Use of anaesthetic rooms in obstetric anaesthesia; a postal survey of obstetric anaesthetists and departments in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: Use of anaesthetic rooms has been much discussed in the UK in recent years, but attitudes and practices of obstetric anaesthetists regarding their use for caesarean section have never been sought. METHOD: A postal survey was conducted to discover the extent of use of anaesthetic rooms versus operating theatre for induction of anaesthesia and reasons for using or not using them. Questionnaires regarding individual practices were sent to 400 randomly selected members of the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association ( approximately 25% of UK membership). Questionnaires regarding departmental policies were sent to 100 "clinicians responsible for surveys" (approximately 38% of departments providing obstetric anaesthesia in the UK). RESULTS: For elective caesarean section, 70% of individual clinicians never used an anaesthetic room, 9% rarely, 5% usually, 9% for all regional anaesthetics and 6% always. For emergency caesarean section the corresponding figures were 83%, 5%, 5%, 3% and 2% respectively. Use of the anaesthetic room was independent of the seniority of anaesthetists. In 68% of departments it was standard practice or policy to induce all anaesthetics for caesarean section in the operating room. Conversely, only 1% of departments had a policy to induce all anaesthetics in the anaesthetic room. Patient safety was the usual reason given for anaesthetising in the operating room. CONCLUSION: The majority of obstetric anaesthetists have abandoned the use of anaesthetic induction rooms, the main reason being patient safety. For the same reason, two-thirds of departments providing obstetric anaesthesia consider induction of anaesthesia in the operating room their standard practice.     

Change in anaesthetic practice for Caesarean section in Germany

BACKGROUND: Initial data from 1996 revealed that in contrast to several other countries general anaesthesia was the preferred anaesthetic technique for Caesarean section in Germany. However, anaesthetic practice for Caesarean section has changed during the last decades world-wide. This investigation was performed to obtain more actual data on anaesthetic procedures in obstetric patients in German hospitals. METHODS: Questionnaires on the practice of anaesthesia for Caesarean section were mailed to 918 German departments of anaesthesiology. Furthermore, the survey evaluated severe perioperative complications in obstetric patients. RESULTS: The 397 completed replies in this survey represent 41.3% of all German deliveries in 2002. Spinal anaesthesia is now the most common technique (50.5%) for elective Caesarean section. In case of urgent and emergency Caesarean, delivery figures decrease to 34.6% and 4.8%, respectively. Epidural anaesthesia is performed in 21.6% of scheduled and 13.2% and 1.0% of non-scheduled urgent or emergency Caesarean sections, respectively. Four maternal deaths and several non-fatal episodes of gastric content aspiration were reported by the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to data obtained 6 years ago a significant increase in regional anaesthesia for Caesarean section has developed, with spinal anaesthesia being the preferred technique. Surveys can help to initiate discussion and improve current practice of anaesthetic care.     

Anästhesieverfahren zur Sectio caesarea in Deutschland Eine Umfrage

Aim of study: Goal of this survey is to give an overview of anaesthesia for caesarean section in Germany. Method: In 1994 and 1995, we sent a questionnaire to the chief-anaesthetists of all German hospitals with departments of gynaecology/obstetrics to find out the routine anaesthetic procedures for caesarean section. Results: We obtained data from 409 hospitals (response rate 46.4%) with 321,816 births – 50,123 of which were sections (mean caesarean section rate 16.6%). The mean general anaesthesia rate for elective caesarean sections was 66,5%, for non-elective sections 90,8%. The mean epidural anaesthesia rate for caesarean section was 22,6% and the mean spinal anaesthesia rate was 9,8%. For general anaesthesia most hospitals used antacids and/or histamine₂-receptor antagonists (64,6% of responding hospitals). Anaesthesia was induced with intravenous barbiturates (82%), succinylcholine for intubation (98,2%) and no opioids before clamping of the cord (94,8%). For regional anaesthesia bupivacaine was the most common local anaesthetic (spinal 84,0%, epidural 96,8%). Opioids were added to local anaesthetics for epidural anaesthesia at 21,4% of the hospitals. Conclusions: General anaesthesia is the commonest practice for caesarean sections at German hospitals. Nowadays regional anaesthesia gains more importance compared to previous German surveys and in agreement with foreign data.     

