General or regional anaesthesia for postpartum haemorrhage—A national population‐based cohort study

• Published in: Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2022-01, Vol.66 (1), p.103-113
• Main Authors: Wikkelsø, Anne J., Secher, Erik L., Edwards, Hellen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: anaesthesia; Anesthesia; Anesthesia, Conduction; Cesarean Section; Cohort analysis; Cohort Studies; difficult airway; Female; General anesthesia; Hemorrhage; Humans; Hypovolemia; national data; Pain; Physiological effects; Physiological factors; Placenta; Population studies; Population-based studies; Postpartum; Postpartum haemorrhage; Postpartum Hemorrhage - epidemiology; Pregnancy; Regional anesthesia; Sevoflurane; spinal anaesthesia; Uterus
• ISSN: 0001-5172; 1399-6576
• DOI: 10.1111/aas.13987

Background Anaesthesia is required to assist the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) when manual removal of the placenta or emptying of the uterine cavity is required. The choice between general or regional anaesthesia may depend upon factors such as existing epidural, airway, hypovolaemia, and tradition. Methods Data from a randomized controlled trial of PPH (FIB‐PPH) was used to reveal differences between delivery centres. In addition, national data of 5,601 PPH procedures requiring anaesthesia during 2010–2015 was collected from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, the National Danish Patient Registry, and the Danish Anaesthesia Database. The aim is to describe the variation in choice of anaesthesia for treatment of PPH. Results Data from the randomized trial showed large differences in practice between centres not explained by physiological factors. Using national Danish registry data, we show that large delivery centres as compared to small centres prefer regional anaesthesia for PPH procedures in opposed to general anaesthesia. Sevoflurane was used despite it causing uterine relaxation. The use of general anaesthesia was associated with younger parturients, larger blood loss, and larger Body‐Mass Index. Aspiration was recorded in one case (0.02%). In the postoperative care‐unit general anaesthesia was associated with a shorter stay, but also higher pain score at admission. Conclusion Practice varies immensely between delivery centres with large centres preferring regional anaesthesia. Difference in practice might be explained by level of experience, here large centres might be more confident using regional anaesthesia. Knowledge is being extrapolated from literature on caesarean sections. Future studies should address the optimal choice of anaesthesia for PPH procedures.