Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

A survey of labour epidural practices at obstetric anesthesia fellowship programs in the United States

Purpose

Labour epidural analgesia (LEA) is an evolving field. Various neuraxial techniques and dosing regimens are available to the modern obstetric anesthesia provider, allowing for significant practice variability. To begin a search for consensus on optimal care, we sought to query fellowship training practices for LEA.

Methods

We conducted an electronic survey of institutions with American Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited obstetric anesthesiology fellowship programs. We studied the frequency of epidural initiation techniques, including combined spinal epidural (CSE), dural puncture epidural, and epidural bolus. For maintenance techniques, we appraised the use of continuous epidural infusion, programmed intermittent bolus (PIEB), and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA).

Results

Of 40 institutions surveyed, we received 32 responses (80% response rate). Twenty-eight of 40 (70%) were included in the analysis. A plurality of institutions (12/28; 43%) preferred CSE, and among those who used CSE, 23/27 (85%) included intrathecal opioids. A majority of institutions used protocols with PIEB (55%), while almost all (92%) used PCEA. Most participants (88%) reported using dilute concentration maintenance infusions of 0.1% bupivacaine/ropivacaine or less.

Conclusion

Despite significant variability in LEA practice, some clear patterns emerged in our survey, including preference for opioid-containing CSE and maintenance with PIEB, PCEA, and dilute epidural solutions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-022-02192-6.

Oral acetaminophen as an adjunct to continuous epidural infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia in laboring parturients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intravenous acetaminophen is safe and effective as an adjunct to labor analgesia with combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Oral acetaminophen is a much cheaper and safe option but has not been studied as an adjunct to labor analgesia till date. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of oral acetaminophen as an adjunct in patients receiving local anesthetic-opioid combination using CSE analgesia.

METHOD

In this ethically approved randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 60 consenting parturients were randomly allocated to two groups of 30 each: acetaminophen (who received oral acetaminophen 1 g) or placebo, 45 min before the procedure. CSE was administered as per hospital protocol. All the patients received continuous epidural infusion (CEI) of levobupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl 2 mcg/mL at 5 ml/h and PCEA boluses of 5 mL of the same drug with a lockout interval of 15 min if needed. The primary outcome was hourly mean consumption of levobupivacaine and fentanyl mixture (mL/h). Secondary outcomes included pain score, sensory and motor block, hemodynamic parameters of mother, duration of the second stage of labor, mode of delivery, maternal satisfaction, Apgar scores, fetal heart rate, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

The mean drug consumption per hour was significantly less in the acetaminophen group than in the placebo group (7.66 mL/h, SD 2.01 vs. 9.01 mL/h, SD 2.83; p = 0.04). The requirement for bolus was also significantly less in the acetaminophen group than in the placebo group (median 2.5, IQR 3 vs. median 3.5, IQR 2; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The use of 1 g of oral acetaminophen could be a cheap, safe, and effective adjunct to CEI plus PCEA in labor analgesia.

Neuraxial techniques of labour analgesia

In recent years, many neuraxial techniques have been introduced to initiate and maintain labour analgesia, with low-dose mixtures of local anaesthetics and opioids, which have improved the quality of analgesia and made it safer for both mother and neonate. An independent search of the databases of PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane controlled trial data was conducted by two researchers, and randomized controlled trials that compared different methods of neuraxial analgesia and the different techniques of maintaining labor analgesia were retrieved and analyzed. The advantages, disadvantages, and indications of each technique along with the doses of intrathecal and epidural drugs are discussed. The myths and controversies involving neuraxial labor analgesia and the current consensus on their effect on the maternal and foetal outcomes are also outlined.

Update on Fetal Monitoring: Overview of Approaches and Management of Category II Tracings

Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) is widely used to assess fetal status in labor. Use of intrapartum continuous EFM is associated with a lower risk of neonatal seizures but a higher risk of cesarean or operative delivery. Category II fetal heart tracings (FHTs) are indeterminate in their ability to predict fetal acidemia. Certain patterns of decelerations and variability within this category may be predictive of neonatal morbidity. Adjunct tests of fetal well-being can be used during labor to further triage patients. Intrauterine resuscitation techniques should target the suspected etiology of intrapartum fetal hypoxia. Clinical factors play a role in the interpretation of EFM.

Immersion in water during labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.

Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute to the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence on the use of relaxation therapies for pain management in labour. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of mind-body relaxation techniques for pain management in labour on maternal and neonatal well-being during and after labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 5 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 May 2017), CINAHL (1980 to 24 May 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (18 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (18 May 2017), the ISRCTN Register (18 May 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 May 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (including quasi randomised and cluster trials) comparing relaxation methods with standard care, no treatment, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We attempted to contact study authors for additional information. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes 19 studies (2519 women), 15 of which (1731 women) contribute data. Interventions examined included relaxation, yoga, music and mindfulness. Approximately half of the studies had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of studies had a high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, and unclear risk of bias for, allocation concealment, reporting bias and other bias. We assessed the evidence from these studies as ranging from low to very low quality, and therefore the effects below should be interpreted with caution.RelaxationWe found that relaxation compared to usual care provided lowered the intensity of pain (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) during the latent phase of labour (mean difference (MD) -1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.97 to -0.53, one trial, 40 women). Four trials reported pain intensity in the active phase; there was high heterogeneity between trials and very low-quality evidence suggested that there was no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for this outcome (MD -1.08, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.41, four trials, 271 women, random-effects analysis). Very low-quality evidence showed that women receiving relaxation reported greater satisfaction with pain relief during labour (risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 58.19, one trial, 40 women), and showed no clear benefit for satisfaction with childbirth experience (assessed using different scales) (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.31, three trials, 1176 women). For safety outcomes there was very low-quality evidence of no clear reduction in assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.84, four trials, 1122 women) or in caesarean section rates (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.01, four trials, 1122 women). Sense of control in labour, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison.YogaWhen comparing yoga to control interventions there was low-quality evidence that yoga lowered pain intensity (measured on a scale of 0 to 10) with low scores indicating less pain) (MD -6.12, 95% CI -11.77 to -0.47, one trial, 66 women), greater satisfaction with pain relief (MD 7.88, 95% CI 1.51 to 14.25, one trial, 66 women) and greater satisfaction with childbirth experience (MD 6.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 12.42 one trial, 66 women (assessed using the Maternal Comfort Scale with higher score indicating greater comfort). Sense of control in labour, breastfeeding, assisted vaginal birth, and caesarean section were not reported under this comparison.MusicWhen comparing music to control interventions there was evidence of lower pain intensity in the latent phase for women receiving music (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.45, random-effects analysis, two trials, 192 women) and very low-quality evidence of no clear benefit in the active phase (MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.07, three trials, 217 women). Very low-quality evidence suggested no clear benefit in terms of reducing assisted vaginal birth (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05, one trial, 156 women) or caesarean section rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.70, two trials, 216 women). Satisfaction with pain relief, sense of control in labour, satisfaction with childbirth experience, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison.Audio analgesiaOne trial evaluating audio analgesia versus control only reported one outcome and showed no evidence of benefit in satisfaction with pain relief.MindfulnessOne trial evaluating mindfulness versus usual care found an increase in sense of control for the mindfulness group (using the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory) (MD 31.30, 95% CI 1.61 to 60.99, 26 women). There is no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for satisfaction in childbirth, or for caesarean section rate, need for assisted vaginal delivery or need for pharmacological pain relief. No other outcomes were reported in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Relaxation, yoga and music may have a role with reducing pain, and increasing satisfaction with pain relief, although the quality of evidence varies between very low to low. There was insufficient evidence for the role of mindfulness and audio-analgesia. The majority of trials did not report on the safety of the interventions. Further randomised controlled trials of relaxation modalities for pain management in labour are needed. Trials should be adequately powered and include clinically relevant outcomes such as those described in this review.

Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour, and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined the evidence currently available on manual methods, including massage and reflexology, for pain management in labour. This review is an update of the review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect, safety and acceptability of massage, reflexology and other manual methods to manage pain in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 June 2017, CINAHL (1980 to 30 June 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (4 August 2017), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (4 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, (4 August 2017), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (4 August 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (4 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing manual methods with standard care, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour, no treatment or placebo. We searched for trials of the following modalities: massage, warm packs, thermal manual methods, reflexology, chiropractic, osteopathy, musculo-skeletal manipulation, deep tissue massage, neuro-muscular therapy, shiatsu, tuina, trigger point therapy, myotherapy and zero balancing. We excluded trials for pain management relating to hypnosis, aromatherapy, acupuncture and acupressure; these are included in other Cochrane reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and checked data for accuracy. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 14 trials; 10 of these (1055 women) contributed data to meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 274 women, met our inclusion criteria but did not contribute data to the review. Over half the trials had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of trials had a high risk of performance bias and detection bias, and an unclear risk of reporting bias. We found no trials examining the effectiveness of reflexology.MassageWe found low-quality evidence that massage provided a greater reduction in pain intensity (measured using self-reported pain scales) than usual care during the first stage of labour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.06 to -0.56, six trials, 362 women). Two trials reported on pain intensity during the second and third stages of labour, and there was evidence of a reduction in pain scores in favour of massage (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.26, 124 women; and SMD -1.03, 95% CI -2.17 to 0.11, 122 women). There was very low-quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage over usual care for the length of labour (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 20.64, 95% CI -58.24 to 99.52, six trials, 514 women), and pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.74, four trials, 105 women). There was very low-quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage for assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.13, four trials, 368 women) and caesarean section (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.09, six trials, 514 women). One trial reported less anxiety during the first stage of labour for women receiving massage (MD -16.27, 95% CI -27.03 to -5.51, 60 women). One trial found an increased sense of control from massage (MD 14.05, 95% CI 3.77 to 24.33, 124 women, low-quality evidence). Two trials examining satisfaction with the childbirth experience reported data on different scales; both found more satisfaction with massage, although the evidence was low quality in one study and very low in the other.Warm packsWe found very low-quality evidence for reduced pain (Visual Analogue Scale/VAS) in the first stage of labour (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.00, three trials, 191 women), and the second stage of labour (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.85 to -0.13, two trials, 128 women). Very low-quality evidence showed reduced length of labour (minutes) in the warm-pack group (MD -66.15, 95% CI -91.83 to -40.47; two trials; 128 women).Thermal manual methodsOne trial evaluated thermal manual methods versus usual care and found very low-quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during the first phase of labour for women receiving thermal methods (MD -1.44, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.65, one trial, 96 women). There was a reduction in the length of labour (minutes) (MD -78.24, 95% CI -118.75 to -37.73, one trial, 96 women, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference for assisted vaginal birth (very low-quality evidence). Results were similar for cold packs versus usual care, and intermittent hot and cold packs versus usual care, for pain intensity, length of labour and assisted vaginal birth.Music One trial that compared manual methods with music found very low-quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during labour in the massage group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89, 101 women). There was no evidence of benefit for reduced use of pharmacological pain relief (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.08, very low-quality evidence).Of the seven outcomes we assessed using GRADE, only pain intensity was reported in all comparisons. Satisfaction with the childbirth experience, sense of control, and caesarean section were rarely reported in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Massage, warm pack and thermal manual methods may have a role in reducing pain, reducing length of labour and improving women's sense of control and emotional experience of labour, although the quality of evidence varies from low to very low and few trials reported on the key GRADE outcomes. Few trials reported on safety as an outcome. There is a need for further research to address these outcomes and to examine the effectiveness and efficacy of these manual methods for pain management.

Comparative Efficacy of Minimal Concentration of Racemic Bupivacaine (0.0625%) with Fentanyl and Ropivacaine (0.1%) with Fentanyl for Epidural Labor Analgesia

Background and Aims:

This study aims to compare the minimum effective concentration of local anesthetic (LA) bupivacaine and ropivacaine with highly lipid soluble opioids fentanyl for providing optimal labor epidural analgesia.

Settings and Design:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of racemic bupivacaine 0.0625% and 0.1% of ropivacaine both mixed with 2 μg/ml of fentanyl for epidural labor analgesia in parturients with spontaneous labor and normal fetal heart rate tracing.

Methodology:

Sixty parturients requesting for labor analgesia were divided into two groups. Group B (n = 30) received racemic bupivacaine (0.0625%) and fentanyl 2 μg/ml of 10 ml and Group R (n = 30) received ropivacaine (0.1%) and fentanyl 2 μg/ml. In both groups, the drug was given in 5 ml fractionated doses at 5 min interval. Parturients not experiencing analgesia within 15 min of initial bolus were supplemented with additional 5 ml of the same concentration of the solution. Epidural analgesia was maintained by timed top ups at the end of 90 min with the dosage equal to the initial dose of the drug. Duration of labor analgesia, motor block, visual analog scale, maternal hemodynamic parameters, mode of delivery, and maternal satisfaction was assessed.

Statistical Analysis:

Data were analyzed with odds variance, unpaired t-test, and Chi-square tests. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

In our study, results indicate that both drugs were equally effective clinically. Maternal demographic characteristics were comparable. There were no statistically significant differences in visual analog pain score, highest sensory block, maternal satisfaction, mode of delivery, total dose of LAs during labor and motor block at delivery between the groups.

Conclusions:

In our study, both the drugs produced equivalent analgesia for labor at low concentration when used with highly lipid soluble opioid such as fentanyl.

Effects of Combined Spinal-Epidural Analgesia during Labor on Postpartum Electrophysiological Function of Maternal Pelvic Floor Muscle: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSEA) is sometimes used for difficult births, but whether it contributes to postpartum pelvic muscle disorder is unclear. This randomized controlled trial examined whether CSEA given during labor affects the electrophysiological index of postpartum pelvic floor muscle function.

Methods

A consecutive sample of primiparous women who delivered vaginally at term were randomly assigned to a CSEA group (n = 143) and control group (n = 142) between June 2013 and June 2014. All were assessed 6–8 weeks later for electrophysiological function of pelvic floor muscle.

Results

The two groups were similar in the degree of muscle strength, muscle fatigue, and pelvic dynamic pressure of pelvic floor muscle. The CSEA and control groups showed similar proportions of women with normal muscle strength (score ≥4) in type I pelvic fibers (23.1% vs. 14.1%, P = 0.051) and type II pelvic fibers (28.0% vs. 24.6%, P = 0.524). The groups also contained similar proportions of women who showed no fatigue in type I fibers (54.5% vs. 48.6%, P = 0.315) or type II fibers (88.8% vs. 87.3%, P = 0.699). Similarly low proportions of women in the CSEA group and control group showed normal pelvic dynamic pressure (11.2% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.321). However, women in the CSEA group spent significantly less time in labor than those in the control group (7.25 vs. 9.52 h, P <0.001).

Conclusions

CSEA did not affect the risk of postpartum pelvic muscle disorder in this cohort of primiparous women who gave birth vaginally. A significant shorter duration of labour was observed in the CSEA-group.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02334150

Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour

BACKGROUND

Pain during childbirth is arguably the most severe pain some women may experience in their lifetime. Epidural analgesia is an effective form of pain relief during labour. Many women have concerns regarding its safety. Furthermore, epidural services and anaesthetic support may not be available consistently across all centres. Observational data suggest that early initiation of epidural may be associated with an increased risk of caesarean section, but the same findings were not seen in recent randomised controlled trials. More recent guidelines suggest that in the absence of a medical contraindication, maternal request is a sufficient medical indication for pain relief during labour. The choice of analgesic technique, agent, and dosage is based on many factors, including patient preference, medical status, and contraindications. There is no systematically reviewed evidence on the maternal and foetal outcomes and safety of this practice.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to summarise the effectiveness and safety of early initiation versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in women. We considered the obstetric and fetal outcomes relevant to women and side effects of the treatments, including risk of caesarean section, instrumental birth and time to birth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (12 February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2014), Embase (January 1980 to February 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials involving women undergoing epidural labour analgesia that compared early initiation versus late initiation of epidural labour analgesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data and assessed the trial quality. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with a total of 15,752 women.The overall risk of bias of the studies was low, with the exception of performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel).The nine studies showed no clinically meaningful difference in risk of caesarean section with early initiation versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour (risk ratio (RR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.08, nine studies, 15,499 women, high quality evidence). There was no clinically meaningful difference in risk of instrumental birth with early initiation versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, eight studies, 15,379 women, high quality evidence). The duration of second stage of labour showed no clinically meaningful difference between early initiation and late initiation of epidural analgesia (mean difference (MD) -3.22 minutes; 95% CI -6.71 to 0.27, eight studies, 14,982 women, high quality evidence). There was significant heterogeneity in the duration of first stage of labour and the data were not pooled.There was no clinically meaningful difference in Apgar scores less than seven at one minute (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10, seven studies, 14,924 women, high quality evidence). There was no clinically meaningful difference in Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.33, seven studies, 14,924 women, high quality evidence). There was no clinically meaningful difference in umbilical arterial pH between early initiation and late initiation (MD 0.01; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03, four studies, 14,004 women, high quality evidence). There was no clinically meaningful difference in umbilical venous pH favouring early initiation (MD 0.01; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.02, four studies, 14,004 women, moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is predominantly high-quality evidence that early or late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour have similar effects on all measured outcomes. However, various forms of alternative pain relief were given to women who were allocated to delayed epidurals to cover that period of delay, so that is it hard to assess the outcomes clearly. We conclude that for first time mothers in labour who request epidurals for pain relief, it would appear that the time to initiate epidural analgesia is dependent upon women's requests.

