia.
Why the study?
Does spinal anesthesia improve maternal outcomes compared to general anesthesia in preeclamptic women undergoing caesarean delivery?
Cross-Sectional (n=167)
No
Does spinal anesthesia improve maternal outcomes compared to general anesthesia in preeclamptic women undergoing caesarean delivery?
Mean Difference: 17.33 (95% CI 10.53–24.1)
Absolute Event Rate: 162.27% vs 144.93%
p-value: p=<0.001
Spinal anesthesia is associated with more stable intra-operative vital signs compared to general anesthesia in preeclamptic women undergoing caesarean delivery.
Spinal anesthesia was associated with lower post-induction SBP; observational data leave open effects on maternal outcomes in preeclamptic cesarean delivery.
Anesthetic management of preeclamptic patients remains a challenge. Although general anesthesia can be used safely in pre-eclamptic women, it is fraught with greater maternal morbidity and mortality. The added risks associated with general anesthesia include airway difficulties due to edema (often aggravated by tracheal intubation) and the pressure response to laryngoscope and intubation. However, several studies support the use of spinal anesthesia as first choice reasoning less post-operative morbidity and mortality. To compare maternal outcome among preeclamptic women after caesarian delivery under general and spinal anesthesia in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Hospital based retrospective comparative cross sectional study was used to compare maternal outcomes. All preeclamptic mothers that underwent Caesarian Section in Obstetrics and Gynecology Ward, Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital from October 2014 to October 2016 was included in the study. Data collection was carried out by using structured questionnaire. Data entry and analysis was done on SPSS version 20. Independent sample T-test and logistic regression was conducted to compare the outcome in both groups of spinal and general anesthesia, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p value < 0.05 is set as cut off point for statistical significance. The mean age of study subjects were 28.18 years and SD= ± 4.66 years, the median age is 28 years (IQR: 25-30 years). Majority 152 (91%) of the cesarean sections (C/S) was emergency C/S and the rest 15 (9%) were elective C/S. 78 (46.7%) of parturient operated under general anesthesia, and 89 (53.3%) were operated under spinal anesthesia. None of the mothers developed post-op complication, and none of the maternal death were documented until discharge from the hospital in both groups of parturient. The present finding shows that statistically significant higher intra operative blood pressure and pulse rate was observed among GA group when compared with SA group. In conclusion, SA is safer than GA in terms of stable intra operative vital signs among preeclamptic women.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsehay et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Preeclampsia (n=167). General anesthesia vs. Spinal anesthesia was evaluated on Mean systolic blood pressure after induction (MD 17.33, 95% CI 10.53-24.1, p=<0.001). General anesthesia was associated with significantly higher mean systolic blood pressure after induction compared to spinal anesthesia (162.27 vs 144.93 mmHg, p<0.001) in preeclamptic women undergoing caesarean delivery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: