剖宫产术中全身麻醉与轴向麻醉:系统综述

Y. Lei, Cheng Xu, Yang Di, Ru-Rong Wang
{"title":"剖宫产术中全身麻醉与轴向麻醉:系统综述","authors":"Y. Lei, Cheng Xu, Yang Di, Ru-Rong Wang","doi":"10.24015/JAPM.2017.0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Neuraxial anesthesia is preferred anesthesia technique for cesarean section. But recently the safety of general anesthesia improved well. So it is important to clarify the safety of general anesthesia and neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean section. Methods: We searched CENTRAL/Ovid (September, 2016), EMBASE/Ovid (1974 to October 12, 2016), MEDLINE/Ovid (1946 to October 12, 2016). We only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared general anesthesia versus neuraxial anesthesia including spinal anesthesia, epidural anesthesia or combined spinal and epidural anesthesia in cesarean section. Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, extracted the data and performed the analysis. Results: A total of 1394 mothers were involved in the 15 included studies. For neonatal outcomes, at 1 minute after delivery, Apgar score was significantly lower in maternal general anesthesia group (mean difference[MD] -0.71, 95% confidence intervals [CI] -0.99 to -0.43) and the risk of newborns for Apgar score lower than 7 was higher when the mother underwent general anesthesia (risk ratio [RR] 4.81, 95% CI 1.72 to 13.46). At 5 minutes after delivery, Apgar score was still lower in maternal general anesthesia group (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.02), but the risk of newborns for Apgar score lower than 7 showed no difference in statistical analysis under general or neuraxial anesthesia (RR 2.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 64.48). Besides, no neonatal deaths were reported, and risk of oxygen by mask or intubation (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.53) also showed no difference in statistical analysis in both groups. For maternal outcomes, there were more blood loss in general anesthesia group (MD 75.8, 95% CI 21.18 to 130.41), but the risk of receiving postoperative blood transfusion was similar in both groups (RR 2.85, 95% CI 0.93 to 8.72). Besides, the risk of shivering (RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 56.33), nausea (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.17) and vomiting (RR 4.13, 95% CI 1.41 to 12.09) was higher in general anesthesia group. But the risk of headache (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.87) and pruritus (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.99) was higher in neuraxial anesthesia group.  Conclusions: For clinical practice, we recommended neuraxial anesthesia as first choice in cesarean section. For further clinical researches, more non-surrogate outcomes should be reported, such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. (Funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province, China.)    Citation: Lei Yang, Xu Cheng, Di Yang, Ru-Rong Wang. General versus neuraxial anesthesia in cesarean section: a systematic review. J Anesth Perioper Med 2017; 4: 114-22.  doi:10.24015/JAPM.2017.0028 This is an open-access article, published by Evidence Based Communications (EBC). This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format for any lawful purpose. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.","PeriodicalId":15018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"114-122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"General versus Neuraxial Anesthesia in Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Y. Lei, Cheng Xu, Yang Di, Ru-Rong Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.24015/JAPM.2017.0028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Neuraxial anesthesia is preferred anesthesia technique for cesarean section. But recently the safety of general anesthesia improved well. So it is important to clarify the safety of general anesthesia and neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean section. Methods: We searched CENTRAL/Ovid (September, 2016), EMBASE/Ovid (1974 to October 12, 2016), MEDLINE/Ovid (1946 to October 12, 2016). We only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared general anesthesia versus neuraxial anesthesia including spinal anesthesia, epidural anesthesia or combined spinal and epidural anesthesia in cesarean section. Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, extracted the data and performed the analysis. Results: A total of 1394 mothers were involved in the 15 included studies. For neonatal outcomes, at 1 minute after delivery, Apgar score was significantly lower in maternal general anesthesia group (mean difference[MD] -0.71, 95% confidence intervals [CI] -0.99 to -0.43) and the risk of newborns for Apgar score lower than 7 was higher when the mother underwent general anesthesia (risk ratio [RR] 4.81, 95% CI 1.72 to 13.46). At 5 minutes after delivery, Apgar score was still lower in maternal general anesthesia group (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.02), but the risk of newborns for Apgar score lower than 7 showed no difference in statistical analysis under general or neuraxial anesthesia (RR 2.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 64.48). Besides, no neonatal deaths were reported, and risk of oxygen by mask or intubation (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.53) also showed no difference in statistical analysis in both groups. For maternal outcomes, there were more blood loss in general anesthesia group (MD 75.8, 95% CI 21.18 to 130.41), but the risk of receiving postoperative blood transfusion was similar in both groups (RR 2.85, 95% CI 0.93 to 8.72). Besides, the risk of shivering (RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 56.33), nausea (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.17) and vomiting (RR 4.13, 95% CI 1.41 to 12.09) was higher in general anesthesia group. But the risk of headache (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.87) and pruritus (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.99) was higher in neuraxial anesthesia group.  