Neuraxial analgesia effects on labour progression: facts, fallacies, uncertainties and the future

Approximately 60% of women who labour in the USA receive some form of neuraxial analgesia, but concerns have been raised regarding whether it negatively impacts the labour and delivery process. In this review, we attempt to clarify what has been established as truths, falsities and uncertainties regarding the effects of this form of pain relief on labour progression, negative and/or positive. Additionally, although the term 'epidural' has become synonymous with neuraxial analgesia, we discuss two other techniques, combined spinal-epidural and continuous spinal analgesia, that are gaining popularity, as well as their effects on labour progression.

Prospective longitudinal cohort questionnaire assessment of labouring women's preference both pre- and post-delivery for either reduced pain intensity for a longer duration or greater pain intensity for a shorter duration

BACKGROUND

Assessments of labour pain focus on pain intensity, not on duration. We aimed to assess the importance labouring women apply to pain intensity and duration before labour and post-delivery.

METHODS

Forty healthy women scheduled for labour induction were enrolled in this institutional review board-approved, prospective cohort study. Participants completed a pain preference questionnaire before active labour and within 24-h of delivery. The questionnaire consisted of seven stem questions that evaluated preference for pain intensity or duration. The pain preference ratio was determined by dividing the percentage of women who preferred reduced pain intensity for longer duration by that of those who preferred greater pain intensity for shorter duration (estimate of the odds). The overall hypothetical pain burden was determined by multiplying intensity by time. All questions presented the same overall hypothetical pain burden.

RESULTS

Pain preference questionnaire scores demonstrated preference for low intensity pain for a longer duration rather than higher intensity for a shorter duration, both pre-labour (P<0.001) and post-delivery (P<0.001): the null median imputed as 3 of 6 (i.e. no preference for pain intensity over pain duration). This preference for pain duration over intensity was greater post-delivery compared with before labour (P=0.03). There was a significant correlation (r=0.83; P=0.04) between the pain preference ratio vs overall hypothetical pain burden before labour but not after delivery (r=0.28; P=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary labour assessment, women preferred lower pain intensity at the cost of longer pain duration. This suggests that pain intensity is the primary driver of hypothetical pain burden-a preference reinforced post-delivery.

WITHDRAWN: Epidural blood patching for preventing and treating post-dural puncture headache

This review is out of date, and the original authors are no longer available to update it.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Prevention of post-dural puncture headache in parturients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Post-dural puncture headaches (PDPHs) present an important clinical problem. We assessed methods to decrease accidental dural punctures (ADPs) and interventions to reduce PDPH following ADP. Multiple electronic databases were searched for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of parturients having labour epidurals, in which the studied intervention could plausibly affect ADP or PDPH, and the incidence of at least one of these was recorded. Forty RCTs (n = 11,536 epidural insertions) were included, studying combined spinal-epidurals (CSEs), loss of resistance medium, prophylactic epidural blood patches, needle bevel orientation, ultrasound-guided insertion, epidural morphine, Special Sprotte needles, acoustic-guided insertion, administration of cosyntropin, and continuous spinal analgesia. The RCTs for CSE, loss of resistance medium, and prophylactic epidural blood patches were meta-analysed. Five methods reduced PDPH: prophylactic epidural blood patch {four trials, median quality score = 2, risk difference = -0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.88 to -0.086]}, lateral positioning of the epidural needle bevel upon insertion (one trial, quality score = 1), Special Sprotte needles [one trial, quality score = 5, risk difference = -0.44 (95% CI: -0.67 to -0.21)], epidural morphine [one trial, quality score = 4, risk difference = -0.36 (95% CI -0.59 to -0.13)], and cosyntropin [one trial, quality score = 5, risk difference = -0.36 (95% CI -0.55 to -0.16)]. Several methods potentially reduce PDPH. Special Sprotte needles, epidural morphine, and cosyntropin are thus far each supported by a single, albeit good quality trial. Prophylactic blood patches are supported by three trials, but these had flawed methodology. Mostly, trials were of limited quality, and further well-conducted, large studies are needed.

