Safety of spinal anesthesia and analysis of cerebrospinal fluid in SARS-CoV-2 pregnant women undergoing cesarean section: an observational prospective study.
Cerebrospinal fluid
Chemical-physical analysis
Pregnancy
SARS-CoV-2
Spinal anesthesia
Journal
Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care
ISSN: 2731-3786
Titre abrégé: J Anesth Analg Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918591885906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Nov 2023
28 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
14
09
2023
accepted:
08
11
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Systemic infection has always been considered a relative contraindication to neuraxial anesthesia, despite the fact that infectious complications are relatively uncommon. Pregnancy-related physiological changes and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) neurotropic features may facilitate the virus' entry into the central nervous system. The principal aim of this study was to test the safety of spinal anesthesia in "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2)-positive pregnant women and to examine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) characteristics. We conducted a prospective observational single-center study in asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic consecutive pregnant SARS-CoV-2 patients who underwent spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. Women with severe infection were excluded because they underwent general anesthesia. At the time of spinal anesthesia, we collected CSF samples, and then we performed a chemical-physical analysis to look for signs of inflammation and for SARS-CoV-2 genome. We included 26 women. No spinal anesthesia complications were reported in the perioperative period and after 2 months. All CSF samples were crystal clear, and all physical-chemical values were within physiological ranges: the median concentration of CSF/plasma glucose ratio was 0.66, IQR 0.5500 (0.6000-0.7100), and the average CSF protein concentration value was 23.2 mg/dl (SD 4.87). In all samples, genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and other neurotropic viruses were not detected. Spinal anesthesia was safe in SARS-CoV-2 pregnant women with mild disease; no clinical maternal complications were detected, and no CSF changes indicative of inflammatory or infectious diseases that would compromise the safety of the procedure were found.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Systemic infection has always been considered a relative contraindication to neuraxial anesthesia, despite the fact that infectious complications are relatively uncommon. Pregnancy-related physiological changes and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) neurotropic features may facilitate the virus' entry into the central nervous system. The principal aim of this study was to test the safety of spinal anesthesia in "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2)-positive pregnant women and to examine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) characteristics.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a prospective observational single-center study in asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic consecutive pregnant SARS-CoV-2 patients who underwent spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. Women with severe infection were excluded because they underwent general anesthesia. At the time of spinal anesthesia, we collected CSF samples, and then we performed a chemical-physical analysis to look for signs of inflammation and for SARS-CoV-2 genome.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 26 women. No spinal anesthesia complications were reported in the perioperative period and after 2 months. All CSF samples were crystal clear, and all physical-chemical values were within physiological ranges: the median concentration of CSF/plasma glucose ratio was 0.66, IQR 0.5500 (0.6000-0.7100), and the average CSF protein concentration value was 23.2 mg/dl (SD 4.87). In all samples, genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and other neurotropic viruses were not detected.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Spinal anesthesia was safe in SARS-CoV-2 pregnant women with mild disease; no clinical maternal complications were detected, and no CSF changes indicative of inflammatory or infectious diseases that would compromise the safety of the procedure were found.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38017591
doi: 10.1186/s44158-023-00135-1
pii: 10.1186/s44158-023-00135-1
pmc: PMC10685510
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
49Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Neuroimage Clin. 2023;37:103338
pubmed: 36731251
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2020 Aug;43:1-8
pubmed: 32437912
Eur J Neurol. 2006 Sep;13(9):913-22
pubmed: 16930354
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Dec;27(6):791-802
pubmed: 24012425
Arch Neurol. 1979 Jul;36(7):443
pubmed: 454250
J Neurol Sci. 2021 Feb 15;421:117316
pubmed: 33561753
Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2022 Jun;36(2):423-433
pubmed: 35636908
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020 Aug;36(Suppl 1):S77-S80
pubmed: 33100651
Handb Clin Neurol. 2020;171:85-96
pubmed: 32736760
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4):334-45
pubmed: 16857553
Cells. 2022 Aug 18;11(16):
pubmed: 36010650
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Jul;61(4):672-674
pubmed: 35779919
Front Neurol. 2020 Sep 17;11:1044
pubmed: 33041985
Br J Anaesth. 2012 Mar;108(3):485-90
pubmed: 22180468
Anesth Analg. 1986 Sep;65(9):950-4
pubmed: 3740493
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42745
pubmed: 22880096
Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2018 Feb;46(1):8-14
pubmed: 30140495