Planning, Preparation and Pre-emption are three key concepts in the practice of anaesthesia. In obstetric anaesthesia specifically, these three ‘P’s are particularly relevant as parturients are commonly present the Delivery Suite for a period of time prior to requesting or requiring anaesthetic intervention. One frequently encountered example of implementing Planning, Preparation and Pre-emption by the obstetric anaesthesiologist is the recommendation of starting epidural analgesia during labour. Unless contraindicated, this is suggested or advisable in parturients with modified WHO 3 and modified WHO 4 heart disease¹, in women with maternal obesity², in active COVID-19 infection³, in the presence of certain ophthalmic pathologies⁴, and in laboring women with pre-eclampsia⁵, among others. This is to ensure labour analgesia and patient comfort; to prevent deterioration of medical conditions due to the added physiological and psychological stresses of labour; to reduce the need for further anaesthetic intervention should anaesthesia be required for a surgical procedure; and to avoid general anaesthesia wherever possible, reducing the incidence of associated complications and protecting healthcare staff from aerosol-generating procedures.

The main benefits of having an established Labour Epidural providing good epidural analgesia are: 1) the possibility of its conversion to an epidural anaesthetic in the case of an emergency Caesarean section, 2) the avoidance of disadvantages associated with removing the Epidural and using a Spinal, and 3) other considerations including cost, environmental impact, anaesthetist workload, and patient perspectives.

1. Conversion to Epidural Anaesthesia for Emergency Caesarean Section

Lumbar epidurals are regarded as the gold standard for labour analgesia⁶. The Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association (OAA) in the United Kingdom estimates that only 5% of labour epidurals will not work well enough for a Caesarean section⁷, should it be required. In an Irish study, the rate of labour epidurals converted to spinal or general anaesthesia for Caesarean section was 9%⁸, the conversion rate from an Indian study was approximately 4%⁹, a Maltese study identified a rate of epidural conversion to spinal or general anaesthesia for Caesarean section as 0.85% and 1.5% respectively¹⁰, a Chinese publication showed a conversion rate to general anaesthesia of 3%¹¹, while a systematic review in 2022 by authors from the United Kingdom and the United States of America including over 3000 patients showed an overall prevalence of inadequate epidural anaesthesia of around 30%¹². It is however worth noting that this systematic review relates to elective caesarean section, and not emergencies, with the possibility that epidural analgesia was not established for a significant period of time prior to the procedure.

Naturally, it is important to ensure that the epidural analgesia provided during labour is satisfactory to increase chances of success of epidural anaesthesia for emergency Caesarean section¹³. A number of risk factors have been identified as being associated with a failure of conversion from epidural analgesia to anaesthesia and recommendations for their mitigation¹⁴, in line with the spirit of Planning, Preparation and Pre-emption, have been made. The presence of an obstetric anaesthetist has also been mentioned as a relevant factor in this regard¹⁵.

Furthermore, the time required for an epidural top up to a level adequate for surgical anaesthesia compares favourably with that required for a spinal, and in some cases, even with that required for a general anaesthetic. A 2018 retrospective cohort study showed that unadjusted median operating room-to-incision intervals were 6 minutes for general anaesthesia, 11 minutes for epidural top-up, and 13 minutes for spinal anaesthesia¹⁶. It is important to point out that when relating to clinical significance, general anaesthesia was associated with worse short term neonatal outcomes in this study, and that longer time intervals were not associated with worse neonatal outcomes¹⁶. A 2007 retrospective audit from Australia showed mean decision-to-delivery times of 17 (±6) minutes for general anaesthesia, 19 (±9) minutes for epidural, and 26 (±9) minutes for spinal¹⁷. It has also been reported that established epidural analgesia may mitigate the increased anaesthesia and surgery time required in obese obstetric patients undergoing Caesarean section¹⁸.

Finally, epidural anaesthesia for emergency Caesarean section has the benefit of being topped up as often as required to prolong the duration of the anaesthetic block. It also allows for manipulation of the time of onset of the anaesthetic, speeding it up by using lignocaine together with adjuvants such as opiates, bicarbonate, or adrenaline; or even providing a gentle onset of neuraxial anaesthetic blockade when required, for example, in patients with severe heart disease. One-shot spinal anaesthesia does not confer these benefits.

