Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2021, Vol. 48 Issue (5): 1099-1106    DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog4805177
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
The time to perform spinal or general anaesthesia in COVID-19 positive parturients requiring emergency caesarean delivery: a prospective crossover simulation study
Marcelo Epsztein Kanczuk1, 2, *(), Nicholas J Lightfoot3, Alison Pighills1, 2, 4, Antony Ji1, Casey Steele1, Daniel Bartlett1, 2
1Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Mackay Hospital and Health Service (MHHS), Mackay, 4740 Queensland, Australia
2Mackay Institute of Research and Innovation, Research Support Unit, Mackay, 4740 Queensland, Australia
3Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Counties Manukau Health, 2025 Auckland, New Zealand
4College of Healthcare Services, Division of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811 Queensland, Australia
Download:  PDF(336KB)  ( 39 ) Full text   ( 7 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Background: Spinal anaesthesia is the commonest performed technique for caesarean deliveries except in the emergency setting where general anaesthesia is preferred due to its rapid onset and predictability. There are several modifications to performing general anaesthesia for COVID-19 patients in Australia. We hypothesised that the performance time of these techniques amongst specialist anaesthetists would be similar for COVID-19 parturients undergoing emergency caesarean delivery. Methods: We designed a simulation cross-over study. The primary outcome was the time taken to perform general anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia in this setting. We also examined the decision-making process time, the decision to incision time and the level of stress associated with both scenarios. Results: Nine specialist anaesthetists participated in the research. There was no difference in the time taken to perform spinal or general anaesthesia (mean difference (GA–SA scenario) –1.2 (–5.3–2.8) minutes, p = 0.5). Irrespective of group allocation the mean time to complete the spinal anaesthesia scenario was 27.4 (standard deviation = 7.8) minutes, while for the general anaesthesia scenario was 24.0 (7.2) minutes. There was no difference between these times (mean difference (GA–SA scenario) = –3.5 minutes, 95th percent confidence interval –9.7–2.8 minutes, p = 0.24). There was no evidence of a carryover effect for the two scenarios based on the group allocation (p = 0.69) and no significant difference between stress levels (p = 0.44). Conclusions: The time to perform spinal anaesthesia was similar to the time to perform general anaesthesia for a confirmed COVID-19 parturient in a simulation environment.
Key words:  Pregnancy      Emergency caesarean delivery      Coronavirus      General anaesthesia for caesarean      Spinal anaesthesia     
Submitted:  29 April 2021      Revised:  07 June 2021      Accepted:  11 June 2021      Published:  15 October 2021     
Fund: 
MIRI2020-04/Mackay Hospital and Health Service
*Corresponding Author(s):  Marcelo Epsztein Kanczuk     E-mail:  Marcelokanc@gmail.com

Cite this article: 

Marcelo Epsztein Kanczuk, Nicholas J Lightfoot, Alison Pighills, Antony Ji, Casey Steele, Daniel Bartlett. The time to perform spinal or general anaesthesia in COVID-19 positive parturients requiring emergency caesarean delivery: a prospective crossover simulation study. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1099-1106.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.ceog4805177     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2021/V48/I5/1099

[1] Amanda M. Wang, Alan J. Lee, Shannon M. Clark. The effects of overweight and obesity on pregnancy-related morbidity[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 999-1009.
[2] Leen Van den Eeden, Greet Leysens,Dominique Mannaerts, Yves Jacquemyn. Air pollution: cardiovascular and other negative effects on pregnancy: a narrative review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1010-1016.
[3] Alessandra Gallo, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Antonietta Legnante, Romolo Di Iorio, Carlo De Angelis. Hysteroscopy in COVID-19 times[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1017-1021.
[4] Xin Du, Qian Zou, Yu-Lan Liu. Transumbilical single-hole laparoscopic treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy by uterine artery pre-ligation: a report of 4 cases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1044-1047.
[5] Noor Hazim Abdulkareem, Elham Hazeim Abdulkareem. SARS-CoV-2 detection in pregnant and non-pregnant women[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1141-1145.
[6] Min Jung Kim, Hee-Sook Lim, Hae-Hyeog Lee, Tae-Hee Kim, Yongsoon Park. Dietary assessment, nutrition knowledge, and pregnancy outcome in high-risk pregnant Korean women[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1178-1185.
[7] Neha Sethi, Ann Gee Tan, Maherah Kamarudin, Sofiah Sulaiman. Successful delivery of a twin pregnancy with complete hydatidiform mole and coexistent live fetus: a case report and review of literature[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1232-1247.
[8] Luca Roncati, Greta Gianotti, Elisa Ambrogi, Giovanna Attolini. COVID-19 in pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 778-780.
[9] Silvia Amodeo, Giulia Bonavina, Anna Seidenari, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto, Antonio Farina. Real-world implementation and adaptation to local settings of first trimester preeclampsia screening in Italy: a systematic review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 812-819.
[10] Yu Deng, Zhan-Hui Ou, Min-Na Yin, Pei-Ling Liang, Zhi-Heng Chen, Abraham Morse, Ling Sun. Age and anti-Műllerian hormone: prediction of cumulative pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization with diminished ovarian reserve[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 835-841.
[11] Serdar Balci. The effect of ultraviolet index measurements on levels of vitamin D andinflammatory markers in pregnant women[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 888-892.
[12] Anna M. Rubinshtein, Oleg V. Golyanovskiy. Obstetric outcomes in women of advanced maternal age after assisted reproduction[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 893-900.
[13] Qian Hu, Mohammed Sharooq Paramboor, Tao Guo. Diagnosis and management of intramural ectopic pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 974-979.
[14] Ovadya Rosenbluh, Asnat Walfisch. Birth defects associated with obesity[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 472-477.
[15] Sara Oday, Maysoon Sharief. The role of salivary progesterone and cervical length measurement in predicting risk of spontaneous preterm birth[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 509-513.
No Suggested Reading articles found!