Perinatal outcome of emergency cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia: a seven-year retrospective analysis.

objectiveAn emergency cesarean section (CS), which is extremely life-threatening to the mother or fetus, seems to be performed within an adequate time horizon to avoid negative fetal-maternal denouement. An effective and vigilant technique for anesthesia remains vital for emergency cesarean delivery. Therefore, this study aimed to validate the impact of various anesthesia tactics on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

methodThis was a retrospective cohort study of parturient patients who were selected for emergency CS with the assistance of general or neuraxial anesthesia between January 2015 and July 2021 at our institution. The 5-min Apgar score was documented as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes, including the 1 min Apgar score, decision-to-delivery interval (DDI), onset of anesthesia to incision interval (OAII), decision to incision interval (DII), duration of operation, length of hospitalization, height and weight of the newborn, use of vasopressors, blood loss, neonatal resuscitation rate, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), duration of NICU and complications, were also measured.

resultsOf the 539 patients included in the analysis, 337 CSs were performed under general anesthesia (GA), 137 under epidural anesthesia (EA) and 65 under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA). The Apgar scores at 1 min and 5 min in newborns receiving GA were lower than those receiving intraspinal anesthesia, and no difference was found between those receiving EA and those receiving CSEA. The DDI of parturients under GA, EA, and CSE were 7[6,7], 6[6,7], and 14[11.5,20.5], respectively. The DDI and DII of GA and EA were shorter than those of CSE, and the DDI and DII were similar between GA and EA. Compared to that in the GA group, the OAII in the intraspinal anesthesia group was significantly greater. GA administration correlated with more frequent resuscitative interventions, increased admission rates to NICU, and a greater incidence of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS). Nevertheless, the duration of NICU stay and the incidence rates of neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) and pneumonia did not significantly differ based on the type of anesthesia performed.

conclusionCompared with general anesthesia, epidural anesthesia may not be associated with a negative impact on neonatal or maternal outcomes and could be utilized as an alternative to general anesthesia in our selected patient population following emergency cesarean section; In addition, a comparably short DDI was achieved for emergency cesarean delivery under epidural anesthesia when compared to general anesthesia in our study. However, the possibility that selection bias related to the retrospective study design may have influenced the results cannot be excluded.