Umfrage zur aktuellen Situation der Regionalanästhesie im deutschsprachigen Raum

The practice of regional anaesthesia in German speaking countries was investigated by a survey. The last part of the trilogy contains the presentation and evaluation of the data about the methods in obstetric anaesthesia. In 2002 questionnaires were mailed to 750 randomly selected departments of anaesthesia, 384 hospitals (51.2%) responded of which 278 had an obstetric unit. Caesarean section rate was 22.5+/-8.2% and for elective caesarean section spinal anaesthesia was mostly used. General anaesthesia was never used in 58.3% of Swiss, 10.2% of German, and 21.1% of Austrian hospitals. For non-elective caesarean section 42.1% of the hospitals often used a spinal anaesthesia, and 44.8% sometimes, in Switzerland these were 92.9% and 7.1%, respectively. Pain relief for labour was usually achieved with epidural anaesthesia or drugs. The trend from general to regional anaesthesia for caesarean section is continued, as is the trend from local infiltrative techniques to epidural anaesthesia for vaginal delivery. Switzerland was in the forefront for these developments.     

National survey of obstetric anaesthesia clinical practices in the republic of Austria

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to describe the current obstetric anaesthetic practices in Austria by performing a comprehensive questionnaire survey.MethodsA questionnaire was sent via email to key anaesthesiologists from obstetric anaesthesia departments of 81 hospitals registered at the Austrian Ministry of Health.ResultsOf 81 departments contacted, 65 (80%), covering 84% of annual births in Austria, responded to the 82-question survey. Epidural analgesia was offered universally, at a rate under 30% in 56 (86%) of respondent hospitals. The caesarean section rate was under 30% in 44 (68%) respondent obstetric units. All respondents provided spinal anaesthesia as the primary anaesthetic technique for elective caesarean section. Three (5%) respondents administered long-acting intrathecal morphine and 18 (28%) respondents did not routinely administer any intrathecal opioid. Wound infiltration for acute postoperative pain control was practiced in two (3%) respondent units. A transversus abdominis plane block was offered as rescue analgesia in 14 (22%) departments. Spinal hypotension was treated using a prophylactic phenylephrine infusion in two (3%) respondent hospitals. Prophylactic antibiotics were administered prior to skin incision by 31 (48%) respondents.ConclusionThis survey reveals that obstetric anaesthetic practices in Austria differ in part from current European and American guidelines. Findings will direct the national workforce on obstetric anaesthesia that aims to introduce into Austria practice guidelines, based on international collaborations and guideline recommendations.     

Prevention and management of intra-operative pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia: a technical and interpersonal approach

A woman who experiences pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia is at risk of adverse psychological sequelae. Litigation arising from pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia has replaced accidental awareness under general anaesthesia as the most common successful medicolegal claim against obstetric anaesthetists. Generic guidelines on caesarean section exist, but they do not provide specific recommendations for this area of anaesthetic practice. This guidance aims to offer pragmatic advice to support anaesthetists in caring for women during caesarean section. It emphasises the importance of non-technical skills, offers advice on best practice and aims to encourage standardisation. The guidance results from a collaborative effort by anaesthetists, psychologists and patients and has been developed to support clinicians and promote standardisation of practice in this area.     