Therefore, it can be said that in over 90% of cases where a functioning labour epidural analgesia is present, this can be satisfactorily used for emergency Caesarean section anaesthesia in a timely manner. This is very promising data which encourages the anaesthesiologist to utilize epidural top ups, instead of removing the labour epidural and attempting an alternative technique.

2. Disadvantages associated with removing the Epidural and using a Spinal

The decision to remove a labour epidural for an emergency Caesarean section and opt for a spinal anaesthetic has its disadvantages. Firstly, as described above, the anaesthesiologist is losing an anaesthetic option which has a high chance of success and is negating some benefits related to Planning, Preparation and Pre-emption in obstetric anaesthesia. Secondly, the patient is being exposed to the potential complications associated with a second procedure, which may not have been justifiably necessary. In this case, there is always the possibility that a spinal anaesthetic is not possible to site due to patient anatomy, difficulty with appropriate positioning in an emergency situation, challenges resulting from the volume already present in the epidural space, and psychological stress due to the urgency felt by the multidisciplinary team, among others. This would result in the anaesthesiologist having to resort to general anaesthesia, which may further expose the patient to complications such as awareness, aspiration, and difficulty with airway manoeuvres.

Additionally, there is controversy in the literature regarding the safety of spinal anaesthesia following pre-established epidural analgesia in obstetrics. A number of authors express concerns regarding the risk of high spinal or total spinal with the injection of local anaesthetic and adjuvants into the cerebrospinal fluid once this is already compressed by the contents of the epidural space^14,19. This seems to be more of an issue if a recent epidural bolus would have just been administered, as compared to an epidural infusion only^19–20. Case reports of these complications have been published^21–22.

3. Other considerations

When considering the choice between topping up a labour epidural or removing it and using a spinal for emergency Caesarean section, one should also factor in the issues of cost, environmental impact, anaesthesiologist workload, and patient perspectives.

It can be argued that removing a labour epidural and performing spinal anaesthesia is more costly than topping up the already-present epidural. A new sterile gown and gloves will need to be used by the anaesthesiologist, together with the opening of a new sterile pack for spinal anaesthesia. This will include consumables, such as the spinal needle, the cleaning solution and swabs; as well as the cost of cleaning, decontamination, and sterilization of any reusable items, which involves the cost of additional staff. The repeated use of personal protective equipment, utilization of consumables, and processes associated with cleaning, decontamination, and sterilization also carries an environmental impact. In a world where cost-efficiency is key, and minimization of environmental impact is important, these considerations cannot be ignored.

Choosing to remove a labour epidural and use a spinal anaesthetic for an emergency Caesarean section may also have an effect on the anaesthesiologist in terms of stress and workload. Deciding to remove a working epidural analgesia catheter before even giving it a chance to work is eliminating a realistic anaesthetic option for an emergency procedure. This limits the tools available to the anaesthesiologist as it is not usually feasible for an epidural catheter to be re-inserted in an emergency. It also requires the anaesthesiologist to explain this additional procedure to the patient and gain informed consent in a challenging situation. This extra workload i.e., explaining, gaining informed consent, and inserting a spinal anaesthetic, may be stressful for the anaesthesiologist. Also, they are now required to perform a procedure in a time-pressured and high-stakes environment. Performance anxiety may also play a part if the anaesthesiologist is very keen to avoid a general anaesthetic, for example, if they feel the patient’s airway looks particularly difficult or the patient has pre-eclampsia and would therefore be at a higher risk of complications.

Patient perspectives should also be considered. The author has found no published literature specifically relating to patient preference regarding epidural or spinal anaesthesia for emergency Caesarean section. However, it is reasonable to think that a patient who has a working labour epidural already has confidence in the technique and as a result, may feel more reassured with epidural anaesthesia for emergency Caesarean section as compared to alternatives.

In summary, labour epidurals providing satisfactory analgesia should be considered for a top up to provide epidural anaesthesia for emergency Caesarean sections. In fact, this is one of the main benefits of siting labour epidurals in patients who are at a higher risk for Caesarean section and is a strong feature of obstetric anaesthesia practice using the principles of Planning, Preparation and Pre-emption. In addition, there are disadvantages to the alternative of removing the labour epidural and using a spinal anaesthetic. Furthermore, there are cost, environmental, anaesthesiologist, and patient considerations that may support the choice of epidural anaesthesia over spinal.

