Conversion of labour epidural analgesia to anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section: A retrospective audit

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
S. Pandya, Jyotsna Mikkilineni, Manokanth Madapu
{"title":"Conversion of labour epidural analgesia to anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section: A retrospective audit","authors":"S. Pandya, Jyotsna Mikkilineni, Manokanth Madapu","doi":"10.4103/joacc.JOACC_91_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: to determine the rates of failed conversion of EA to surgical anaesthesia for patient and clinician information and benchmarking, and to develop an algorithmic approach for safe conversion of EA. Materials and Methods: A retrospective audit of parturients who had labour epidural analgesia (EA) at an advanced tertiary care institute for women and newborn health in south India. Information on EA, caesarean sections, conversion of EA, failure of regional anaesthesia, use of general anaesthesia, alternate techniques and supplemental medications were retrieved from electronic medical records. Results: Emergency cesarean section (CS) was performed for 4,259 (26.93%, 95% CI: 26.25, 27.63) of 15, 812 parturients that had EA at the study institute between Jan 2012 and December 2016. The EA was successful in 4,078 (95.75%, 95% CI: 95.11, 96.32) of these 4,259 women. Seventy three (1.71%, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.15) of the 4,259 women reported mild discomfort on the VAS for pain and required supplemental sedation for the emergency CS and 108 (2.53%, 95% CI: 2.11, 3.05) of the 4,259 women needed alternate techniques. The failure rate of EA was thus 4.25% (95% CI: 3.68, 4.89, n = 181) in this audit. Conclusions: The failure rates of EA at the study institute are well within the recommended standards of the RCA (Royal College of Anaesthesiologists – UK). This audit helped us to develop an algorithmic approach to further improve performance based on problems identified during the audit.","PeriodicalId":16611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care","volume":"11 1","pages":"5 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacc.JOACC_91_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: to determine the rates of failed conversion of EA to surgical anaesthesia for patient and clinician information and benchmarking, and to develop an algorithmic approach for safe conversion of EA. Materials and Methods: A retrospective audit of parturients who had labour epidural analgesia (EA) at an advanced tertiary care institute for women and newborn health in south India. Information on EA, caesarean sections, conversion of EA, failure of regional anaesthesia, use of general anaesthesia, alternate techniques and supplemental medications were retrieved from electronic medical records. Results: Emergency cesarean section (CS) was performed for 4,259 (26.93%, 95% CI: 26.25, 27.63) of 15, 812 parturients that had EA at the study institute between Jan 2012 and December 2016. The EA was successful in 4,078 (95.75%, 95% CI: 95.11, 96.32) of these 4,259 women. Seventy three (1.71%, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.15) of the 4,259 women reported mild discomfort on the VAS for pain and required supplemental sedation for the emergency CS and 108 (2.53%, 95% CI: 2.11, 3.05) of the 4,259 women needed alternate techniques. The failure rate of EA was thus 4.25% (95% CI: 3.68, 4.89, n = 181) in this audit. Conclusions: The failure rates of EA at the study institute are well within the recommended standards of the RCA (Royal College of Anaesthesiologists – UK). This audit helped us to develop an algorithmic approach to further improve performance based on problems identified during the audit.
紧急剖宫产分娩硬膜外镇痛转为麻醉的回顾性研究
目的:根据患者和临床医生的信息和基准,确定EA转换为外科麻醉的失败率,并开发一种安全转换EA的算法方法。材料和方法:对在印度南部一家高级妇女和新生儿健康三级护理机构进行分娩硬膜外镇痛(EA)的产妇进行回顾性审计。从电子医疗记录中检索有关EA、剖腹产、EA转换、区域麻醉失败、全身麻醉使用、替代技术和补充药物的信息。结果:在2012年1月至2016年12月期间,研究所对15812名患有EA的产妇中的4259名(26.93%,95%CI:26.25,27.63)进行了紧急剖宫产(CS)。在这4259名女性中,4078名(95.75%,95%置信区间:95.11,96.32)的电针成功。4259名女性中有73名(1.71%,95%CI:1.37,2.15)在VAS上报告了轻微的疼痛不适,需要在紧急CS中补充镇静,4259名妇女中有108名(2.53%,95%CI:2.11,3.05)需要替代技术。因此,在本次审计中,EA的失败率为4.25%(95%CI:3.68,4.89,n=181)。结论:研究所EA的失败率完全在RCA(英国皇家麻醉师学院)的推荐标准范围内。这次审计帮助我们开发了一种算法方法,根据审计过程中发现的问题进一步提高绩效。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
29 weeks
×
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