Obstetric regional blocks for women with multiple sclerosis: a survey of UK experience

BACKGROUND: There has been a reluctance to use regional blocks for women with multiple sclerosis as effects on the course of the disease are unclear. We assessed the views of UK consultant obstetric anaesthetists regarding management of women with multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Following Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association approval a questionnaire was sent to UK consultant members. Opinions were sought on antenatal assessment, labour analgesia, anaesthesia for elective and emergency caesarean section, and modification in technique for those with multiple sclerosis. Enquiries were made of postnatal problems ascribed to regional blocks. RESULTS: Of the 592 replies analysed, 91% of respondents had seen fewer than 10 cases of multiple sclerosis in the past 10 years. Antenatal assessment was recommended by many with postnatal relapse most commonly discussed (64%). Many highlighted the need for informed consent and minimising local anaesthetic dose. For labour analgesia 79% would perform a regional block; a further 20% would do so in certain circumstances. For elective caesarean section, epidural rather than spinal anaesthesia was preferred by 4%; 2% would not use a regional block, preferring general anaesthesia. For emergency caesarean section with time only for single-shot spinal, 3% would give a general anaesthetic. Deterioration of symptoms after delivery were reported by 20% with 3% attributing symptoms such as prolonged block, leg weakness, bladder dysfunction and postnatal relapse to regional blocks. CONCLUSION: Most UK anaesthetists would perform regional blocks for labour and caesarean section in multiple sclerosis, although the experience of each anaesthetist is limited. Many emphasised the need for thorough pre-assessment and informed consent.     

Aktuelle Praxis der Anästhesie zur Sectio caesarea an den deutschen Universitätsklinika Ergebnisse einer Erhebung im Jahr 1996

Obviously there is a world-wide trend towards regional anaesthesia for caesarean section (CS). Data on the current practice in Germany are lacking. Methods: In 1996 questionnaires on obstetric anaesthesia were mailed to all University departments of anaesthesia. Results: All 38 University Hospitals with obstetric units replied (100%). Mean annual delivery rate was 1156 with a mean CS-rate of 24%. For scheduled CS the University departments used general anaesthesia in most cases (60%), followed by epidural (31%) and spinal anaesthesia (9%). General anaesthesia was predominantly used for more urgent (87%) or emergency deliveries (99%). Spinal anaesthesia was offered to patients as an option of anaesthesia for CS in 16 of 38 departments, epidural anaesthesia in 36 of 38. The majority of university hospitals (22 of 38) performed more than 25% of their CS in epidural anaesthesia; 14 departments had a ratio of at least 50% of regional anaesthesia. 28 of 32 centres administered some kind of acid aspiration chemoprophylaxis as a routine management. Special devices for the management of a difficult airway were provided in 61% of the hospitals within the delivery unit. In 70% the anaesthesiologist was responsible for the postoperative pain management following CS. Conclusion: A significant trend towards regional anaesthesia for CS has taken place in German university hospitals: According to a former survey regional anaesthesia was used in less than 10% of CS in 1977, whereas in the current evaluation from 1996 this figure was significantly higher (40%). Nevertheless, compared to other countries the rate of general anaesthesia still is rather high.     

The delivery of obstetric anaesthetic care in UK maternity units: a survey of practice in 2021

BackgroundAnaesthetists are crucial members of the maternity unit team, providing peri-operative analgesia and anaesthesia, and supporting the delivery of medical care to high-risk women. The effective contribution from obstetric anaesthetists to safety in maternity units depends on how anaesthesia services are organised and resourced. There is a lack of information on how obstetric anaesthetic care is resourced in the UK.MethodsThe Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association surveyed UK clinical leads for their hospital’s obstetric anaesthetic service and examined compliance with national recommendations.ResultsThere were 153 responses by lead obstetric anaesthetists from 184 maternity units in the UK (83%). The number of consultants per 1000 deliveries was 2.2 [1.6–2.7] (median [IQR]). In 20% of units, there was a dedicated on-call rota (on-call only for obstetric anaesthesia), whilst the remainder had a ‘combined’ on-call rota (on-call for other clinical areas in addition to obstetrics). Multidisciplinary ward rounds were held in 83% of units. Twenty-five (16%) units reported having no regular multidisciplinary ward rounds, of which nine (6%) did not have any multidisciplinary ward rounds. Planned operating lists for elective caesarean sections were provided in 77% of units.ConclusionsIn the largest survey of obstetric anaesthesia workload to be reported for any health system, we found significant disparities between obstetric anaesthesia service provision and current national recommendations for areas including consultant staffing, support for elective caesarean section lists, antenatal anaesthetic clinics, and consultant support for service development. Wide national variation in service provision was identified.     

