Observational studyArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Comparing elective and emergency caesarean section by using bioimpedance method.
Observational study in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited studies focusing on hemodynamic changes between elective and emergent C/S cases. We considered that a better understanding of the alterations and physiological reactions in both situations with non-invasive novel technologies might be useful in managing maternal and fetal sides.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, non-invasive hemodynamic changes were observed by using the whole-body impedance method using the NICaS™ device. CO, cardiac index (CI), stroke volume (SV), stroke index (SI), total peripheric resistance (TPR), and cardiac reserve (GGI) parameters were evaluated with a non-invasive method. Measurements were done initiating before surgery, 9 times of 5 min intervals.
resultsAll 95 patients finished the study. 47 cesarean sections were in the elective group, 48 were in the emergent group. SV in 4.5.6. time intervals were statistically increased in the elective group (p values: SvMl4: 0.025, SvMl5: 0.049, SvMl6: 0.044) (p < 0.05). SI in the second-time interval was statistically increased in the emergent group (p-value SI2: 0.047) (p < 0.05). SI in the 4th time interval was statistically increased in the elective group (p-value SI4: 0.047) (p < 0.05). CO measurements were not statistically different between groups in all time intervals for all comparisons. CI in the second time interval was statistically decreased in the elective group (p-value CI2: 0.012) (p < 0.05). GGI in the 4th time interval was statistically increased in the elective group (p-value GGI4: 0.035) (p < 0.05). TPRI in the second time interval was statistically increased in the elective group (p-value TPRI 2: 0.014) (p < 0.05).
conclusionsUnderstanding normal hemodynamic values before, during, and after C/S is feasible and might help the clinician assess patients' cardiac performance with a reliable noninvasive technique. NICaS might be a reliable tool to evaluate patients' baseline values and diagnose complications earlier during the surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.