Conclusions: For clinical practice, we recommended neuraxial anesthesia as first choice in cesarean section. For further clinical researches, more non-surrogate outcomes should be reported, such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. (Funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province, China.)    Citation: Lei Yang, Xu Cheng, Di Yang, Ru-Rong Wang. General versus neuraxial anesthesia in cesarean section: a systematic review. J Anesth Perioper Med 2017; 4: 114-22.  doi:10.24015/JAPM.2017.0028 This is an open-access article, published by Evidence Based Communications (EBC). This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format for any lawful purpose. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"114-122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24015/JAPM.2017.0028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24015/JAPM.2017.0028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:轴向麻醉是剖宫产术的首选麻醉技术。但近年来全身麻醉的安全性有了很大的提高。因此,明确剖宫产术中全麻和轴麻的安全性具有重要意义。方法:检索CENTRAL/Ovid(2016年9月)、EMBASE/Ovid(1974年~ 2016年10月12日)、MEDLINE/Ovid(1946年~ 2016年10月12日)。我们只纳入了比较剖宫产术中全身麻醉与神经轴麻醉(包括脊髓麻醉、硬膜外麻醉或脊髓和硬膜外联合麻醉)的随机对照试验(RCTs)。两位作者独立评估纳入研究,提取数据并进行分析。结果:15项纳入的研究共涉及1394名母亲。在新生儿结局方面,分娩后1分钟,产妇全麻组Apgar评分显著降低(平均差异[MD] -0.71, 95%可信区间[CI] -0.99 ~ -0.43),产妇全麻组新生儿Apgar评分低于7的风险较高(风险比[RR] 4.81, 95% CI 1.72 ~ 13.46)。分娩后5分钟,产妇全麻组Apgar评分仍较低(MD为-0.31,95% CI为-0.59 ~ -0.02),但全麻组与轴麻组新生儿Apgar评分低于7的风险差异无统计学意义(RR为2.31,95% CI为0.08 ~ 64.48)。此外,无新生儿死亡报告,面罩或插管供氧的风险(RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.33 ~ 4.53)在两组的统计分析中也没有差异。对于产妇结局,全麻组出血量较多(MD为75.8,95% CI为21.18 ~ 130.41),但两组术后输血风险相似(RR为2.85,95% CI为0.93 ~ 8.72)。全身麻醉组患者出现寒战(RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.14 ~ 56.33)、恶心(RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.99 ~ 2.17)和呕吐(RR 4.13, 95% CI 1.41 ~ 12.09)的风险较高。但神经轴麻组出现头痛(RR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.01 ~ 0.87)和瘙痒(RR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.02 ~ 0.99)的风险较高。结论:在临床实践中,我们推荐神经轴麻醉作为剖宫产术的首选麻醉。为了进一步的临床研究,应该报道更多的非代孕结局,如孕产妇和新生儿的死亡率和发病率。(国家自然科学基金、四川省科技厅资助)引用本文:杨磊,程旭,杨迪,王汝荣。剖宫产术中全身麻醉与神经轴麻醉:一项系统综述。中华外科杂志2017;4: 114 - 22所示。doi:10.24015/JAPM.2017.0028这是一篇开放获取的文章,由Evidence Based Communications (EBC)发表。本作品遵循知识共享署名4.0国际许可协议,允许以任何媒介或格式出于任何合法目的不受限制地使用、分发和复制。要查看此许可证的副本,请访问http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
General versus Neuraxial Anesthesia in Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review
Background: Neuraxial anesthesia is preferred anesthesia technique for cesarean section. But recently the safety of general anesthesia improved well. So it is important to clarify the safety of general anesthesia and neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean section. Methods: We searched CENTRAL/Ovid (September, 2016), EMBASE/Ovid (1974 to October 12, 2016), MEDLINE/Ovid (1946 to October 12, 2016). We only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared general anesthesia versus neuraxial anesthesia including spinal anesthesia, epidural anesthesia or combined spinal and epidural anesthesia in cesarean section. Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, extracted the data and performed the analysis. Results: A total of 1394 mothers were involved in the 15 included studies. For neonatal outcomes, at 1 minute after delivery, Apgar score was significantly lower in maternal general anesthesia group (mean difference[MD] -0.71, 95% confidence intervals [CI] -0.99 to -0.43) and the risk of newborns for Apgar score lower than 7 was higher when the mother underwent general anesthesia (risk ratio [RR] 4.81, 95% CI 1.72 to 13.46). At 5 minutes after delivery, Apgar score was still lower in maternal general anesthesia group (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.02), but the risk of newborns for Apgar score lower than 7 showed no difference in statistical analysis under general or neuraxial anesthesia (RR 2.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 64.48). Besides, no neonatal deaths were reported, and risk of oxygen by mask or intubation (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.53) also showed no difference in statistical analysis in both groups. For maternal outcomes, there were more blood loss in general anesthesia group (MD 75.8, 95% CI 21.18 to 130.41), but the risk of receiving postoperative blood transfusion was similar in both groups (RR 2.85, 95% CI 0.93 to 8.72). Besides, the risk of shivering (RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 56.33), nausea (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.17) and vomiting (RR 4.13, 95% CI 1.41 to 12.09) was higher in general anesthesia group. But the risk of headache (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.87) and pruritus (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.99) was higher in neuraxial anesthesia group.  Conclusions: For clinical practice, we recommended neuraxial anesthesia as first choice in cesarean section. For further clinical researches, more non-surrogate outcomes should be reported, such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. (Funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province, China.)    Citation: Lei Yang, Xu Cheng, Di Yang, Ru-Rong Wang. General versus neuraxial anesthesia in cesarean section: a systematic review. J Anesth Perioper Med 2017; 4: 114-22.  doi:10.24015/JAPM.2017.0028 This is an open-access article, published by Evidence Based Communications (EBC). This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format for any lawful purpose. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
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