A survey in the West Midlands of the United Kingdom of current practice in managing hypotension in lower segment caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia

BackgroundSpinal anaesthesia, the most common form of anaesthesia for caesarean section, leads to sympathetic blockade and profound maternal hypotension resulting in adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Hypotension, nausea and vomiting remain common but until the publication of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2021 guidance, no national guideline existed on how best to manage maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. A 2017 international consensus statement recommended prophylactic vasopressor administration to maintain a systolic blood pressure of >90% of an accurate pre-spinal value, and to avoid a drop to <80% of this value.This survey aimed to assess regional adherence to these recommendations, the presence of local guidelines for management of hypotension during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, and the individual clinician’s treatment thresholds for maternal hypotension and tachycardia.MethodsThe West Midlands Trainee-led Research in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Network co-ordinated surveys of obstetric anaesthetic departments and consultant obstetric anaesthetists across 11 National Health Service Trusts in the Midlands, England.ResultsOne-hundred-and-two consultant obstetric anaesthetists returned the survey and 73% of sites had a policy for vasopressor use; 91% used phenylephrine as the first-line drug but a wide range of recommended delivery methods was noted and target blood pressure was only listed in 50% of policies. Significant variation existed in both vasopressor delivery methods and target blood pressures.ConclusionsAlthough NICE has since recommended prophylactic phenylephrine infusion and a target blood pressure, the previous international consensus statement was not adhered to routinely.     

Analgesie und Anästhesie zur Geburtshilfe in der Schweiz 1999

QUESTION: This survey investigated the common practice of obstetric analgesia and anaesthesia in Swiss hospitals and evaluated the influence of the Swiss interest group for obstetric anaesthesia. METHODS: In March 1999 we submitted 145 questionnaires to all Swiss hospitals providing an obstetric service. RESULTS: The rate of epidural analgesia (EA) was higher in large hospitals (> 1,000 births/year) than in small services. EA was maintained by continuous infusion techniques in 53% of the responding hospitals. For elective caesarean section, spinal anaesthesia (SA) and EA were performed in 77% and 16% of the patients, respectively. General anaesthesia (5%) was only used in small hospitals (< 500 births/year). Emergency caesarean section was performed under SA in 75% of all hospitals and only in 25% was a general anaesthesia used. An already existing EA for labour analgesia was continued for anaesthesia for caesarean section in 63% of Swiss hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Regional anaesthesia was most commonly used for obstetric anaesthesia in Swiss hospitals. Epidemiological studies, recommendations of the Swiss interest group for obstetric anaesthesia, as well as the expectations of pregnant women, increased the numbers of regional anaesthesia compared with the first survey in 1992.     

The impact of anaesthetic trainees on elective caesarean section procedural times: a prospective observational study

Operating room efficiency is an important concern in hospitals today both in the public and private sectors. Currently, a paucity of literature exists to evaluate the impact of anaesthetic training on operating room efficiency in the Australian health system. At Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, private consultant operating sessions and public teaching operating sessions use the same operating theatres, nursing and technical staff. Consultant anaesthetists and obstetricians perform all tasks during private sessions, whereas anaesthetic and obstetric trainees perform many tasks during public sessions. In this prospective observational study, total case time, anaesthesia controlled time and the surgical time were measured for elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia in 59 patients (private consultant n = 29, public teaching n = 30). Increases in total case time (24 minutes, P < 0.001), anaesthesia controlled time (5.2 minutes, P < 0.015) and surgical time (19.25 minutes, P < 0.001) were observed in the public teaching group compared with the private consultant group. The participation of anesthetic trainees in caesarean sections results in a modest increase in anaesthetic controlled time of approximately five minutes per case or 16 minutes in an operative session with three cases scheduled. Elimination of anaesthetic 'training' time does not allow scheduling of an extra elective caesarean section. Reduced operating theatre throughput is unlikely to be a consequence of training specialist anaesthetists in this clinical setting.     

