{"title":"Association between postpartum depression and anaesthesia methods in women undergoing caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Si-Cheng Xie, Chuen-Huei Liu, Yu-Ting Hung","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Postpartum depression impacts maternal health, child development, and overall family well being. General anaesthesia has been suggested as a potential risk factor.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the association between anaesthetic methods and postpartum depression in women undergoing Caesarean section.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review with meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science through 16 April 2025, and included seven studies comprising 1 482 355 patients.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing postpartum depression outcomes in women undergoing Caesarean section with general anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results showed that general anaesthesia significantly increased the risk of both overall postpartum depression [odds ratio (OR) = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23 to 2.19] and severe postpartum depression (OR = 1.41, 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.47). Subgroup analysis stratified by timing of postpartum depression diagnosis revealed an elevated risk within one-year postpartum (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.46) and an even higher risk within seven-day postpartum (OR = 4.68, 95% CI, 1.21 to 18.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings highlight the importance of anaesthetic choices for Caesarean section and suggest that minimising general anaesthesia exposure may optimise both physical and mental health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","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.0000000000002252","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Postpartum depression impacts maternal health, child development, and overall family well being. General anaesthesia has been suggested as a potential risk factor.
Objective: To assess the association between anaesthetic methods and postpartum depression in women undergoing Caesarean section.
Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis.
Data sources: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science through 16 April 2025, and included seven studies comprising 1 482 355 patients.
Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing postpartum depression outcomes in women undergoing Caesarean section with general anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia.
Results: Our results showed that general anaesthesia significantly increased the risk of both overall postpartum depression [odds ratio (OR) = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23 to 2.19] and severe postpartum depression (OR = 1.41, 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.47). Subgroup analysis stratified by timing of postpartum depression diagnosis revealed an elevated risk within one-year postpartum (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.46) and an even higher risk within seven-day postpartum (OR = 4.68, 95% CI, 1.21 to 18.09).
Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of anaesthetic choices for Caesarean section and suggest that minimising general anaesthesia exposure may optimise both physical and mental health outcomes.
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).