Controversies in obstetric anesthesia

Obstetric anesthesia has become a widely evidence-based practice, with an increasing number of specialized anesthesiologists and a permanent research production. We believe that with the review of commonly discussed and controversial points the reader will be able to incorporate an evidence-based practice into their routine and offer to parturients and their babies a safe, reliable and consistent anesthesia care.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth

BACKGROUND

This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. We examined the current evidence regarding the use of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. This review updates the findings regarding hypnosis from an earlier review of complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour into a stand-alone review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2012) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials randomising a total of 1213 women. All but one of the trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Although six of the seven trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. No significant differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control group were found for the primary outcomes: use of pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.01, six studies, 1032 women), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.96, four studies, 472 women) or satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women). There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the data for use of pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth. The primary outcome of sense of coping with labour was reported in two studies as showing no beneficial effect (no usable data available for this review).  For secondary outcomes, no significant differences were identified between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control group for most outcomes where data were available. For example, there was no significant difference for satisfaction with the childbirth experience (average RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59, two studies, 370 women), admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.89, two studies, 347 women) or breastfeeding at discharge from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03, one study, 304 women). There was some evidence of benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with the control group for pain intensity, length of labour and maternal hospital stay, although these findings were based on single studies with small numbers of women. Pain intensity was found to be lower for women in the hypnosis group than those in the control group in one trial of 60 women (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.37). The same study found that the average length of labour from 5 cm dilation to birth (minutes) was significantly shorter for women in the hypnosis group (mean difference -165.20, 95% CI -223.53 to -106.87, one study, 60 women). Another study found that a smaller proportion of women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth compared with women in the control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83, one study, 42 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are still only a small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Although the intervention shows some promise, further research is needed before recommendations can be made regarding its clinical usefulness for pain management in maternity care.

Inhaled analgesia for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to have a choice in pain relief during labour and also would like to avoid invasive methods of pain management in labour. Inhaled analgesia during labour involves the self-administered inhalation of sub-anaesthetic concentrations of agents while the mother remains awake and her protective laryngeal reflexes remain intact. Most of the agents are easy to administer, can be started in less than a minute and become effective within a minute.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of all modalities of inhaled analgesia on the mother and the newborn for mothers who planned to have a vaginal delivery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Current Controlled Trials (2 June 2012), handsearched conference proceedings from the American Society of Clinical Anesthesia (from 1990 to 2011), contacted content experts and trialists and searched reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled analgesia with other inhaled analgesia or placebo or no treatment or other methods of non-pharmacological pain management in labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, methodological quality and extracted all data. Data were double checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six studies, randomising 2959 women, were included in this review.Inhaled analgesia versus a different type of inhaled analgesia Pain relief was measured using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm where 100 corresponds to the most relief. Pain intensity was measured using a VAS from 0 to 100 mm, where 0 corresponds to no pain at all and 100 corresponds to the worst pain. The highest score for pain relief is the most positive in contrast to 'pain intensity' in which the higher score is more negative. Flurane derivatives were found to offer better pain relief than nitrous oxide in first stage of labour as measured by a lower pain intensity score (average mean difference (MD) 14.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.41 to 24.37, three studies, 70 women), also a higher pain relief score for flurane derivatives compared with nitrous oxide (average MD -16.32, 95% CI -26.85 to -5.79, two studies, 70 women). Substantial heterogeneity was found in the analyses of pain intensity (P = 0.003) and in the analysis of pain relief (P = 0.002).These findings should be considered with caution because of the questionable design of the included cross-over trials. More nausea was found in the nitrous oxide group compared with the flurane derivatives group (risk ratio (RR) 6.60 95% CI 1.85 to 23.52, two studies, 98 women).Inhaled analgesia versus placebo or no treatment Placebo or no treatment was found to offer less pain relief compared to nitrous oxide (average RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.34, two studies, 310 women; MD -3.50, 95% CI -3.75 to -3.25, one study, 509 women). However, nitrous oxide resulted in more side effects for women such as nausea (RR 43.10, 95% CI 2.63 to 706.74, one study, 509 women), vomiting (RR 9.05, 95% CI 1.18 to 69.32, two studies, 619 women), dizziness (RR 113.98, 95% CI 7.09 to 1833.69, one study, 509 women) and drowsiness (RR 77.59, 95% CI 4.80 to 1254.96, one study, 509 women) when compared with placebo or no treatment.There were no significant differences found for any of the outcomes in the studies comparing one strength versus a different strength of inhaled analgesia, in studies comparing different delivery systems or in the study comparing inhaled analgesia with TENS.Due to lack of data, the following outcomes were not analysed within the review: sense of control; satisfaction with childbirth experience; effect on mother/baby interaction; breastfeeding; admission to special care baby unit; poor infant outcomes at long-term follow-up; or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled analgesia appears to be effective in reducing pain intensity and in giving pain relief in labour. However, substantial heterogeneity was detected for pain intensity. Furthermore, nitrous oxide appears to result in more side effects compared with flurane derivatives. Flurane derivatives result in more drowsiness when compared with nitrous oxide. When inhaled analgesia is compared with no treatment or placebo, nitrous oxide appears to result in even more side effects such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and drowsiness. There is no evidence for differences for any of the outcomes comparing one strength verus a different strength of inhaled analgesia, comparing different delivery systems or comparing inhaled analgesia with TENS.