Anesthesia-related maternal mortality during labor. Results of a survey in the Federal Republic of Germany 1971-1980

In order to obtain figures on the anaesthesia related maternal mortality in the Federal Republic of Germany, 707 hospitals have been addressed via questionnaire. Hospitals where obstetric departments and anaesthetic departments as well were available, were investigated for maternal mortality, anaesthetic requirements, and the complications which led to the maternal deaths during the period of 1971-1980. 38% (259 general hospitals and 10 university hospitals) responded; the geographical distribution seemed to be representative. The average maternal mortality rate was at 0.21%, which ranged from 0.21% for general hospitals to 0.16% for university hospitals. The overall anaesthesia related maternal mortality was around 6.4%. 20 of the reported 21 maternal deaths occurred under general anaesthesia and 1 under local anaesthesia; 17 patients died during caesarean section and 4 during vaginal delivery. The main complications which led to the maternal deaths were cardiac arrest and aspiration of gastric content with 38,1% each and convulsions with 4.8%. In 19% of the total maternal deaths the causes could not be determined. The importance of obstetric centres and of controlled anaesthetic methods delivery will be discussed on the basis of these and other figures which have been reported in the literature.     

Current practice in regional anaesthesia in Germany

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several new techniques and agents (e.g. ropivacaine) have been introduced in regional anaesthesia to improve patients outcome and safety. The beneficial effects on patient outcome are clear with these techniques, however, no information is available about their pattern and frequency of use in clinical practice. This study presents data concerning the current practice of regional anaesthesia in Germany. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to every German anaesthesia department (n = 1381). Questions focused on the frequency and range of regional anaesthetic procedures employed, with attention also to the organizational structural of the individual institution. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-seven questionnaires were returned anonymously, representing a return rate of 48.3%. In hospitals with less than 200 beds, the number of regional anaesthetics was markedly higher compared to large hospitals with more than 400 beds. In contrast, small hospitals tended to provide only basic techniques of regional anaesthesia, whereas larger hospitals implemented more advanced techniques. Bupivacaine remains the most commonly used long-lasting local anaesthetic. Staff structure was also different in small departments - patient care was performed by board certified anaesthesiologists while residents were responsible for the patients in larger departments. CONCLUSIONS: In small hospitals a majority of board certified anaesthesiologists rely on basic regional anaesthesia techniques. In large departments some consultants provide the entire spectrum of regional anaesthesia, with the majority of cases transferred to the residents responsibility. These results indicate the strong need to improve residency programs with regard to regional anaesthesia.     

Caesarean section for twin pregnancy in a parturient with Brugada syndrome

Brugada syndrome is a common cause of sudden cardiac death. We report the anaesthetic management of a woman with Brugada syndrome for elective caesarean section of twins. There are few reports of this disease in pregnancy and we believe this is the first of elective caesarean section in a parturient with the syndrome. The characteristic electrocardiographic changes of the syndrome are linked to sodium channel blockers including local anaesthetics such as bupivacaine. The use of bupivacaine for intrathecal central neuraxial blockade as well as other drugs commonly used in obstetric anaesthesia is discussed.     

