Onah H E, Ibeziako N, Umezulike A C, Effetie E R, Ogbuokiri C M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Enugu, Nigeria.
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 May;25(4):342-6. doi: 10.1080/01443610500119671.
Recent studies have cast doubt on the recommended 30-min decision--delivery interval (DDI) in emergency caesarean sections. The practicability, justification, anticipated beneficial effect on neonatal outcome and its medico-legal implications have been questioned. We set out to determine (1) the DDI for emergency caesarean sections in two Nigerian tertiary care centres (2) the effect of DDI on perinatal outcome (particularly if the DDI is longer than the internationally recommended 30 min) and (3) the factors causing delays in intervention if any. This was a prospective observational study of consecutive cases of emergency caesarean sections performed at the two centres over an 8-month period. The main outcome measures were: indication for the caesarean, the decision-baby delivery interval, 1-min and 5-min Apgar scores, newborn admission to special care, perinatal death and reasons for any delay in decision - delivery interval beyond 30 min. The data were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics and regression equations at the 95% confidence level. A total of 224 emergency caesarean sections were performed in the two institutions within the period of study. None of the caesarean sections was done within the recommended 30-min interval. Despite this, there was no significant correlation between the DDI and perinatal outcome. The major causes of delays in DDI were anaesthetic delays in both centres and difficulty in sourcing essential materials in one of the centres. The recommended 30-min DDI in emergency caesarean section is not currently feasible in Nigeria. Although the 30-min interval should remain the gold standard, DDI up to 3 hours may not be incompatible with good perinatal outcome as shown in this study. As in other studies, anaesthetic delay is the major cause of delay in carrying out emergency caesarean sections. Finally, since prolonged DDI may not be the cause of an adverse perinatal outcome in the majority of cases, litigation on these grounds may be unjustified.
近期研究对急诊剖宫产推荐的30分钟决策-分娩间隔(DDI)提出了质疑。其可行性、合理性、对新生儿结局预期的有益影响及其法医学意义均受到了质疑。我们着手确定:(1)尼日利亚两家三级护理中心急诊剖宫产的DDI;(2)DDI对围产期结局的影响(特别是当DDI长于国际推荐的30分钟时);以及(3)若存在,导致干预延迟的因素。这是一项对两家中心在8个月期间连续进行的急诊剖宫产病例的前瞻性观察研究。主要结局指标包括:剖宫产指征、决策-胎儿娩出间隔、1分钟和5分钟阿氏评分、新生儿入住特殊护理病房情况、围产期死亡以及决策-分娩间隔超过30分钟的任何延迟原因。数据采用描述性和推断性统计以及95%置信水平的回归方程进行分析。在研究期间,两家机构共进行了224例急诊剖宫产。没有一例剖宫产在推荐的30分钟间隔内完成。尽管如此,DDI与围产期结局之间并无显著相关性。DDI延迟的主要原因在两家中心均为麻醉延迟,以及其中一家中心获取必需材料困难。急诊剖宫产推荐的30分钟DDI目前在尼日利亚不可行。尽管30分钟间隔应仍为金标准,但如本研究所示,长达3小时的DDI可能与良好的围产期结局并不矛盾。与其他研究一样,麻醉延迟是进行急诊剖宫产延迟的主要原因。最后,由于在大多数情况下延长的DDI可能并非围产期不良结局的原因,基于这些理由的诉讼可能不合理。