BACKGROUND: Opinions are controversial regarding the use of general and spinal anesthesia in pre-eclamptic mothers undergoing Caesarean section. Some studies recommended avoiding spinal anesthesia in pre-eclamptic patients because of concern for suddensevere hypotension, while other studies support the use of spinal anesthesia as first choice reasoning less post-operative morbidity and mortality. This study aims to compare maternal outcome among pre-eclamptic women undergone caesarian delivery under general and spinal anesthesia.METHODS AND PATIENTS: A retrospective comparative crosssectional study was conducted to compare maternal outcome. Allpre-eclamptic mothers who underwent Caesarian section in Black Lion Specialized Hospital from October 2014 to October 2016 were included in the study. Data entry and analysis were conducted using SPSS version 20. Student’s T-test was used to compare the outcome in both groups and p value < 0.05 was set as cut off point for statistical significance.RESULTS: A total of 170 client documents were reviewed. The mean age of the study subjects was 28.18 + 4.66 years, with median age 28 years (IQR: 25-30). Our study shows that both general and spinal anesthesia have no difference in terms of maternal survival status, days of hospital stay, post-operative admission to ICU, and post-operative complications. However, this study found a statistically significant higher post-operative blood pressure and pulse rate among general anesthesia groups compared with spinal anesthesia group.CONCLUSION፡ Spinal anesthesia is safer than general anesthesia in terms of stable vital signs among pre-eclamptic women undergoing Cesarean section.KEYWORDS: Spinal, General, Anesthesia, Pre-eclampsia, Maternal outcome

Anesthetic management of preeclamptic patients remains a challenge. Although general anesthesia can be used safely in pre-eclamptic women, it is fraught with greater maternal morbidity and mortality. The added risks associated with general anesthesia include airway difficulties due to edema (often aggravated by tracheal intubation) and the pressure response to laryngoscope and intubation. However, several studies support the use of spinal anesthesia as first choice reasoning less postoperative morbidity and mortality. To compare maternal outcome among preeclamptic women after caesarian delivery under general and spinal anesthesia in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Hospital based retrospective comparative cross sectional study was used to compare maternal outcomes. All preeclamptic mothers that underwent Caesarian Section in Obstetrics and Gynecology Ward, Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital from October 2014 to October 2016 was included in the study. Data collection was carried out by using structured questionnaire. Data entry and analysis was done on SPSS version 20. Independent sample T-test and logistic regression was conducted to compare the outcome in both groups of spinal and general anesthesia, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p value < 0.05 is set as cut off point for statistical significance. The mean age of study subjects were 28.18 years and SD= ± 4.66 years, the median age is 28 years (IQR: 25-30 years). Majority 152 (91%) of the cesarean sections (C/S) was emergency C/S and the rest 15 (9%) were elective C/S. 78 (46.7%) of parturient operated under general anesthesia, and 89 (53.3%) were operated under spinal anesthesia. None of the mothers developed post-op complication, and none of the maternal death were documented until discharge from the hospital in both groups of parturient. The present finding shows that statistically significant higher intra operative blood pressure and pulse rate was observed among GA group when compared with SA group. In conclusion, SA is safer than GA in terms of stable intra operative vital signs among preeclamptic women.

No abstract