Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ngan Kee, W. D.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, B. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ngan Kee, W. D.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, B. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2002, Vol. 89, No. 4 556-561
© 2002 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia


Clinical Investigations

Randomized, double-blind comparison of different inspired oxygen fractions during general anaesthesia for Caesarean section{dagger}

W. D. Ngan Kee*,1, K. S. Khaw1, K. C. Ma2, A. S. Y. Wong1 and B. B. Lee1

1 Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 2 Department of Paediatrics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong, China*Corresponding author

{dagger}Presented in part as a free paper at the 10th European Society of Anaesthesiologists and 24th European Academy of Anaesthesiology meeting, Nice, France, April 2002.

Background. The optimal inspired oxygen fraction FIO2 for fetal oxygenation during general anaesthesia for Caesarean section is not known.

Methods. We randomized patients having elective Caesarean section to receive one of the following: FIO2 0.3, FIN2O 0.7 and end-tidal sevoflurane 0.6% (Group 30, n=20); FIO2 0.5, FIN2O 0.5 and end-tidal sevoflurane 1.0% (Group 50, n=20), or FIO2 1.0 and end-tidal sevoflurane 2.0% (Group 100, n=20) until delivery. Neonatal outcome was compared biochemically and clinically.

Results. At delivery, for umbilical venous blood, mean PO2 was greater in Group 100 (7.6 (SD 3.7) kPa) compared with both Group 30 (4.0 (1.1) kPa, P<0.0001) and Group 50 (4.7 (0.9) kPa, P=0.002) and oxygen content was greater in Group 100 (17.2 (1.6) ml dl–1) compared with both Group 30 (12.8 (3.6) ml dl–1, P=0.0001) and Group 50 (13.8 (2.6) ml dl–1, P=0.0001). For umbilical arterial blood, PO2 was greater in Group 100 (3.2 (0.4) kPa) compared with Group 30 (2.4 (0.7) kPa, P=0.003), and in Group 50 (2.9 (0.8) kPa) compared with Group 30 (2.4 (0.7) kPa, P=0.04); oxygen content was greater in Group 100 (10.8 (3.5) ml dl–1) than in Group 30 (7.0 (3.0) ml dl–1, P<0.01). Apgar scores, neonatal neurologic and adaptive capacity scores, and maternal arterial plasma concentrations of epinephrine and norepinephrine before induction and at delivery were similar among groups. No patient reported intraoperative awareness.

Conclusions. Use of FIO2 1.0 during general anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section increased fetal oxygenation.

Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 556–61


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
M. Van de Velde
Emergency Caesarean delivery: is supplementary maternal oxygen necessary?
Br. J. Anaesth., January 1, 2009; 102(1): 1 - 2.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
K. O. Pryor, T. J. Fahey III, C. A. Lien, and P. A. Goldstein
Surgical Site Infection and the Routine Use of Perioperative Hyperoxia in a General Surgical Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial
JAMA, January 7, 2004; 291(1): 79 - 87.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.