ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Influencing factors of general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia for cesarean section women with PAH.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2026. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in parturients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), and analyze the influencing factors for postoperative adverse outcomes.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on 236 PAH parturients who underwent cesarean section from January 2022 to December 2024. All subjects were grouped via propensity score matching into the general anesthesia group (Group A, n=104) and the spinal anesthesia group (Group B, n=132). Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, surgical indicators, postoperative adverse events, and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. Subgroup analysis, univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analyses, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and forest plot analysis were performed for statistical evaluation.
resultsAt time points T1 to T3, Group B presented significantly lower mean arterial pressure and heart rate with milder hemodynamic fluctuations, less intraoperative blood loss, and a lower overall incidence of adverse events than Group A (all P<0.05). In subgroups of severe PAH and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV cardiac function, Group B also showed a reduced adverse event rate (P<0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis identified preoperative NYHA classification, anesthesia modality, PAH severity, and preoperative hemoglobin level as independent influencing factors for postoperative adverse outcomes (all P<0.05). ROC curve analysis demonstrated that the combined detection of the above three core indicators yielded superior predictive efficacy compared with single-index detection (P<0.05). The ROC curve of the validation group had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.739, indicating favorable predictive performance of the model. The calibration curve verified excellent calibration capability, with predicted values highly consistent with actual clinical outcomes. The decision curve analysis showed that the nomogram model maintained positive net clinical benefits within a probability threshold range of 10-90%.
conclusionSpinal anesthesia provides safer and more stable perioperative hemodynamic conditions for PAH parturients undergoing cesarean section. The combined evaluation of preoperative clinical indicators can effectively predict postoperative adverse outcomes in this patient population.
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.