The Effect of Spinal versus General Anesthesia on Quality of Life in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request

被引:42
作者
Ghaffari, Sina [1 ]
Dehghanpisheh, Laleh [2 ]
Tavakkoli, Fahimeh [3 ]
Mahmoudi, Hilda [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Miami, Anesthesiol, Miami, FL 33146 USA
[2] Shiraz Univ Med Sci, Shiraz Anesthesiol & Crit Care Res Ctr, Anesthesiol, Shiraz, Iran
[3] Shiraz Univ Med Sci, Anesthesiol, Shiraz, Iran
[4] Nova Southeastern Univ, Sch Osteopath Med, Grad Med Educ, Miami, FL USA
来源
CUREUS | 2018年 / 10卷 / 12期
关键词
health related quality of life; general anesthesia; spinal anesthesia; cesarean delivery on maternal request;
D O I
10.7759/cureus.3715
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction The proportion of women electing for cesarean delivery has increased in both developed and developing countries. Cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR) refers to a primary cesarean delivery performed because the mother requests this method of delivery in the absence of standard medical/obstetrical indications. Several studies compared anesthesia modalities in cesarean section regarding clinical outcomes such as maternal mortality, post-operative pain and bleeding, but only a few compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women undergoing general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia. The aim of this study was to determine whether pregnant women who undergo general anesthesia (GA) for cesarean delivery compared with spinal anesthesia (SA) differ regarding their perceived HRQoL. Methodology We enrolled 160 pregnant women with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 11, scheduled for CDMR with GA or SA. Anesthesia modality was based on patient's preference. Participants assessed their state of health with the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) self-administered questionnaire at four time points: six hours before cesarean delivery, 24 hours after cesarean delivery, one week and one month after cesarean delivery. Patients also rated their health on the EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) from 100 mm "best imaginable health state" to 0 mm "worst imaginable health state". Results More women who underwent spinal anesthesia reported "no problem" with regards to "mobility' (64% vs. 30%, p = 0.00), "usual activities" (90% vs. 38%, p = 0.00), and "pain/discomfort" (20% vs. 5%, p = 0.007). Repeated measurement analysis showed that the two groups started off with the same EQ-VAS score, however, both decreased over time with different slope resulting in different scores at 24 hours after CS. Then the scores increased in both groups over time and ended up being rather close at one month after CS. Discussion Unless there is a contraindication, neuraxial anesthesia is the anesthetic technique of choice for cesarean delivery in all parturient in general. This concept is based on more mortality and morbidity that have been seen with general anesthesia in this particular population. Our study demonstrated significant advantages of spinal anesthesia compared to general anesthesia in cesarean section regarding postoperatively perceived HRQoL. We showed that more pregnant women who chose spinal anesthesia as their anesthesia modality reported "no problem" with respect to "mobility" and "Self-care" 24 hours after cesarean section. On the top of that, more women in this group had "no problem" in their "usual activities" at one week and one month after cesarean delivery time points. Moreover, EQ-5D general health score was higher 24 hours after cesarean delivery with regional anesthesia comparing to general anesthesia. Conclusion We determined that compared to general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia is the technique of choice for cesarean section because not only it avoids a general anesthetic and the risk of failed intubation, but also because it provides effective pain control, mobility and fast return back to daily activities for new mothers and increase their quality of life.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section [J].
Afolabi, Bosede B. ;
Lesi, Foluso E. A. .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2012, (10)
[2]  
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2007, Obstet Gynecol, V110, P1209
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2013, Obstet Gynecol, V121, P904, DOI 10.1097/01.AOG.0000428647.67925.d3
[4]   WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates [J].
Betran, A. P. ;
Torloni, M. R. ;
Zhang, J. J. ;
Guelmezoglu, A. M. .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2016, 123 (05) :667-670
[5]   Clinical update: obstetric anaesthesila [J].
Cyna, Allan M. ;
Dodd, Jodie .
LANCET, 2007, 370 (9588) :640-642
[6]  
DEOLIVEIRA MF, 2015, HEALTH, V7, P371, DOI DOI 10.4236/HEALTH.2015.73042
[7]  
Dharmalingam TK, 2013, MALAYS J MED SCI, V20, P51
[8]   Elective Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request [J].
Ecker, Jeffrey .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 309 (18) :1930-1936
[9]   Severity of acute pain after childbirth, but not type of delivery, predicts persistent pain and postpartum depression [J].
Eisenach, James C. ;
Pan, Peter H. ;
Smilley, Richard ;
Lavand'homme, Patricia ;
Landau, Ruth ;
Houle, Timothy T. .
PAIN, 2008, 140 (01) :87-94
[10]   Risks and side-effects of intrathecal morphine combined with spinal anaesthesia: a meta-analysis [J].
Gehling, M. ;
Tryba, M. .
ANAESTHESIA, 2009, 64 (06) :643-651