卢萨卡大学教学医院(UTH)脊柱与全身麻醉新生儿Apgar评分结果

C. Muloshi
{"title":"卢萨卡大学教学医院(UTH)脊柱与全身麻醉新生儿Apgar评分结果","authors":"C. Muloshi","doi":"10.53974/unza.jabs.4.4.339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The knowledge gap was from the fact that the type of anaesthetic drug administered during caesarean section can have effects on neonatal outcome like low Apgar score with most hospitals in developed countries now using more modern inhalational anaesthetic agents with fewer or no cardio-respiratory depressant effects e.g. Isoflurane or Sevoflurane. However at UTH, halothane is still being used for maintenance of general anaesthesia despite well documented cardio-respiratory depressant effects with very limited research done on its effects on neonatal Apgar score. The Apgar score is a means of rapid evaluation of the physical condition of infants shortly after birth. Thus this study investigated the effects of general anaesthesia with halothane versus spinal anaesthesia on neonatal Apgar score. Objective and study design: With the view of determining the type of anaesthesia administered during caesarean section with the least effects on neonatal wellbeing shortly after birth, a prospective observational cohort study was conducted at the University Teaching Hospital between May 2015 and January 2016.The scientific objective was to determine the effects of general anaesthesia with halothane versus spinal anaesthesia on neonatal Apgar score. This study involved 70 neonates, 54 were born from mothers that had undergone caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia and 16 from mothers that had undergone general anaesthesia. The data was analysed using SPSS version 16.0. Inferential analysis was conducted using logistic regression. Results: 20 neonates out of 54 (37%) in the spinal anaesthetic group had an Apgar score less than 8 at 1 minute[Fig 1]. Out of the 16 neonates in the general anaesthesia group, 14 (87.5%) had Apgar score less than 8 at 1 minute[Fig 1]. One (1.9%) neonate had an Apgar score less than 8 at 5 minutes in the spinal anaesthesia group. While 4 (25%) neonates had Apgar score less than 8 in the GA group[Fig2] The logistic regression at 1 minute Showed that it is over 11 times more likely to get a low Apgar with a general anaesthetic as compared to a spinal anaesthetic (OR 11.9), [Table 3]. The Apgar score at 1 minute in the Spinal anaesthesia group was statistically significantly higher than the general anaesthesia group (p=0.002). The logistic regression at 5 minutes Showed that it is over 17 times more likely to get a low Apgar with a general anaesthetic as compared to a spinal anaesthetic (OR 17.7), [Table 4]. Further, the 5 minutes Apgar score in the spinal anaesthesia group was statistically significantly higher than the general anaesthesia group (p=0.014),[Table 4]. Conclusion: With the results pointing to the fact that there is significant difference in neonatal Apgar score outcomes in spinal versus general anaesthesia, the researcher therefore rejected the null hypothesis. It is therefore inferred that spinal anaesthesia method has better neonatal outcomes by Apgar score measure than general anaesthesia method.","PeriodicalId":224135,"journal":{"name":"University of Zambia Journal of Agricultural and Biomedical Sciences","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neonatal Apgar Score Outcomes in Spinal Versus General Anaesthesia at the University Teaching Hospital (UTH), Lusaka.\",\"authors\":\"C. Muloshi\",\"doi\":\"10.53974/unza.jabs.4.4.339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The knowledge gap was from the fact that the type of anaesthetic drug administered during caesarean section can have effects on neonatal outcome like low Apgar score with most hospitals in developed countries now using more modern inhalational anaesthetic agents with fewer or no cardio-respiratory depressant effects e.g. Isoflurane or Sevoflurane. However at UTH, halothane is still being used for maintenance of general anaesthesia despite well documented cardio-respiratory depressant effects with very limited research done on its effects on neonatal Apgar score. The Apgar score is a means of rapid evaluation of the physical condition of infants shortly after birth. Thus this study investigated the effects of general anaesthesia with halothane versus spinal anaesthesia on neonatal Apgar score. Objective and study design: With the view of determining the type of anaesthesia administered during caesarean section with the least effects on neonatal wellbeing shortly after birth, a prospective observational cohort study was conducted at the University Teaching Hospital between May 2015 and January 2016.The scientific objective was to determine the effects of general anaesthesia with halothane versus spinal anaesthesia on neonatal Apgar score. This study involved 70 neonates, 54 were born from mothers that had undergone caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia and 16 from mothers that had undergone general anaesthesia. The data was analysed using SPSS version 16.0. Inferential analysis was conducted using logistic regression. Results: 20 neonates out of 54 (37%) in the spinal anaesthetic group had an Apgar score less than 8 at 1 minute[Fig 1]. Out of the 16 neonates in the general anaesthesia group, 14 (87.5%) had Apgar score less than 8 at 1 minute[Fig 1]. One (1.9%) neonate had an Apgar score less than 8 at 5 minutes in the spinal anaesthesia group. While 4 (25%) neonates had Apgar score less than 8 in the GA group[Fig2] The logistic regression at 1 minute Showed that it is over 11 