Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anaesthesia guidelines recommend regional anaesthesia for most caesarean sections due to the risk of failed intubation and aspiration with general anaesthesia. However, general anaesthesia is considered to be safe for the foetus, based on limited evidence, and is still used for caesarean sections.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cohorts of caesarean sections by indication (that is, planned repeat caesarean section, failure to progress, foetal distress) were selected from the period 1998 to 2004 (<it>N </it>= 50,806). Deliveries performed under general anaesthesia were compared with those performed under spinal or epidural, for the outcomes of neonatal intubation and 5-minute Apgar (Apgar5) <7.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The risk of adverse outcomes was increased for caesarean sections under general anaesthesia for all three indications and across all levels of hospital. The relative risks were largest for low-risk planned repeat caesarean deliveries: resuscitation with intubation relative risk was 12.8 (95% confidence interval 7.6, 21.7), and Apgar5 <7 relative risk was 13.4 (95% confidence interval 9.2, 19.4). The largest absolute increase in risk was for unplanned caesareans due to foetal distress: there were five extra intubations per 100 deliveries and six extra Apgar5 <7 per 100 deliveries.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The infants most affected by general anaesthesia were those already compromised <it>in utero</it>, as evidenced by foetal distress. The increased rate of adverse neonatal outcomes should be weighed up when general anaesthesia is under consideration.</p

Associations between birthweight, gestational age at birth and subsequent type 1 diabetes in children under 12: a retrospective cohort study in England, 1998–2012

Abstract Aims/hypothesis With genetics thought to explain only 40–50% of the total risk of type 1 diabetes, environmental risk factors in early life have been proposed. Previous findings from studies of type 1 diabetes incidence by birthweight and gestational age at birth have been inconsistent. This study aimed to investigate the relationships between birthweight, gestational age at birth and subsequent type 1 diabetes in England. Methods Data were obtained from a population-based database comprising linked mother–infant pairs using English national Hospital Episode Statistics from 1998 to 2012. In total, 3,834,405 children, categorised by birthweight and gestational age at birth, were followed up through record linkage to compare their incidence of type 1 diabetes through calculation of multivariable-adjusted HRs. Results Out of 3,834,405 children, 2969 had a subsequent hospital diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in childhood. Children born preterm (<37 weeks) or early term (37–38 weeks) experienced significantly higher incidence of type 1 diabetes than full term children (39–40 weeks) (HR 1.19 [95% CI 1.03, 1.38] and 1.27 [95% CI 1.16, 1.39], respectively). Children born at higher than average birthweight (3500–3999 g or 4000–5499 g) after controlling for gestational age experienced higher incidence of type 1 diabetes than children born at medium birthweight (3000–3499 g) (HR 1.13 [95% CI 1.03, 1.23] and 1.16 [95% CI 1.02, 1.31], respectively), while children at low birthweight (<2500 g) experienced lower incidence (0.81 [95% CI 0.67, 0.98]), signifying a statistically significant trend (p trend 0.001). Conclusions/interpretation High birthweight for gestational age and low gestational age at birth are both independently associated with subsequent type 1 diabetes. These findings help contextualise the debate about the potential role of gestational and early life environmental risk factors in the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes, including the potential roles of insulin sensitivity and gut microbiota

Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:Cesarean birth rates continue to rise worldwide with recent (2016) reported rates of 24.5% in Western Europe, 32% in North America, and 41% in South America. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the long-term risks and benefits of cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies. The primary maternal outcome was pelvic floor dysfunction, the primary baby outcome was asthma, and the primary subsequent pregnancy outcome was perinatal death. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were systematically searched for published studies in human subjects (last search 25 May 2017), supplemented by manual searches. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large (more than 1,000 participants) prospective cohort studies with greater than or equal to one-year follow-up comparing outcomes of women delivering by cesarean delivery and by vaginal delivery. Two assessors screened 30,327 abstracts. Studies were graded for risk of bias by two assessors using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist and the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-Randomized Studies. Results were pooled in fixed effects meta-analyses or in random effects models when significant heterogeneity was present (I2 ≥ 40%). One RCT and 79 cohort studies (all from high income countries) were included, involving 29,928,274 participants. Compared to vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery was associated with decreased risk of urinary incontinence, odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.66; n = 58,900; 8 studies) and pelvic organ prolapse (OR 0.29, 0.17 to 0.51; n = 39,208; 2 studies). Children delivered by cesarean delivery had increased risk of asthma up to the age of 12 years (OR 1.21, 1.11 to 1.32; n = 887,960; 13 studies) and obesity up to the age of 5 years (OR 1.59, 1.33 to 1.90; n = 64,113; 6 studies). Pregnancy after cesarean delivery was associated with increased risk of miscarriage (OR 1.17, 1.03 to 1.32; n = 151,412; 4 studies) and stillbirth (OR 1.27, 1.15 to 1.40; n = 703,562; 8 studies), but not perinatal mortality (OR 1.11, 0.89 to 1.39; n = 91,429; 2 studies). Pregnancy following cesarean delivery was associated with increased risk of placenta previa (OR 1.74, 1.62 to 1.87; n = 7,101,692; 10 studies), placenta accreta (OR 2.95, 1.32 to 6.60; n = 705,108; 3 studies), and placental abruption (OR 1.38, 1.27 to 1.49; n = 5,667,160; 6 studies). This is a comprehensive review adhering to a registered protocol, and guidelines for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology were followed, but it is based on predominantly observational data, and in some meta-analyses, between-study heterogeneity is high; therefore, causation cannot be inferred and the results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS:When compared with vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery is associated with a reduced rate of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, but this should be weighed against the association with increased risks for fertility, future pregnancy, and long-term childhood outcomes. This information could be valuable in counselling women on mode of delivery