Relationship between delivery with anesthesia and postpartum depression: The Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS).
Anesthesia
Delivery
Depression
EPDS
Postpartum
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jul 2021
23 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
25
12
2020
accepted:
09
07
2021
entrez:
24
7
2021
pubmed:
25
7
2021
medline:
16
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Postpartum depression is one of the most commonly experienced psychological disorders for women after childbirth, usually occurring within one year. This study aimed to clarify whether women with delivery with anesthesia, including epidural analgesia, spinal-epidural analgesia, and paracervical block, had a decreased risk of postpartum depression after giving birth in Japan. The Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS) was a prospective cohort study that enrolled registered fetal records (n = 104,065) in 15 regions nationwide in Japan. Binomial logistic regression analyses were performed to calculate the adjusted odd ratios (aORs) for the association between mode of delivery with or without anesthesia and postpartum depression at one-, six- and twelve-months after childbirth. At six months after childbirth, vaginal delivery with anesthesia was associated with a higher risk of postpartum depression (aOR: 1.233, 95% confidence interval: 1.079-1.409), compared with vaginal delivery without analgesia. Nevertheless, the risk dropped off one year after delivery. Among the pregnant women who requested delivery with anesthesia, 5.1% had a positive Kessler-6 scale (K6) score for depression before the first trimester (p < 0.001), which was significantly higher than the proportions in the vaginal delivery without analgesia (3.5%). Our data suggested that the risk of postpartum depression at six months after childbirth tended to be increased after vaginal delivery with anesthesia, compared with vaginal delivery without analgesia. Requests for delivery with anesthesia continue to be relatively uncommon in Japan, and women who make such requests might be more likely to experience postpartum depressive symptoms because of underlying maternal environmental statuses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Postpartum depression is one of the most commonly experienced psychological disorders for women after childbirth, usually occurring within one year. This study aimed to clarify whether women with delivery with anesthesia, including epidural analgesia, spinal-epidural analgesia, and paracervical block, had a decreased risk of postpartum depression after giving birth in Japan.
METHODS
METHODS
The Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS) was a prospective cohort study that enrolled registered fetal records (n = 104,065) in 15 regions nationwide in Japan. Binomial logistic regression analyses were performed to calculate the adjusted odd ratios (aORs) for the association between mode of delivery with or without anesthesia and postpartum depression at one-, six- and twelve-months after childbirth.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At six months after childbirth, vaginal delivery with anesthesia was associated with a higher risk of postpartum depression (aOR: 1.233, 95% confidence interval: 1.079-1.409), compared with vaginal delivery without analgesia. Nevertheless, the risk dropped off one year after delivery. Among the pregnant women who requested delivery with anesthesia, 5.1% had a positive Kessler-6 scale (K6) score for depression before the first trimester (p < 0.001), which was significantly higher than the proportions in the vaginal delivery without analgesia (3.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggested that the risk of postpartum depression at six months after childbirth tended to be increased after vaginal delivery with anesthesia, compared with vaginal delivery without analgesia. Requests for delivery with anesthesia continue to be relatively uncommon in Japan, and women who make such requests might be more likely to experience postpartum depressive symptoms because of underlying maternal environmental statuses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34301185
doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03996-y
pii: 10.1186/s12884-021-03996-y
pmc: PMC8306350
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
522Investigateurs
Shin Yamazaki
(S)
Yukihiro Ohya
(Y)
Reiko Kishi
(R)
Nobuo Yaegashi
(N)
Koichi Hashimoto
(K)
Chisato Mori
(C)
Shuichi Ito
(S)
Zentaro Yamagata
(Z)
Hidekuni Inadera
(H)
Takeo Nakayama
(T)
Hiroyasu Iso
(H)
Masayuki Shima
(M)
Youichi Kurozawa
(Y)
Narufumi Suganuma
(N)
Koichi Kusuhara
(K)
Takahiko Katoh
(T)
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Jan 16;2020:2408063
pubmed: 32025517
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009 May;119(5):350-64
pubmed: 19298573
J Clin Anesth. 2020 May;61:109658
pubmed: 31784304
Environ Health Prev Med. 2017 Jul 14;22(1):61
pubmed: 29165148
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(3):152-8
pubmed: 18763695
Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018 Oct;25(2):123-130
pubmed: 30393769
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1355-60
pubmed: 23034025
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Mar;83(3):257-61
pubmed: 14995921
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2012 Jun;21(2):88-97
pubmed: 22351472
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Jun 19;17(1):195
pubmed: 28629393
Birth. 2020 Mar;47(1):67-79
pubmed: 31667913
J Epidemiol. 2018 Feb 5;28(2):99-104
pubmed: 29093304
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 14;10(1):6390
pubmed: 32286432
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 18;13(4):e0193697
pubmed: 29668725
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Mar;46(3):425-433
pubmed: 31960539
Pediatr Int. 2001 Apr;43(2):189-93
pubmed: 11285079
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019 Oct;36(10):745-754
pubmed: 31356375
Anesth Analg. 2018 May;126(5):1598-1605
pubmed: 29239949
Int J Womens Health. 2020 Feb 04;12:59-70
pubmed: 32099485
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jan 10;14:25
pubmed: 24410977
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 07;(12):CD000331
pubmed: 22161362
Anesth Analg. 2014 Aug;119(2):383-92
pubmed: 24797120
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Mar;91(3):550-4
pubmed: 22318615
Anesth Analg. 2014 Aug;119(2):219-21
pubmed: 25046776
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015 Apr;59(4):486-95
pubmed: 25683882