Brief communication (Original). Anesthesia for cesarean section in parturients diagnosed with placenta previa in a Thai university hospital: a retrospective analysis of 562 consecutive cases

Open access

Abstract

Background: Anesthesia for cesarean delivery in parturients diagnosed with placenta previa remains controversial.

Objectives: To investigate factors correlated with choice of anesthesia in these parturients and their outcomes.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with placenta previa and cesarean delivery at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. Peri operative anesthetic and complication data were collected using a structured collection form. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Among 50,237 deliveries from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2011, there were 562 cesarean sections in diagnosed cases of placenta previa. Cesarean deliveries (479) were performed under spinal anesthesia (81%), epidural anesthesia (1.8%), and if the effects spinal anesthesia dissipated, general anesthesia (2.3%). Among 46 cases of cesarean hysterectomy, 27 patients (58.7%) received regional anesthesia. However, 6 of 10 patients with planned cesarean hysterectomy underwent general anesthesia, while 1 of 4 of a group with regional anesthesia needed conversion to general anesthesia. There was no serious anesthesia-related complication. Factors related to general anesthesia were: a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.7-4.3) P < 0.001; presentation with bleeding OR 1.8(95% CI 1.0-3.1) P = 0.033; anterior site of placenta OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1-3.2) P = 0.025; heart rate >125 bpm OR 5.6 (95% CI 1.5-214) P = 0.01; and pack red cell transfusion OR 3.4 (95% CI 2.0-5.7) P < 0.001.

Conclusions: Most parturients received regional anesthesia. Neuroaxial anesthesia and general anesthesia are safe.

1. McShane PM, Heyl PS, Epstein MF. Maternal and perinatal morbidity resulting from placenta previa. Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 65:176-82.

2. Chestnut DH, Dewan DM, Redick LF, Caton D, Spielman FJ. Anesthetic management for obstetric hysterectomy: a multi-institutional study. Anesthesiology. 1989; 70:607-10.

3. Iyasu S, Saftlas AK, Rowley DL, Koonin LM, Lawson HW, Atrash HK. The epidemiology of placenta previa in the United States 1979 through 1987. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983; 168:1424-9.

4. Bonner SM, Haynes SR, Ryall D. The anaesthetic management of Caesarean section for placenta previa: a questionnaire survey. Anaesthesia. 1995; 50:992-4.

5. Parekh N, Husaini SWU, Russel IF. Caesarean section for placenta praevia: a retrospective study of anaesthetic management. Br J Anaesth. 2000; 84: 725-30.

6. Hong JY, Jee YS, Yoon HJ, Kim SM. Comparison of general and epidural anesthesia in elective cesarean section for placenta previa totalis: maternal hemodynamics, blood loss and neonatal outcome. Int J Obstet Anaesth. 2003; 12:12-6.

7. Charuluxananan S, Thienthong S, Rungreungvanich M, Chanchayanon T, Chinachoti T, Kyokong O, Punjasawadwong Y. Cardiac arrest after spinal anesthesia in Thailand: a prospective multicenter registry of 40271 anesthetics. Anesth Analg. 2008; 107: 1735-41.

8. Peel WJ. A survey of the anaesthetic management of patients presenting for Caesarean section with high risk obstetric conditions. Int J Obstet Anaesth. 1996; 5:219-20.

9. Plumer MH, Rottman R. How anesthesiologists practice obstetric anesthesia. Responses of practicing obstetric anesthesiologists at the 1993 meeting of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology. Reg Anesth. 1996; 21:49-60.

10. Arcario T, Greene M, Ostheimer GW, Datta S, Naulty JS. Risks of placenta previa/accreta in patients with previous Caesarean deliveries. Anesthesiology. 1988; 69 (Suppl 3A):A659.

11. Collis R, Garry M. CSE is the regional anaesthetic technique of choice for placenta praevia. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2001; 10:252-3.

12. Kwee A, Bots ML, Visser GH, Bruinse HW. Emergency perioperative hysterectomy: a prospective study in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008; 124:187-92.

13. Muench MV, Baschat AA, Oyelese Y, Kush MI, Mighty HE, Malinow AM. Gravid hysterectomy: a decade of experience at an academic referral centre. J Reprod Med. 2008; 53:271-8.

14. Selo-Ojeme DO, Bhattacharjee P, Izuwa-Njoku NF, Kader RA. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy in a tertiary London Hospital. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005; 271:154-9.

15. Wright JD, Bonanno C, Shah M, Gaddipati S, Devine P. Peripartum Hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116:429-33.

16. Chestnut DH, Redick LF. Continuous epidural anesthesia for elective hysterectomy. South Med J. 1985; 78:1168-73.

17. Afolabi BB, Lesi FEA, Merah NA. Regional versus general anesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2006:CD004350

18. Sprung J, Warner ME, Contreras MG, Schroeder DR, Beighley CM, Wilson GA, Warner DO. Predictors of survival following cardiac arrest in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a study of 518,294 patients at a tertiary center. Anesthesiology. 2003; 99:259-69.

19. Aubas S, Biboulet P, Daures JP, du Cailar J. [Incidence and etiology of cardiac arrest occurring during the peroperative period and in the recovery room. Apropos of 102,468 anesthesia cases]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1991; 10:436-42. (article in French)

20. Braz LG, Modolo NSP, Nascimento JP, Bruschi BAM, Castiglia YMM, Ganem EM, de Carvalho LR, Braz JRC. Perioperative cardiac arrest: a study of 53718 anesthetics over a 9 yr from a Brazilian teaching hospital. Br J Anaesth. 2006; 96:569-75.

21. Kyokong O, Charuluxananan S, Werawatganon T, Termsombatborworn N, Leelachiewchankul F. Risk factors of perioperative death at a university hospital in Thailand: a registry of 50,409 anesthetics. Asian Biomed. 2008; 2:51-8.

22. Oyelese Y, Smullian J. Placenta previa, placenta accrete, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107:927-41.

23. Shibata K, Yamamoto Y, Murakami S. Effects of epidural anesthesia on cardiovascular responses and survival in experimental hemorrhage shock in dogs. Anesthesiology. 1989; 71:953-9.

Journal Information


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.209
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.243

CiteScore 2017: 0.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.162
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.173

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 88 88 17
PDF Downloads 30 30 5