Cargando…

What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study

BACKGROUND: Early utilisation of neuraxial anaesthesia has been recommended to reduce the need for general anaesthesia in obese parturients. The insertion and management of labour epidurals in obese women is not straight-forward. The aim of this pilot study was to compare the failure rate of extensi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eley, Victoria A., van Zundert, Andre, Callaway, Leonie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26231175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0095-8
_version_ 1782383919063105536
author Eley, Victoria A.
van Zundert, Andre
Callaway, Leonie
author_facet Eley, Victoria A.
van Zundert, Andre
Callaway, Leonie
author_sort Eley, Victoria A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Early utilisation of neuraxial anaesthesia has been recommended to reduce the need for general anaesthesia in obese parturients. The insertion and management of labour epidurals in obese women is not straight-forward. The aim of this pilot study was to compare the failure rate of extension of epidural analgesia for emergency caesarean section, in pregnant women with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m(2), to those with a BMI < 30 kg/m(2). The results will be used to calculate the sample size of a planned prospective study. METHODS: In this retrospective, (1:1) case–control pilot study, obese subjects and control subjects were selected from the obstetric database, if they delivered between January 2007 and December 2011. All subjects used epidural analgesia during labour and subsequently required anaesthesia for Category 1 or 2 Caesarean Section. Data was extracted from the patient medical record. Failure to extend was analysed using liberal and restrictive definitions. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect differences between groups. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine variables predictive of extension failure. RESULTS: There were 63 subjects in each group. The mean BMI of the obese group was 45.4 (5.8) kg/m(2) and 23.9 (3.0) kg/m(2) in the control group. The odds ratio for failure to extend the existing epidural blockade (liberal definition) was 2.48 (95 % CI:1.02 – 6.03) for the obese group compared with the control group (adjusted for age, parity and gestation). Using the restrictive definition, the odds ratio for failure in the obese group was 6.78 (95 % CI:1.43 – 32.2). The combination of respiratory co-morbidity and gestational diabetes significantly predicted extension failure. Surgical time and epidural complications on labour ward were significantly greater in the obese group. CONCLUSIONS: In this small retrospective cohort, patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m(2) were significantly more likely to fail epidural extension for caesarean section. The presence of respiratory co-morbidity and gestational diabetes were significant predictors of extension failure; their clinical relevance requires further evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4522121
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45221212015-08-02 What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study Eley, Victoria A. van Zundert, Andre Callaway, Leonie BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Early utilisation of neuraxial anaesthesia has been recommended to reduce the need for general anaesthesia in obese parturients. The insertion and management of labour epidurals in obese women is not straight-forward. The aim of this pilot study was to compare the failure rate of extension of epidural analgesia for emergency caesarean section, in pregnant women with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m(2), to those with a BMI < 30 kg/m(2). The results will be used to calculate the sample size of a planned prospective study. METHODS: In this retrospective, (1:1) case–control pilot study, obese subjects and control subjects were selected from the obstetric database, if they delivered between January 2007 and December 2011. All subjects used epidural analgesia during labour and subsequently required anaesthesia for Category 1 or 2 Caesarean Section. Data was extracted from the patient medical record. Failure to extend was analysed using liberal and restrictive definitions. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect differences between groups. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine variables predictive of extension failure. RESULTS: There were 63 subjects in each group. The mean BMI of the obese group was 45.4 (5.8) kg/m(2) and 23.9 (3.0) kg/m(2) in the control group. The odds ratio for failure to extend the existing epidural blockade (liberal definition) was 2.48 (95 % CI:1.02 – 6.03) for the obese group compared with the control group (adjusted for age, parity and gestation). Using the restrictive definition, the odds ratio for failure in the obese group was 6.78 (95 % CI:1.43 – 32.2). The combination of respiratory co-morbidity and gestational diabetes significantly predicted extension failure. Surgical time and epidural complications on labour ward were significantly greater in the obese group. CONCLUSIONS: In this small retrospective cohort, patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m(2) were significantly more likely to fail epidural extension for caesarean section. The presence of respiratory co-morbidity and gestational diabetes were significant predictors of extension failure; their clinical relevance requires further evaluation. BioMed Central 2015-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4522121/ /pubmed/26231175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0095-8 Text en © Eley et al. 2015 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Eley, Victoria A.
van Zundert, Andre
Callaway, Leonie
What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study
title What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study
title_full What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study
title_fullStr What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study
title_full_unstemmed What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study
title_short What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study
title_sort what is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2)compared with patients with a body mass index < 30 kg/m(2)? a retrospective pilot study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26231175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0095-8
work_keys_str_mv AT eleyvictoriaa whatisthefailurerateinextendinglabouranalgesiainpatientswithabodymassindex40kgm2comparedwithpatientswithabodymassindex30kgm2aretrospectivepilotstudy
AT vanzundertandre whatisthefailurerateinextendinglabouranalgesiainpatientswithabodymassindex40kgm2comparedwithpatientswithabodymassindex30kgm2aretrospectivepilotstudy
AT callawayleonie whatisthefailurerateinextendinglabouranalgesiainpatientswithabodymassindex40kgm2comparedwithpatientswithabodymassindex30kgm2aretrospectivepilotstudy