Anesthesia Clinical Trial
Official title:
Speed of General Versus Spinal Anesthesia for Emergency Cesarean Delivery: A Simulation Based Study
The researchers wish to undertake a simulation based study to compare the speed of general versus spinal anesthesia for emergency cesarean delivery. Minutes may matter for the baby in an emergency. It is unknown which technique is quicker. Their hypothesis is that surgical anesthesia can be achieved as quickly with spinal as with general anesthesia.
Rapid delivery of the fetus by emergency cesarean delivery is usually necessary when there
is risk to mother or fetus (1). Some maternal indications for emergency cesarean delivery
include uncontrolled bleeding, high spinal block and cardiac arrest. For the fetus, minutes
may count when there are abnormal fetal heart rate patterns such as accompanying uterine
rupture or umbilical cord prolapse. Under these emergency circumstances published
recommendations include that delivery should occur within 30 minutes from decision time (2).
Thus, the time taken to achieve surgical anesthesia is important and should be kept as short
as possible to minimize risk to the fetus (3).
In the absence of a pre-existing labor epidural that can be rapidly extended for anesthesia,
general (GA) or spinal (SA) anesthesia are usually administered to facilitate delivery in
the urgent/emergent situation. Each technique has risks and benefits, but the choice of
anesthesia will ultimately depend upon the circumstances. For example, severe maternal
bleeding would favor GA because it is perceived to be quicker (although there are no studies
to confirm this) and uncontrolled hemorrhage can produce hemodynamic instability which can
be exacerbated by SA. On the other hand, known reactions to anesthetic agents (such as
malignant hyperthermia) would make SA more favorable.
There is a perception amongst anesthesiologists that GA in pregnant women is associated with
increased morbidity and mortality. This is partly due to the increased use of regional
anesthesia since the 1960s and the uncommon occurrence of general anesthesia has lead to
increased incidence of complications worldwide (4, 5). The reasons for this relate to the
physiological changes of pregnancy which can make endotracheal intubation more difficult,
increase the risk of pulmonary aspiration of stomach contents and awareness of
intraoperative events (6, 7). These potential risks mean that fewer general anesthetics for
cesarean delivery are being done while numbers of central neuraxial blocks (spinal,
epidural) have increased. This means that anesthesiologists are less experienced in general
anesthesia for obstetrics (8, 9). As well, at delivery the infant is more likely to be
initially depressed and require active resuscitation than those delivered by SA (10). The
depression is due not only to the GA but also to the reason for rapid delivery, for example
cord prolapse causing fetal distress.
Apart from avoiding the risks of GA, SA has the added advantage that the parturient is awake
when the infant is born and can be accompanied by their partner in the OR. As morphine is
given with the spinal medication the women will generally have less pain post-operatively as
well as being clear minded. However, occasionally SA can fail necessitating a GA.
It is unknown which technique is quicker. Some anesthesiologists believe that SA can be
administered as quickly as GA and will often persist in administering SA for fear of the
risks of general anesthesia. However, after induction of general anesthesia and endotracheal
intubation, surgery can start immediately while with SA surgical anesthesia takes some time
to develop after the anesthetic drugs are injected. There are no studies examining when
surgery can actually start following SA and GA. Direct comparison of the two techniques
under emergency situations based on a randomized control trial is impossible due to problems
obtaining consent in that emergency situation where minutes count. Marx et al found that
spinal anesthesia can be induced as quickly as GA, but the spinal needle used was bigger and
the drug used (amethocaine) is not commonly used in modern practice (11).
Simulation of emergency scenarios allows anesthesiologists to practice safe emergency
anesthesia (12). In a pilot simulation study insertion of SA was found to be as quick as GA,
but the time to achieve surgical anesthesia was longer (13). Thus, the overall time between
inducing anesthesia and the time when surgery could actually start was longer with SA.
We wish to undertake a simulation based study to compare the speed of GA versus SA for
emergency cesarean delivery. We also wish to observe the techniques anesthesiologists use to
expedite readiness to surgical anesthesia. At the conclusion of this study, we hope to help
the anesthesiologist decide upon the optimum technique of anesthesia for emergency cesarean
delivery and so affect fetal and maternal outcome.
;
Time Perspective: Prospective
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04279054 -
Decreased Neuraxial Morphine After Cesarean Delivery
|
Early Phase 1 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04580030 -
Tricuapid Annular Plane Sistolic Excursion Before General Anesthesia Can Predict Hypotension After Induction
|
||
Completed |
NCT03640442 -
Modified Ramped Position for Intubation of Obese Females.
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT04099693 -
A Prospective Randomized Study of General Anesthesia Versus Anesthetist Administered Sedation for ERCP
|
||
Terminated |
NCT02481999 -
Pre- and Postoperative EEG-Monitoring for Children Aged From 0,5 to 8 Years
|
||
Completed |
NCT04235894 -
An Observer Rating Scale of Facial Expression Can Predict Dreaming in Propofol Anesthesia
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05525104 -
The Effect of DSA on Recovery of Anaesthesia in Children (Het Effect Van DSA op Het Herstel na Anesthesie Bij Kinderen).
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05024084 -
Desflurane and Sevoflurane Minimal Flow Anesthesia on Recovery and Anesthetic Depth
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT04204785 -
Noise in the OR at Induction: Patient and Anesthesiologists Perceptions
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT03277872 -
NoL, HR and MABP Responses to Tracheal Intubation Performed With MAC Blade Versus Glidescope
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT03940651 -
Cardiac and Renal Biomarkers in Arthroplasty Surgery
|
Phase 4 | |
Terminated |
NCT02529696 -
Measuring Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit Using Wireless Accelerometers
|
||
Completed |
NCT05346588 -
THRIVE Feasibility Trial
|
Phase 3 | |
Terminated |
NCT03704285 -
Development of pk/pd Model of Propofol in Patients With Severe Burns
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05259787 -
EP Intravenous Anesthesia in Hysteroscopy
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT02894996 -
Does the Response to a Mini-fluid Challenge of 3ml/kg in 2 Minutes Predict Fluid Responsiveness for Pediatric Patient?
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05386082 -
Anesthesia Core Quality Metrics Consensus Delphi Study
|
||
Terminated |
NCT03567928 -
Laryngeal Mask in Upper Gastrointestinal Procedures
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06074471 -
Motor Sparing Supraclavicular Block
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT04163848 -
CARbon Impact of aNesthesic Gas
|