Analgesia in Obstetrics

Background: An effective relief of labour pain has become an important part of obstetric medicine. Therefore regional nerve blocks, systemic analgesic and non-pharmacologic techniques are commonly used. This review article gives a summary of pathophysiology and anatomy of labour pain as well as advantages, disadvantages, risks and adverse reactions of analgesic techniques in newborns and parturients. Methods: We performed a selective literature search in Medline via PubMed using the search-terms "Analgesia" and "Obstetrics". We also included the current guidelines of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Results: PDA and CSE are safe techniques for the relief of labour pain if contraindications are excluded. The risk for instrumental delivery but not for caesarean section is increased under neuraxial analgesia. PDA and CSE should be performed in an early stage of labour using low doses of local anaesthetics if possible. It is not necessary to wait for a defined cervical dilatation before starting neuraxial analgesia. Anesthesiologists and obstetricians should inform patients as soon as possible before the situation of stress during labour. Systemic opioid analgesia is a possible alternative for neuraxial techniques. Because of possible side effects systemic remifentanil analgesia should only be performed under continuous monitoring. Several nonpharmacologic methods can also relieve labour pain, but results of studies about their effectiveness are inconsistent.

Non-opioid drugs for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Labour is a normal physiological process, but is usually associated with pain and discomfort. Numerous methods are used to relieve labour pain. These include pharmacological (e.g. epidural, opioids, inhaled analgesia) and non-pharmacological (e.g. hypnosis, acupuncture) methods of pain management. Non-opioid drugs are a pharmacological method used to control mild to moderate pain.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence regarding the effects and safety of the use of non-opioid drugs to relieve pain in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (15 February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using non-opioid drugs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); paracetamol; antispasmodics; sedatives and antihistamines) in comparison with placebo or standard care; different forms of non-opioid drugs (e.g. sedatives versus antihistamines); or different interventions (e.g. non-opioids versus opioids) for women in labour. Quasi-RCTs and trials using a cross-over design were not included. Cluster-randomised RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all studies identified by the search strategy, carried out data extraction and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreement through discussion with a third author. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies randomising a total of 2863 women were included in this review. There were three main comparison groups: 15 studies compared non-opioid drugs with placebo or no treatment (2133 women); three studies compared non-opioid drugs with opioids (563 women); and three studies compared one type of non-opioid drug with a different type or dose of non-opioid drug (590 women). Some of the studies included three or more groups and so have been put in more than one comparison. Overall, there was little difference between groups for most of the comparisons. Any differences observed for outcomes were mainly limited to one or two studies. Non-opioid drugs (sedatives) were found to offer better pain relief (mean difference (MD) -22.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) -35.86 to -8.14, one trial, 50 women), better satisfaction with pain relief (sedatives and antihistamines) (risk ratio (RR) 1.59; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.21, two trials, 204 women; RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.79, one trial, 223 women) and better satisfaction with the childbirth experience (RR 2.16; 95% CI 1.34 to 3.47, one trial, 40 women) when compared with placebo or no treatment. However, women having non-opioid drugs (NSAIDs or antihistamines) were less likely to be satisfied with pain relief compared with women having opioids (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.94, one trial, 76 women; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98, one trial, 223 women). Women receiving the antihistamine hydroxyzine were more likely to express satisfaction with pain relief compared with the antihistamine promethazine (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, one trial, 289 women). Women receiving sedatives were more likely to express satisfaction with pain relief compared with antihistamines (RR 1.52; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.17, one study, 157 women). The majority of studies were conducted over 30 years ago. The studies were at unclear risk of bias for most of the quality domains.Opioids appear to be superior to non-opioids in satisfaction with pain relief, while non-opioids appear to be superior to placebo for pain relief and satisfaction with the childbirth experience. There were little data and no evidence of a significant difference for any of the comparisons of non-opioids for safety outcomes. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings of this review demonstrated insufficient evidence to support a role for non-opioid drugs on their own to manage pain during labour.

