Neuraxial and general anaesthesia for caesarean section.

Caesarean section (CS) is one of the most performed operations worldwide. In many parts of the world, there has been a reduction in anaesthetic associated obstetric mortality, and this has been attributed to the increased use of neuraxial anaesthesia and improved safety of general anaesthesia, alongside improved training and organisational changes. In resource-limited countries, anaesthesia contributes disproportionately to maternal mortality, with one in seven deaths being due to anaesthesia. A major contributory factor to this is the severe shortage of trained anaesthetic providers. Goals for anaesthesia for CS include the woman's comfort and foetal well-being, focusing on strategies to minimise morbidity and mortality for both. Anaesthetic options for CS include neuraxial techniques (spinal or combined-spinal epidural or epidural extension of labour analgesia) and general anaesthesia. There is increasing evidence of the benefit of neuraxial techniques over general anaesthesia in terms of maternal and foetal outcomes. For elective CS, spinal and combined-spinal anaesthesia predominate. General anaesthesia is mainly reserved for Category 1 CS where there is an immediate threat to the life of the mother or the baby. This review discusses the practical aspects of neuraxial and general anaesthesia for CS.

Fluid loading therapy to prevent spinal hypotension in women undergoing elective caesarean section: Network meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Fluid loading is one of the recognised measures to prevent hypotension due to spinal anaesthesia in women scheduled for a caesarean section. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the current evidence on fluid loading in the prevention of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis and meta-regression. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Epub, Embase.com (Embase and Medline), Cochrane Central, Web of Science and Google Scholar were used. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were used. Patients included women undergoing elective caesarean section who received either crystalloid or colloid fluid therapy as a preload or coload. The comparator was a combination of either a different fluid or time of infusion. RESULTS: A total of 49 studies (4317 patients) were included. Network meta-analysis concluded that colloid coload and preload offered the highest chance of success (97 and 67%, respectively). Conventional meta-analysis showed that crystalloid preload is associated with a significantly higher incidence of maternal hypotension than colloid preload: risk ratio 1.48 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.69, P < 0.0001, I = 60%). However, this result was not supported by Trial Sequential Analysis. There was a significant dose-response effect for crystalloid volume preload (regression coefficient = -0.073), which was not present in the analysis of only double-blind studies. There was no dose-response effect for the other fluid regimes. CONCLUSION: Unlike previous meta-analysies, we found a lack of data obviating an evidence-based recommendation. In most studies, vasopressors were not given prophylactically as is recommended. Studies on the best fluid regimen in combination with prophylactic vasopressors are needed. Due to official european usage restrictions on the most studied colloid (HES), we recommend crystalloid coload as the most appropriate fluid regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42018099347.

Standardising definitions for the pre-eclampsia core outcome set: A consensus development study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop consensus definitions for the core outcome set for pre-eclampsia. STUDY DESIGN: Potential definitions for individual core outcomes were identified across four formal definition development initiatives, nine national and international guidelines, 12 Cochrane systematic reviews, and 79 randomised trials. Eighty-six definitions were entered into the consensus development meeting. Ten healthcare professionals and three researchers, including six participants who had experience of conducting research in low- and middle-income countries, participated in the consensus development process. The final core outcome set was approved by an international steering group. RESULTS: Consensus definitions were developed for all core outcomes. When considering stroke, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, birth weight, and neonatal seizures, consensus definitions were developed specifically for low- and middle-income countries because of the limited availability of diagnostic interventions including computerised tomography, chest x-ray, laboratory tests, equipment, and electroencephalogram monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on measurements for the pre-eclampsia core outcome set will help to ensure consistency across future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such standardization should make research evidence more accessible and facilitate the translation of research into clinical practice. Video abstract can be available at: www.dropbox.com/s/ftrgvrfu0u9glqd/6.%20Standardising%20definitions%20in%20teh%20pre-eclampsia%20core%20outcome%20set%3A%20a%20consensus%20development%20study.mp4?dl=0.

Maternal morbidity and mortality from severe sepsis: a national cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidence, characteristics and risk factors for critical care admission with severe maternal sepsis in the UK. DESIGN: National cohort study. SETTING: 198 critical care units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 646 pregnant and recently pregnant women who had severe sepsis within the first 24 hours of admission in 2008-2010. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Septic shock, mortality. RESULTS: Of all maternal critical care admissions, 14.4% (n=646) had severe sepsis; 10.6% (n=474) had septic shock. The absolute risk of maternal critical care admission with severe sepsis was 4.1/10 000 maternities. Pneumonia/respiratory infection (irrespective of the H1N1 pandemic influenza strain) and genital tract infection were the most common sources of sepsis (40% and 24%, respectively). We identified a significant gradient in the risk of severe maternal sepsis associated with increasing deprivation (RR=6.5; 95% CI 4.9 to 8.5 most deprived compared with most affluent women). The absolute risk of mortality was 1.8/100 000 maternities. The most common source of infection among women who died was pneumonia/respiratory infection (41%). Known risk factors for morbidity supported by this study were: younger age, multiple gestation birth and caesarean section. Significant risk factors for mortality in unadjusted analysis were: age ≥35 years (unadjusted OR (uOR)=3.5; 95% CI 1.1 to 10.6), ≥3 organ system dysfunctions (uOR=12.7; 95% CI 2.9 to 55.1), respiratory dysfunction (uOR=6.5; 95% CI1.9 to 21.6), renal dysfunction (uOR=5.6; 95% CI 2.3 to 13.4) and haematological dysfunction (uOR=6.5; 95% CI 2.9 to 14.6). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a need to improve timely recognition of severe respiratory tract and genital tract infection in the obstetric population. The social gradient associated with the risk of severe sepsis morbidity and mortality raises important questions regarding maternal health service provision and usage.

