General anesthesia (GA) is associated with an increased risk of infant intubation and low Apgar scores, relative to regional anesthesia. An analysis of 50,806 cesarean deliveries, published in the open access journal BMC Medicine, strongly supports guidelines that regional anesthesia is to be preferred over GA for most cesarean sections.
Charles Algert, from the Kolling Institute at the Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, was part of a team of researchers who studied births in the state of New South Wales, Australia, between 1998 and 2004. He said, "We have shown that general anesthesia poses significant risks to the neonate of both resuscitation requiring intubation and of a poor Apgar score at 5 minutes. The greatest relative risk of both adverse outcomes occurred in low-risk, planned, repeat cesarean deliveries under GA, but the greatest excess in risk attributable to GA was for emergency deliveries for fetal distress where the infant would already have been compromised to some extent".
Although current guidelines recommend regional blocks, GA was still used for 12.6% of cesareans across NSW in 2006. According to the NHS Maternity Statistics, 8.7% of cesarean sections in England in 2006-2007 were performed using GA. It is generally presumed that any harm caused by GA is short-lasting, with most studies focusing on resuscitation and the Apgar score at one minute. According to Algert, however, this may not be the case, "The increased rates of neonatal intubation after GA shown in this study represent harm in and of itself, and the persistence of low 5-minute Apgar scores suggests that deleterious effects may last longer than the immediate aftermath of delivery".
The authors conclude, "Clinicians considering the use of GA for a cesarean delivery should be aware of these possible consequences for the infant, for both planned and emergency sections".
Notes to Editors
1. Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study
Charles S Algert, Jennifer R Bowen, Warwick B Giles, Greg E Knoblanche, Samantha L Lain and Christine L Roberts
BMC Medicine (in press)
During embargo, article available here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/6303200082624361_article.pdf?random=414577
After the embargo, article available at journal website: http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmed/
Please name the journal in any story you write. If you are writing for the web, please link to the article. All articles are available free of charge, according to BioMed Central's open access policy.
Article citation and URL available on request at firstname.lastname@example.org on the day of publication
2. BMC Medicine - the flagship medical journal of the BMC series - publishes original research articles, commentaries and reviews in all areas of medical science and clinical practice. To be appropriate for BMC Medicine, articles need to be of outstanding quality, broad interest and special importance. BMC Medicine (ISSN 1741-7015) is indexed/tracked/covered by PubMed, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, CAS, Scopus, EMBASE, Current Contents, Thomson Reuters (ISI) and Google Scholar.
3. BioMed Central (www.biomedcentral.com) is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher which has pioneered the open access publishing model. All peer-reviewed research articles published by BioMed Central are made immediately and freely accessible online, and are licensed to allow redistribution and reuse. BioMed Central is part of Springer Science+Business Media, a leading global publisher in the STM sector.
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.