Sana Asif, Natasa Kollia, Andrea Kollmann, Birgitta Birgisdottir, Richard Aubrey White, Miklós Lipcsey, Alkistis Skalkidou
{"title":"Factors influencing the choice of lumbar epidural analgesia and its association with postpartum depression risk.","authors":"Sana Asif, Natasa Kollia, Andrea Kollmann, Birgitta Birgisdottir, Richard Aubrey White, Miklós Lipcsey, Alkistis Skalkidou","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of lumbar epidural analgesia (LEA) during childbirth varies significantly among women. Factors influencing a woman's choice of LEA and its possible effects on postpartum depression (PPD) remain underexplored.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate factors influencing the choice of LEA among women with intended vaginal deliveries. A secondary objective was to explore the association between LEA use and PPD.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A longitudinal cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden, 2010 to 2019.</p><p><strong>Population: </strong>Women with an intended vaginal delivery.</p><p><strong>Exclusions: </strong>Twins, elective caesarean section, induction of labour.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected by web-based self-completed questionnaires at gestational weeks 17, 32 and at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. The exposures were sociodemographic, resilience-related, medical and obstetric characteristics of all participants from the BASIC (Biology, Affect, Stress, Imaging and Cognition) study. Information on the use of LEA was retrieved from medical records. PPD was assessed using either the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, or the Depression Self-Rating Scale, and/or the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview at 6 to 8 weeks and 6 months postpartum. Bayesian models were applied to investigate the associations of multivariate factors with the choice for LEA, and the association between the use of LEA and PPD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 4436 participants, 38% opted for LEA, while 62% did not. LEA users were younger, primiparous, reported higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) and had lower resilience. The adjusted model revealed primiparity, previous caesarean section, IPV, pregnancy length at least 280 days and fear of childbirth as independent predictors of LEA use. While LEA use was associated with higher odds of PPD in the crude regression model, it was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for possible confounders and mediators.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Social and psychological vulnerabilities influence a woman's decision to opt for LEA during childbirth. LEA was not associated with PPD in adjusted models.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This is a longitudinal study which was not registered in 2010.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"626-636"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002180","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The use of lumbar epidural analgesia (LEA) during childbirth varies significantly among women. Factors influencing a woman's choice of LEA and its possible effects on postpartum depression (PPD) remain underexplored.
Objectives: To investigate factors influencing the choice of LEA among women with intended vaginal deliveries. A secondary objective was to explore the association between LEA use and PPD.
Study design: A longitudinal cohort study.
Setting: Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden, 2010 to 2019.
Population: Women with an intended vaginal delivery.
Exclusions: Twins, elective caesarean section, induction of labour.
Methods: Data were collected by web-based self-completed questionnaires at gestational weeks 17, 32 and at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. The exposures were sociodemographic, resilience-related, medical and obstetric characteristics of all participants from the BASIC (Biology, Affect, Stress, Imaging and Cognition) study. Information on the use of LEA was retrieved from medical records. PPD was assessed using either the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, or the Depression Self-Rating Scale, and/or the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview at 6 to 8 weeks and 6 months postpartum. Bayesian models were applied to investigate the associations of multivariate factors with the choice for LEA, and the association between the use of LEA and PPD.
Results: Among 4436 participants, 38% opted for LEA, while 62% did not. LEA users were younger, primiparous, reported higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) and had lower resilience. The adjusted model revealed primiparity, previous caesarean section, IPV, pregnancy length at least 280 days and fear of childbirth as independent predictors of LEA use. While LEA use was associated with higher odds of PPD in the crude regression model, it was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for possible confounders and mediators.
Conclusion: Social and psychological vulnerabilities influence a woman's decision to opt for LEA during childbirth. LEA was not associated with PPD in adjusted models.
Trial registration: This is a longitudinal study which was not registered in 2010.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).