References

1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Great Britain). Intrapartum care for women with existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2019.

2. Denison FC, Aedla NR, Keag O, Hor K, Reynolds RM, Milne A, Diamond A, on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Care of Women with Obesity in Pregnancy. Green-top Guideline No. 72. BJOG 2018

3. Bauer M, Bernstein K, Dinges E, et al. Obstetric anesthesia during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2020 Apr 20.

4. Digre KB. Neuro-ophthalmology and pregnancy: what does a neuro-ophthalmologist need to know? Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology 2011 Dec 1;31(4):381–7.

5. Siddiqui MM, Banayan JM, Hofer JE. Pre-eclampsia through the eyes of the obstetrician and anesthesiologist. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 2019 Nov 1;40:140–8.

6. Kumar, Nishant DA, DNB, MNAMS Epidural Technique in Obstetric Anesthesia, Anesthesia & Analgesia: March 2021 - Volume 132 - Issue 3 - p e40 doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005359

7. Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association (OAA). Risk of having an epidural or spinal to reduce labour pain. March 2021. Accessible at: https://www.labourpains.com/Epidural-Information-Card

8. Singh V, Lal S, Thomas J, Narayanan N. ESRA19–0621 Incidence of failed epidural anaesthesia for emergency cesarean section and conversion rate to spinal or general anaesthesia.

9. Pandya ST, Mikkilineni J, Madapu M. Conversion of labour epidural analgesia to anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section: A retrospective audit. Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care 2021 Jan 1;11(1):5.

10. Abela GP, Thornton B, Cortis PA, Calleja P. Evaluation of the obstetric anaesthesia procedures at mater dei hospital in 2019. Malta Medical Journal 2022 Jan 11;34(1):43–9.

11. Shen C, Chen L, Yue C, Cheng J. Extending epidural analgesia for intrapartum cesarean section following epidural labor analgesia: a retrospective cohort study. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2022 Mar 19;35(6):1127–33.

12. Patel R, Kua J, Sharawi N, et al. Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2022.

13. Visser WA, Zwijnenburg RD. Management of neuraxial anaesthesia for intrapartum caesarean delivery based on the quality of epidural labour analgesia: A case series. European Journal of Anaesthesiology| EJA. 2019 Aug 1;36(8):615–7.

14. Desai N, Carvalho B. Conversion of labour epidural analgesia to surgical anaesthesia for emergency intrapartum Caesarean section. BJA education. 2020 Jan;20(1):26.

15. Bjornestad EE, Haney M. An obstetric anaesthetist: A key to successful conversion of epidural analgesia to surgical anaesthesia for caesarean delivery?. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2020;64(2):142–4.

16. Palmer E, Ciechanowicz S, Reeve A, et al. Operating room-to-incision interval and neonatal outcome in emergency caesarean section: a retrospective 5-year cohort study. Anaesthesia. 2018 Jul;73(7):825–31.

17. Popham P, Buettner A, Mendola M. Anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section, 2000–2004, at the Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne. Anaesthesia and intensive care. 2007 Feb;35(1):74–9.

18. Lawrence S, Malacova E, Reutens D, Sturgess DJ. Increased maternal body mass index is associated with prolonged anaesthetic and surgical times for caesarean delivery but is partially offset by clinician seniority and established epidural analgesia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2021;61(3):394–402.

19. Vaida S, Dalal P, Mets B. Spinal anesthesia for Cesarean delivery following pre-existing epidural labour analgesia. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie 2009 Dec;56(12):988–9.

20. Dadarkar P, Philip J, Weidner C, et al. Spinal anesthesia for cesarean section following inadequate labor epidural analgesia: a retrospective audit. International journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. 2004;13(4):239–43.

21. Siddik-Sayyid SM, Gellad PH, Aouad MT. Total spinal block after spinal anesthesia following ongoing epidural analgesia for cesarean delivery. Journal of Anesthesia 2012;26(2):312–3.

22. Gupta A, Enlund G, Bengtsson M, et al. Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section following epidural analgesia in labour: a relative contraindication. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 1994 jul 1;3(3):153–6.