Japanese parturient body mass index and the role in initial nerve block height of women undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jun 2020
05 Jun 2020
Historique:
entrez:
6
6
2020
pubmed:
6
6
2020
medline:
26
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The present retrospective cohort study was designed to determine body mass index (BMI) at the delivery in women undergoing cesarean section in a Japanese urban area, and whether the nerve block height after spinal anesthesia upon the cesarean delivery relates to the lower maternal BMI, less gestational age, or underweight fetus at birth in the population.A total of 401 pregnant women undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia were evaluated retrospectively. We examined background differences, including BMI at the delivery, gestational age, and fetal birth weight between the cases with and without the adequate initial nerve block height less than the sixth thoracic vertebral level (Th6) after the spinal dose administration.The data demonstrated advanced maternal age pregnancy (median 35.5 years) and normal BMI (median 24.7) at the delivery in the population. The patients with the inadequate initial nerve block height immediately after the spinal dose administration documented significantly lower block height compared with those with adequate block height (Th8 [n = 55] vs Th4 [n = 346], P < 0.001). There was a risk of the low initial block height caused by either preoperative BMI <23, gestational age <37 weeks, or fetal birth weight <2500 g in the population.In a Japanese urban area, parturient median BMI undergoing cesarean delivery is in the normal range. Such lower BMI, in addition to less gestational age or underweight fetus, seems one of the factors causing the low initial block height upon spinal anesthesia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32502028
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020584
pii: 00005792-202006050-00066
pmc: PMC7306345
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e20584Références
Li N, Liu E, Guo J, et al. Maternal prepregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain on pregnancy outcomes. PLoS One 2013;8:e82310(doi.:10.1371/journal.pone.0082310).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082310)
Chihara I, Uehara R, Kotani K, et al. The effect of pregnancy body mass index on singleton cesarean delivery among term nulliparous women in Japanese population. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;284:1117–22.
Adesope OA, Einhorn LM, Olufolabi AJ, et al. The impact of gestational age and fetal weight on the risk of failure of spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth 2016;26:8–14.
Minakami H, Maeda T, Fujii T, et al. Guidelines for obstetrical practice in Japan: Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) and Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (JAOG) 20∗14 edition. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014;40:1469–99.
Chang J-E, Kim H, Ryu J-H, et al. Relationship between central obesity and spread of spinal anesthesia in female patients. Anesth Analg 2017;124:1670–3.
Kim H-J, Kim WH, Lim HW, et al. Obesity is independently associated with spinal anesthesia outcomes: a prospective observational study. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0124264(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124264).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124264)
Ngaka TC, Coetzee JF, Dyer RA. The influence of body mass index on sensorimotor block and vasopressor requirement during spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 2016;123:1527–34.
Sng BL, Lim Y, Sia ATH. An observational prospective cohort study of incidence andcharacteristics of failed spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009;18:237–41.
Butwick AJ, Wong CA, Guo N. Maternal body mass index and use of labor neuraxial analgesia: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Anesthesiology 2018;129:448–58.
Enomoto K, Aoki S, Toma R, et al. Pregnancy outcomes based on pre-pregnancy body mass index in Japanese women. PLoS One 2016;11:e0157081doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157081.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157081