Epidural versus general anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section Effect on Apgar score and acid‐base status of the newborn

Abstract

Elective Caesarean section deliveries over a 5‐year period were studied to compare the effect of epidural block with general anaesthesia on the condition of the infant at birth. The Apgar score and umbilical arterial acid‐base status were used as determinants of the latter. Epidural block was used in 139 (22.8%) mothers while 471 (77.2%) were performed under general anaesthesia. No babies in the epidural group were severely depressed (Apgar < 4), compared with 6.2% in the general anaesthesia group. Only 4.3% of the epidural sections were moderately depressed (Apgar 4–6), compared with 15.4% of the others. These differences remained highly significant when infants of less than 2500 g were excluded, and when matched groups were compared. Mean umbilical arterial pH was similar within the two groups (pH 7.28), and was not consistent with asphyxia in almost 90% of the depressed infants. The findings suggest that general anaesthesia, rather than asphyxia or aortocaval compression, is responsible for most of the depressed infants born by elective Caesarean section. This may involve over 20% of babies delivered in this manner, so greater use of epidural block for elective Caesarean section is recommended. Further investigations are required to improve results with general anaesthesia.