Anesth Pain Med.  2020 Jul;15(3):305-313. 10.17085/apm.20021.

Evaluation of changes in anesthetic methods for cesarean delivery: an analysis for 5 years using the big data of the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service

• Park JI
• Park SH
• Kang MS
• Kang GW
• Kim ST

• KMID: 2504892
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.17085/apm.20021

Abstract

Background
As an anesthesia induced during cesarean section, spinal anesthesia is preferred over general and epidural anesthesia. This study aimed to review the trend of anesthetic methods for cesarean section based on data obtained from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service from 2013 to 2018.
Methods
The anesthetic methods were analyzed in 753,285 parturients who underwent a cesarean section in Korea from 2013 to 2018. We determined the association between each anesthetic method and hospital type and maternal and fetal factors. We also evaluated whether the anesthetic method was associated with the parturients’ length of hospital stay.
Results
General anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, and epidural anesthesia were induced in 28.8%, 47.7%, and 23.6% of parturients from 2013 to 2018, respectively. Trend analyses showed that spinal anesthesia increased from 40.0% in 2013 to 53.7% in 2018. The opposite trend applied to general anesthesia, decreasing from 37.1% in 2013 to 22.2% in 2018. The factors that were significantly associated with the anesthetic method were parturient’s parity, emergency condition, gestational age, and fetal weight. The type of hospital, parturient’s age, and multiple birth were also associated with the anesthetic methods. There was a strong association between general anesthesia and hospital stay longer than 7 days.
Conclusions
Spinal anesthesia is currently the main anesthetic method used for cesarean delivery, and the rate of spinal anesthesia is gradually increasing in Korea.

Keyword

Anesthesia, epidural; Anesthesia, general; Anesthesia, spinal; Cesarean section

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Flow diagram of parturients who underwent a cesarean section. *Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service.

• 

  Fig. 2. Trends in anesthetic methods of cesarean sections in the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, 2013–2018. Values are expressed as percentages for each year. It shows a pattern of decrease in general anesthesia and an increase in spinal and epidural anesthesia over time (P < 0.001). Linear-by-linear association test was used for trend analysis.

Reference

1. Lee SY, Kim EJ, Park JS, Byoun SJ, Oh ME, Lee SL, et al. The 2018 national survey on fertility and family health and welfare. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA) [serial on the Internet]. 2018 Dec [cited 2020 Mar 8]. Available from http://repository.kihasa.re.kr/handle/201002/32628.

2. Guglielminotti J, Landau R, Li G. Adverse events and factors associated with potentially avoidable use of general anesthesia in cesarean deliveries. Anesthesiology. 2019; 130:912–22.

3. Traynor AJ, Aragon M, Ghosh D, Choi RS, Dingmann C, Vu Tran Z, et al. Obstetric anesthesia workforce survey: a 30-year update. Anesth Analg. 2016; 122:1939–46.

4. Marcus HE, Behrend A, Schier R, Dagtekin O, Teschendorf P, Böttiger BW, et al. [Anesthesiological management of caesarean sections: nationwide survey in Germany]. Anaesthesist. 2011; 60:916–28. German.

5. Lim G, Facco FL, Nathan N, Waters JH, Wong CA, Eltzschig HK. A review of the impact of obstetric anesthesia on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Anesthesiology. 2018; 129:192–215.

6. Reynolds F, Seed PT. Anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal acid-base status: a meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2005; 60:636–53.

7. Roberts SW, Leveno KJ, Sidawi JE, Lucas MJ, Kelly MA. Fetal acidemia associated with regional anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 85:79–83.

8. Mueller MD, Brühwiler H, Schüpfer GK, Lüscher KP. Higher rate of fetal acidemia after regional anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90:131–4.

9. Guglielminotti J, Wong CA, Landau R, Li G. Temporal trends in anesthesia-related adverse events in cesarean deliveries, New York State, 2003-2012. Anesthesiology. 2015; 123:1013–23.

10. Swart M, Sewell J, Thomas D. Intrathecal morphine for caesarean section: an assessment of pain relief, satisfaction and side-effects. Anaesthesia. 1997; 52:373–7.

11. Yun SH, Song SW, Park JC. Beneficial effects of the addition of intrathecal fentanyl to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in cesarean section. Anesth Pain Med. 2017; 12:233–9.

12. Ghaffari S, Dehghanpisheh L, Tavakkoli F, Mahmoudi H. The effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on quality of life in women undergoing cesarean delivery on maternal request. Cureus. 2018; 10:e3715.

13. Riley ET, Cohen SE, Macario A, Desai JB, Ratner EF. Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a comparison of time efficiency, costs, charges, and complications. Anesth Analg. 1995; 80:709–12.

14. Palmer E, Ciechanowicz S, Reeve A, Harris S, Wong DJN, Sultan P. Operating room-to-incision interval and neonatal outcome in emergency caesarean section: a retrospective 5-year cohort study. Anaesthesia. 2018; 73:825–31.

15. Oh TT, Martel CG, Clark AG, Russo MB, Nossaman BD. Impact of anesthetic predictors on postpartum hospital length of stay and adverse events following cesarean delivery: a retrospective study in 840 consecutive parturients. Ochsner J. 2015; 15:228–36.

16. Practice guidelines for obstetric anesthesia: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology. Anesthesiology. 2016; 124:270–300.

17. Park SH, Kim DJ, Kim WY, Kim JH, Lee YS, Park YC. Clinical evaluation of anesthesia for cesarean section at tertiary medical center: retrospective study for 5 years (2009-2013). Anesth Pain Med. 2016; 11:49–54.

18. Guglielminotti J, Deneux-Tharaux C, Wong CA, Li G. Hospital-level factors associated with anesthesia-related adverse events in cesarean deliveries, New York State, 2009-2011. Anesth Analg. 2016; 122:1947–56.

19. Cobb BT, Lane-Fall MB, Month RC, Onuoha OC, Srinivas SK, Neuman MD. Anesthesiologist specialization and use of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology. 2019; 130:237–46.