Severe maternal sepsis in the UK, 2011-2012: a national case-control study.

BACKGROUND: In light of increasing rates and severity of sepsis worldwide, this study aimed to estimate the incidence of, and describe the causative organisms, sources of infection, and risk factors for, severe maternal sepsis in the UK. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A prospective case-control study included 365 confirmed cases of severe maternal sepsis and 757 controls from all UK obstetrician-led maternity units from June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012. Incidence of severe sepsis was 4.7 (95% CI 4.2-5.2) per 10,000 maternities; 71 (19.5%) women developed septic shock; and five (1.4%) women died. Genital tract infection (31.0%) and the organism Escherichia coli (21.1%) were most common. Women had significantly increased adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of severe sepsis if they were black or other ethnic minority (aOR = 1.82; 95% CI 1.82-2.51), were primiparous (aOR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.17-2.20), had a pre-existing medical problem (aOR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.01-1.94), had febrile illness or were taking antibiotics in the 2 wk prior to presentation (aOR = 12.07; 95% CI 8.11-17.97), or had an operative vaginal delivery (aOR = 2.49; 95% CI 1.32-4.70), pre-labour cesarean (aOR = 3.83; 95% CI 2.24-6.56), or cesarean after labour onset (aOR = 8.06; 95% CI 4.65-13.97). Median time between delivery and sepsis was 3 d (interquartile range = 1-7 d). Multiple pregnancy (aOR = 5.75; 95% CI 1.54-21.45) and infection with group A streptococcus (aOR = 4.84; 2.17-10.78) were associated with progression to septic shock; for 16 (50%) women with a group A streptococcal infection there was <2 h-and for 24 (75%) women, <9 h-between the first sign of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and a diagnosis of severe sepsis. A limitation of this study was the proportion of women with sepsis without an identified organism or infection source (16.4%). CONCLUSIONS: For each maternal sepsis death, approximately 50 women have life-threatening morbidity from sepsis. Follow-up to ensure infection is eradicated is important. The rapid progression to severe sepsis highlights the importance of following the international Surviving Sepsis Campaign guideline of early administration of high-dose intravenous antibiotics within 1 h of admission to hospital for anyone with suspected sepsis. Signs of severe sepsis in peripartum women, particularly with confirmed or suspected group A streptococcal infection, should be regarded as an obstetric emergency. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Relaparotomy for suspected intraperitoneal sepsis after abdominal surgery.

Relaparotomy may be beneficial in patients developing intraperitoneal sepsis after abdominal procedures. We determined whether joint clinical assessment by intensivist and surgeon (clinician assessment) identified patients with surgically correctable intraperitoneal sepsis. We also assessed the effect of patient age and sex, disease presentation and severity, interval to relaparotomy, and the number of relaparotomies on survival after relaparotomy. Data on clinical, laboratory, and radiologic abnormalities prior to relaparotomy, relaparotomy findings, and in-hospital survival were prospectively collected on a general hospital intensive care unit (ICU) database between January 1997 and January 2002. Altogether, 65 of 1482 (4.4%) patients admitted to the ICU after abdominal surgery underwent relaparotomy at a median of 5 days after the initial procedure. There was an 83% probability of identifying surgically treatable sepsis and 43% in-hospital mortality. Abdominal imaging contributed accurate information in 50% of cases where clinician assessment was uncertain. Patient age and multiorgan failure prior to relaparotomy-but not urgency of initial laparotomy or the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score prior to relaparotomy, interval to relaparotomy, or number of relaparotomies-affected the outcome. Clinician assessment after abdominal surgery had a high probability of predicting intraperitoneal sepsis at relaparotomy. The 43% mortality after relaparotomy was unlikely to be greater than with nonoperative treatment of intraabdominal sepsis, but the 78% mortality after relaparotomy in patients older than 75 years of age raised doubts about this approach in the elderly. The identification of intraperitoneal sepsis and performance of relaparotomy earlier after the initial abdominal surgery might reduce the high rate (60%) of multiorgan failure prior to relaparotomy and improve survival after it.