times more likely to get a low Apgar with a general anaesthetic as compared to a spinal anaesthetic (OR 11.9), [Table 3]. The Apgar score at 1 minute in the Spinal anaesthesia group was statistically significantly higher than the general anaesthesia group (p=0.002). The logistic regression at 5 minutes Showed that it is over 17 times more likely to get a low Apgar with a general anaesthetic as compared to a spinal anaesthetic (OR 17.7), [Table 4]. Further, the 5 minutes Apgar score in the spinal anaesthesia group was statistically significantly higher than the general anaesthesia group (p=0.014),[Table 4]. Conclusion: With the results pointing to the fact that there is significant difference in neonatal Apgar score outcomes in spinal versus general anaesthesia, the researcher therefore rejected the null hypothesis. It is therefore inferred that spinal anaesthesia method has better neonatal outcomes by Apgar score measure than general anaesthesia method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":224135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Zambia Journal of Agricultural and Biomedical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Zambia Journal of Agricultural and Biomedical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53974/unza.jabs.4.4.339\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Zambia Journal of Agricultural and Biomedical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53974/unza.jabs.4.4.339","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:知识差距是由于剖宫产时使用的麻醉药物类型会影响新生儿结局,如低阿普加评分,发达国家的大多数医院现在使用更现代的吸入麻醉剂,其心肺抑制作用较少或没有,如异氟醚或七氟醚。然而,在UTH,氟烷仍被用于维持全身麻醉,尽管有充分记录的心肺抑制作用,但对其对新生儿Apgar评分的影响的研究非常有限。阿普加评分是一种快速评估婴儿出生后身体状况的方法。因此,本研究探讨了氟烷全身麻醉与脊髓麻醉对新生儿Apgar评分的影响。目的与研究设计:为了确定剖宫产术中使用哪种麻醉对新生儿出生后不久的健康影响最小,2015年5月至2016年1月在大学教学医院进行了一项前瞻性观察队列研究。科学目的是确定氟烷全身麻醉与脊髓麻醉对新生儿Apgar评分的影响。这项研究涉及70名新生儿,其中54名母亲在脊髓麻醉下剖腹产,16名母亲在全身麻醉下分娩。采用SPSS 16.0对数据进行分析。采用逻辑回归进行推理分析。结果:脊髓麻醉组54例新生儿中有20例(37%)在1分钟时Apgar评分低于8分[图1]。全麻组16例新生儿中,有14例(87.5%)Apgar评分在1分钟时小于8分[图1]。脊髓麻醉组1例(1.9%)新生儿在5分钟时Apgar评分低于8分。GA组有4名(25%)新生儿的Apgar评分低于8分[图2],1分钟的逻辑回归显示,与脊髓麻醉相比,全身麻醉获得低Apgar评分的可能性超过11倍(OR为11.9),[表3]。脊髓麻醉组1分钟Apgar评分显著高于全麻组(p=0.002)。5分钟的逻辑回归显示,与脊髓麻醉相比,全身麻醉获得低Apgar的可能性超过17倍(OR 17.7),[表4]。脊髓麻醉组5分钟Apgar评分高于全麻组,差异有统计学意义(p=0.014),[表4]。结论:由于研究结果表明脊髓麻醉与全身麻醉下新生儿Apgar评分结果存在显著差异,因此研究者拒绝原假设。因此,通过Apgar评分,推断脊髓麻醉方法比全身麻醉方法具有更好的新生儿结局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Neonatal Apgar Score Outcomes in Spinal Versus General Anaesthesia at the University Teaching Hospital (UTH), Lusaka.
Background: The knowledge gap was from the fact that the type of anaesthetic drug administered during caesarean section can have effects on neonatal outcome like low Apgar score with most hospitals in developed countries now using more modern inhalational anaesthetic agents with fewer or no cardio-respiratory depressant effects e.g. Isoflurane or Sevoflurane. However at UTH, halothane is still being used for maintenance of general anaesthesia despite well documented cardio-respiratory depressant effects with very limited research done on its effects on neonatal Apgar score. The Apgar score is a means of rapid evaluation of the physical condition of infants shortly after birth. Thus this study investigated the effects of general anaesthesia with halothane versus spinal anaesthesia on neonatal Apgar score. Objective and study design: With the view of determining the type of anaesthesia administered during caesarean section with the least effects on neonatal wellbeing shortly after birth, a prospective observational cohort study was conducted at the University Teaching Hospital between May 2015 and January 2016.The scientific objective was to determine the effects of general anaesthesia with halothane versus spinal anaesthesia on neonatal Apgar score. This study involved 70 neonates, 54 were born from mothers that had undergone caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia and 16 from mothers that had undergone general anaesthesia. The data was analysed using SPSS version 16.0. Inferential analysis was conducted using logistic regression. Results: 20 neonates out of 54 (37%) in the spinal anaesthetic group had an Apgar score less than 8 at 1 minute[Fig 1]. Out of the 16 neonates in the general anaesthesia group, 14 (87.5%) had Apgar score less than 8 at 1 minute[Fig 1]. One (1.9%) neonate had an Apgar score less than 8 at 5 minutes in the spinal anaesthesia group. While 4 (25%) neonates had Apgar score less than 8 in the GA group[Fig2] The logistic regression at 1 minute Showed that it is over 11 times more likely to get a low Apgar with a general anaesthetic as compared to a spinal anaesthetic (OR 11.9), [Table 3]. The Apgar score at 1 minute in the Spinal anaesthesia group was statistically significantly higher than the general anaesthesia group (p=0.002). The logistic regression at 5 minutes Showed that it is over 17 times more likely to get a low Apgar with a general anaesthetic as compared to a spinal anaesthetic (OR 17.7), [Table 4]. Further, the 5 minutes Apgar score in the spinal anaesthesia group was statistically significantly higher than the general anaesthesia group (p=0.014),[Table 4]. Conclusion: With the results pointing to the fact that there is significant difference in neonatal Apgar score outcomes in spinal versus general anaesthesia, the researcher therefore rejected the null hypothesis. It is therefore inferred that spinal anaesthesia method has better neonatal outcomes by Apgar score measure than general anaesthesia method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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