Consequences of General Anesthesia vs. Spinal Anesthesia on Newborn Outcome: A Prospective Study on Tertiary Hospital in Bangladesh

Abstract

Objective: Alternative treatment Cesarean section patients having general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia were compared for neonatal outcomes. Methods: This quasi-experimental study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesia, Rajshahi Medical College Hospital, and Tertiary Hospital in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. From March 2018 to November 2020. During lower segment Cesarean sections, patients were admitted through the obstetric OPD. Patients were chosen at random via an envelope draw. There were 160 patients in all, split equally into two groups for analysis. Patients in Group A (n=80) received spinal anesthesia, whereas those in Group B (n=80) received general anaesthetic. Umbilical artery blood was drawn shortly after the newborn's birth to measure the pH of the blood. At 0 and 5 minutes, the APGAR score was evaluated and recorded on a proforma. If the APGAR score was 7 or higher, and the blood pH was 7.2 or above, anesthesia was deemed successful, i.e., acceptable. Results: The total amount of neonates in group A with an APGAR score > 7 was 78 (97.5 %) whereas in group B it was 60 (75 %) and 74 (92.5 %). More neonates in group A had an APGAR score greater than 7 than in group B (p =0.028). Additionally, group A's average Apgar score at 0 minutes was higher than group B's at both 1 and 5 minutes (p=0.0001) B; 8.04±0.82 vs 7.10±0.92 (p=0.0001) and 9.89±0.32 vs 9.34±1.07 respectively (p=0.0001). Umbilical artery blood pH>7.2 was observed significantly high in group A93.8% as compared to group B 83.8% (p=0.045). Also, average pH was significantly high in group A than group B e.g., 7.38±0.15 vs 7.21±0.16 (p=0.017). Conclusion: In interventional Cesarean sections, spinal anesthesia has a better neonatal outcome than general anaesthetic.