A survey of anaesthesia for caesarean section

In 1993 a postal survey of maternity hospitals within the UK was carried out to obtain data on the types of anaesthesia used for caesarean section. The poor response rate (79/226, 35%) reflects the paucity of data available in many centres. The data returned indicated a wide range of anaesthetic practice: from units with a general anaesthesia rate less than 10% to those with a general anaesthesia rate approaching 90%. Overall, during the 11-year period covered by the survey there was a significant reduction in the percentage use of general anaesthesia (77% in 1982 declining to 44% in 1992), but because of a 51% increase in the caesarean section rate the real reduction in the actual number of general anaesthetics used was modest (13%). If this holds true nationally, then factors other than a simple change from general anaesthesia to regional anaesthesia must contribute to the reduced maternal mortality from anaesthetic causes.     

A comparison of informed consent for obstetric anaesthesia in the USA and the UK

The practice of 75 UK and 75 US obstetric anaesthetists in obtaining informed consent for obstetric anaesthesia (for caesarean section) and obstetric analgesia (for labour) was compared using a postal questionnaire. The response rate was approximately 60% for each group. Of the US anaesthetists 47% obtained separate written consent for obstetric anaesthesia compared to 22% of the UK group (P=0.012). Corresponding percentages for epidural analgesia were 52% for the US, and 15% for the UK (P < 0.001). Significantly more of the listed risks and benefits relating to general anaesthesia were discussed by the US anaesthetists compared to the UK group, median (interquartile range), 6 (4-7) and 3 (1-4), P < 0.001. There was no significant difference in discussion before regional anaesthesia but the US group discussed more information before epidural analgesia for labouring mothers obtunded by pain or drugs. These results suggest that discussion and documentation of informed consent for obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia could be improved in both countries, especially the UK.     

Practice of epidural analgesia for labour pain: a German survey.

Epidural analgesia is one of the preferred methods of analgesia for labour. The aim of the present survey was to evaluate current practice in obstetric analgesia in departments of anaesthesia and to make a comparison with former surveys from Germany and other countries. Questionnaires on the practice of pain relief, especially epidural analgesia, during labour and delivery were sent to 1178 anaesthetic departments in Germany in the second half of 1996. Five hundred and thirty-two completed replies were received, which represent 46.9% of all German obstetric units. The majority of the departments of anaesthesia practising epidural analgesia have an epidural rate of less than 10% and 10.2% of the departments do not offer this method to their parturients. In 86.8% of all units performing epidural analgesia, the epidural catheter is placed by an anaesthetist. Only 6.5% of the units provide a 24-h epidural service which is exclusively assigned to labour and delivery. In 77.8% of the units, this service is not exclusively assigned to obstetrics, but also to other duties. Of the obstetric units offering epidural analgesia, 14.7% have no epidural service at night. Plain local anaesthetics for epidural analgesia are used by 55.9% of the departments, a combination of local anaesthetics with epidural opioids by 28.7%. Epidural analgesia is predominantly (82.2%) maintained by intermittent bolus administration. Although the rate of epidural analgesia increased during recent decades, this method is not offered to all parturients. Further improvements in the use of epidural analgesia for labour seem to be necessary.     

Learning from the Law. A review of 21 years of litigation for pain during caesarean section

The large majority of caesarean sections in the UK are now carried out under neuraxial anaesthesia. Although this technique is widely accepted as being the safest option in most circumstances, the use of regional anaesthesia increases the risk of patients experiencing intra‐operative discomfort or pain. Pain during operative obstetric delivery is the commonest successful negligence claim relating to regional anaesthesia against obstetric anaesthetists in the UK. In the following article, using a database of over 360 cases spanning 21 years, we break down and examine the recurrent components of medicolegal claims concerning pain during caesarean section and consider how anaesthetists might avoid litigation.     

Anaesthetic management of two different modes of delivery in patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa

Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa is an inherited severe bullous condition characterised by extreme skin fragility and blistering in response to minor trauma. We present two obstetric cases with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, one who underwent elective caesarean section, the other who delivered vaginally. The key points in the anaesthetic management of the obstetric patient with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa include multidisciplinary preassessment, airway management strategies and the role of regional anaesthesia.