Cited by 5Anesthesia and Pain ManagementMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsAnesthesia and Sedative Agents

Anesthetic and obstetric predictors of general anesthesia in urgent or emergent Cesarean delivery: a retrospective case–control study

Raghavan, G., Siddiqui, N., Whittle, W., Downey, K., Ye, X. Y., Carvalho, J. C. A.·2025·Journal of Anesthesia

Abstract

Purpose While regional anesthesia (RA) is considered preferable to general anesthesia (GA) for Cesarean delivery (CD), certain situations necessitate GA. This study reviewed the practice patterns around the use of GA for CD to identify modifiable predictors of GA with the goal of reducing GA rates. Methods This was a retrospective, case-control study. Patients undergoing urgent/emergent CD over a 3-year period were identified, from which 102 patients undergoing GA and 102 patients undergoing RA were randomly selected. The data included patient characteristics, obstetrical indications for CD, type/indication of anesthetic, characteristics of airway management (GA group)/neuraxial anesthesia (RA group), and neonatal outcomes. Results Abnormal fetal heart rate (aFHR) was the most common obstetrical indication for urgent/emergent CD amongst the cases (39%) and controls (39%). GA administration was most commonly due to "limited time due to maternal/fetal compromise" (56%), followed by "maternal contraindication to RA" (25%) and "inadequate RA" (17%). The most frequent modifiable anesthetic indication for GA was inadequate neuraxial anesthesia (17%). Anesthetic and obstetric predictors for GA included ASA classification [OR 0.11 (0.06-0.21)], emergency code activation [OR 13.55 (1.73-106.40)], failure to progress [OR 0.15 ((0.06-0.36)], labor in a patient scheduled for CD [OR 0.16 (0.05-0.57)], pregnancy-related illness [OR 8.63 (1.06-70.38)], cord/fetal prolapse [14.85(1.90-115.94…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00540-024-03411-8

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raghavan, G., Siddiqui, N., Whittle, W., Downey, K., Ye, X. Y., & Carvalho, J. C. A.
Affiliations
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
Raghavan, G.
Venue
Journal of Anesthesia
Published
2024-10-09
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
23-30
ISSN
  • 0913-8668 (ISSN-L)
  • 1438-8359
OpenAlex
W4403248147
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Anesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
Keywords
general anesthesia, emergency cesarean section, regional anesthesia, neuraxial anesthesia, abnormal fetal heart rate, fetal bradycardia, cord prolapse, ASA physical status, dystocia, obstetric indications, neonatal outcomes, airway management
MeSH terms
Adult, Anesthesia, Conduction, Anesthesia, General, Anesthesia, Obstetrical, Cesarean Section, Female, Heart Rate, Fetal, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Case-Control Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review