General anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a single-center sequential mixed methods study on labor nurses', obstetricians' and anesthesiologists' knowledge, attitudes and practices.
Authors' conclusion
General anesthesia was more frequent after-hours and in emergency cases.
Study context
- Population
- Cesarean deliveries July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, quaternary referral academic centre (Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database); interviews with anesthesiologists, obstetricians and labor nurses23 providers interviewed
- Participants
- 1,894 participants
- Comparison
- After-hours vs daytime and emergency vs non-emergency cesarean delivery
- After-hoursn = 1,033
- Emergenciesn = 938
- Outcome
- Rate of GA, grouped by case-timing and emergency-status
Methodological detailssemi-structured interviews, Knowledge-Attitudes-Practices framework
- Semi-structured interviews
- Knowledge-Attitudes-Practices framework
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
GA for cesarean delivery
- Overall GA rate
- 223 (11.8%)
Further findings
Provider perspectives (qualitative)
- Providers preferred neuraxial anesthesia when feasible; GA viewed as rapid and reliable but with maternal airway risk, adverse patient experience and neonatal risk
- Reported drivers of GA: emergency workflow compression, after-hours resource limitations, inefficient team communication, absent or failed labor epidural analgesia, pain during cesarean delivery
- Functioning labor epidural catheter considered protective
- Efficient system- and provider-level communication the most frequently suggested improvement
Original publication
General anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a single-center sequential mixed methods study on labor nurses', obstetricians' and anesthesiologists' knowledge, attitudes and practices. Int J Obstet Anesth. Published 1 August 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →