Neighborhood disadvantage and general anesthesia utilization in cesarean delivery: a retrospective analysis

Andrea J. Ibarra MD, MS , Hannah Campion MD , Cecilia Canales MD, MS , Brittany N. Burton , Alejandro Munoz MD, PhD , Robert S. White MD, MS , Runjia Li MS , Goundappa K. Balasubramani PhD , Janet M. Catov PhD, MS
{"title":"Neighborhood disadvantage and general anesthesia utilization in cesarean delivery: a retrospective analysis","authors":"Andrea J. Ibarra MD, MS ,&nbsp;Hannah Campion MD ,&nbsp;Cecilia Canales MD, MS ,&nbsp;Brittany N. Burton ,&nbsp;Alejandro Munoz MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Robert S. White MD, MS ,&nbsp;Runjia Li MS ,&nbsp;Goundappa K. Balasubramani PhD ,&nbsp;Janet M. Catov PhD, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Neighborhood disadvantage, a social driver of health (SDOH), has been associated with adverse perinatal outcomes; yet little is known about its association with anesthetic choice.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The purpose of this study is to assess the association of neighborhood disadvantage and anesthetic choice for cesarean deliveries. We hypothesize that people from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean deliveries compared to those from the most advantaged neighborhoods.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>This single-center retrospective cohort study identified index cesarean deliveries performed between 2008 and 2017. People were categorized into no, low, moderate, and high disadvantage neighborhood using the area deprivation index. The odds of receiving general anesthesia versus neuraxial anesthesia (epidural, spinal, or combined spinal-epidural) were compared using logistic regression models.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 16,351 people with cesarean deliveries, 96.0% received neuraxial versus 4.0% general anesthesia. The rates of general anesthesia were 6.3%, 4.2%, 3.1%, and 2.4% for the high, moderate, low, and no disadvantage groups (<em>P</em>&lt;.001), respectively. Indications for general anesthesia by obstetric indication were different by neighborhood disadvantage (<em>P</em>&lt;.001), but no differences were observed by contraindications of neuraxial anesthesia (<em>P</em>=.091). Compared to the no disadvantage group, the high disadvantage group had higher odds of general anesthesia (aOR 2.0, 95% CI (1.5 to 2.7), <em>P</em>&lt;.001). Results were unchanged after evaluating people in labor only.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>People from disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean deliveries, even after considering clinical features. The general anesthesia rate is a meaningful benchmark in obstetric anesthesia that may contribute to disparities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":"4 4","pages":"Article 100407"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577824001011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Neighborhood disadvantage, a social driver of health (SDOH), has been associated with adverse perinatal outcomes; yet little is known about its association with anesthetic choice.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to assess the association of neighborhood disadvantage and anesthetic choice for cesarean deliveries. We hypothesize that people from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean deliveries compared to those from the most advantaged neighborhoods.

Study design

This single-center retrospective cohort study identified index cesarean deliveries performed between 2008 and 2017. People were categorized into no, low, moderate, and high disadvantage neighborhood using the area deprivation index. The odds of receiving general anesthesia versus neuraxial anesthesia (epidural, spinal, or combined spinal-epidural) were compared using logistic regression models.

Results

Of the 16,351 people with cesarean deliveries, 96.0% received neuraxial versus 4.0% general anesthesia. The rates of general anesthesia were 6.3%, 4.2%, 3.1%, and 2.4% for the high, moderate, low, and no disadvantage groups (P<.001), respectively. Indications for general anesthesia by obstetric indication were different by neighborhood disadvantage (P<.001), but no differences were observed by contraindications of neuraxial anesthesia (P=.091). Compared to the no disadvantage group, the high disadvantage group had higher odds of general anesthesia (aOR 2.0, 95% CI (1.5 to 2.7), P<.001). Results were unchanged after evaluating people in labor only.

Conclusions

People from disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean deliveries, even after considering clinical features. The general anesthesia rate is a meaningful benchmark in obstetric anesthesia that may contribute to disparities.
邻里劣势与剖腹产中全身麻醉的使用:回顾性分析
背景邻里劣势是健康的社会驱动因素(SDOH),与不良围产期结局有关;但人们对其与麻醉选择的关系知之甚少。研究目的本研究旨在评估邻里劣势与剖宫产麻醉选择的关系。我们假设,与来自最有利社区的人相比,来自最不利社区的人更有可能在剖宫产时接受全身麻醉。研究设计这项单中心回顾性队列研究确定了 2008 年至 2017 年期间进行的指数剖宫产。采用地区剥夺指数将患者分为无、低、中、高贫困社区。使用逻辑回归模型比较了接受全身麻醉与神经麻醉(硬膜外麻醉、脊髓麻醉或脊髓-硬膜外联合麻醉)的几率。结果 在16351名剖宫产患者中,96.0%接受了神经麻醉,4.0%接受了全身麻醉。高、中、低和无劣势组的全身麻醉率分别为 6.3%、4.2%、3.1% 和 2.4%(P< .001)。按产科指征划分的全身麻醉指征因邻里劣势而异(P<.001),但按神经麻醉禁忌症划分则无差异(P=.091)。与无不利条件组相比,高度不利条件组采用全身麻醉的几率更高(aOR 2.0,95% CI (1.5 至 2.7),P< .001)。结论即使考虑了临床特征,来自贫困地区的人在剖宫产时接受全身麻醉的几率也更高。全身麻醉率是产科麻醉中一个有意义的基准,可能会造成差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信