IMPACT OF DIFFERENT ANESTHETIC TECHNIQUES ON MATERNAL, FETAL, AND NEONATAL STATES AFTER ABDOMINAL DELIVERY


Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Acesso é pago ou somente para assinantes

Resumo

Objective. To comparatively analyze maternal central hemodynamic parameters, fetal gaseous homeostasis, acid-base state (ABS), and perinatal outcomes after abdominal delivery under different anesthetic modes. Subject and methods. The investigation enrolled 65 pregnant women undergoing cesarean delivery under general and spinal anesthesia (GA and SA). Noninvasive bioimpedance technology was used to measure central hemodynamic parameters at surgical stages. The neonatal infants were evaluated using Apgar scoring at 1 and 5 minutes after birth. Umbilical venous blood gaseous homeostasis and ABS were examined. Results. At all surgical stages, the SA group presented a more favorable hemodynamic profile than did the GA group. The application of GA was followed by lower Apgar scores at 1 minute; no differences were found at 5 minutes. The study groups showed no great differences in umbilical venous blood pH, standard base excess, and lactate levels. In the GA group, the oxygen saturation in umbilical blood was significantly higher than that in the SA group. All the neonates had no complications in the early neonatal period. Conclusion. This study demonstrates a greater hemodynamic stability after cesarean section under SA. The GA newborn babies had higher umbilical blood oxygen saturation levels; however, both anesthetic modes indicated that adequate uteroplacental perfusion was preserved and they were safe for the fetus.

Texto integral

Acesso é fechado

Sobre autores

S. KINZHALOVA

Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Infancy Care, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: sveking@mail.ru
Yekaterinburg

R. MAKAROV

Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Infancy Care, Ministry of Health of Russia

Yekaterinburg

N. DAVYDOVA

Ural State Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia

Yekaterinburg

Bibliografia

  1. Серов В.Н., Маркин С.А. Критические состояния в акушерстве: Руководство для врачей. М.: Медиздат; 2003. 704с.
  2. Bloom S.L., Spong C.Y., Weiner S.J. Complications of anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005; 106: 281-7.
  3. Bowring J., Fraser N., Vause S., Heazell A.E.P. Is regional anaesthesia better than general anaesthesia for caesarean section? J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2006; 26: 433-4.
  4. Reynolds F., Seed P.T. Anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal acid-base status: a meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2005; 60: 636-53.
  5. Afolabi B.B., Lesi F.E. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012; (10): CD004350.
  6. Algert O.S., Bowen J.R., Giles W.B., Knoblanche G.E., Lain S.J., Roberts C.L. Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study. BMC Medicine. 2009; 29: 7-20.

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML

Declaração de direitos autorais © Bionika Media, 2013