Local anaesthetic nerve block for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Local anaesthetic nerve block is an important modality for pain management in labour. Pudendal and paracervical block (PCB) are most commonly performed local anaesthetic nerve blocks which have been used for decades.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the efficacy and safety of local anaesthetic nerve blocks for pain relief in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pain management in labour with the use of local anaesthetic nerve blocks. We did not include results from quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We designed a form to extract data. For eligible studies, two review authors extracted the data using the agreed form. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third person. We entered and analysed data using Review Manager software and checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 41 trials for consideration of inclusion into this review. We included only 12 RCTs (1549 participants) of unclear quality. We excluded 29 studies (30 reports). The majority of excluded studies were not relevant to this review, and a few were not randomised.Local anaesthetic nerve block versus placebo or no treatment. We found that more women were satisfied with pain relief after local anaesthetic nerve block (in particular 2% lidocaine PCB) than after placebo (one study, 198 participants, risk ratio (RR) 32.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 10.60 to 98.54). Local anaesthetic nerve block was associated with more side effects (one study, 200 participants, RR 29.0, 95% CI 1.75 to 479.61).Local anaesthetic nerve block (in particular, PCB) versus opioid Local anaesthetic nerve block (in particular, PCB) in comparison with opioid (in particular, intramuscular pethidine or fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia) was found to be more effective for pain relief (one study, 109 participants, RR 2.52, 95% CI 1.65 to 3.83) and was not associated with an increased rate of assisted vaginal birth (two studies, 129 participants, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.87) or with an increased caesarean section rate (two studies, 129 participants, RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.87).Local anaesthetic nerve block versus non-opioid agents Satisfaction with pain relief and rate of caesarean sections were found to be the same in women receiving local anaesthetic nerve block and non-opioid agents (one study, 100 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.84; RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.36, respectively). More women who received non-opioid agent in comparison with women who received local anaesthetic nerve block required additional interventions for pain relief (one study, 100 participants, RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.25).Local anaesthetic nerve block using different anaesthetic agents There was no difference in pain relief satisfaction, assisted vaginal birth, caesarean section, side effects for mother, Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit between different anaesthetic agents, e.g. bupivacaine, carbocaine, lidocaine, chloroprocaine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Local anaesthetic nerve blocks are more effective than placebo, opioid and non-opioid analgesia for pain management in labour based on RCTs of unclear quality and limited numbers. Side effects are more common after local anaesthetic nerve blocks in comparison with placebo. Different local anaesthetic agents used for pain relief provide similar satisfaction with pain relief. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm the findings, to assess other outcomes and to compare local anaesthetic nerve blocks with various modalities for pain relief in labour.

Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly.  Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour).

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus.  WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects.  Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.

Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour, and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence supporting the use of manual healing methods including massage and reflexology for pain management in labour.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of manual healing methods including massage and reflexology for pain management in labour on maternal and perinatal morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 June 2011), CINAHL (1980 to 30 June 2011), the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (30 June 2011), Chinese Clinical Trial Register (30 June 2011), Current Controlled Trials (30 June 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov, (30 June 2011) ISRCTN Register (30 June 2011), National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (30 June 2011) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing manual healing methods with standard care, no treatment, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We attempted to contact study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials, with data reporting on five trials and 326 women in the meta-analysis. We found trials for massage only. Less pain during labour was reported from massage compared with usual care during the first stage of labour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.17 to -0.47), four trials, 225 women), and labour pain was reduced in one trial of massage compared with music (risk ratio (RR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89, 101 women). One trial of massage compared with usual care found reduced anxiety during the first stage of labour (MD -16.27, 95% CI -27.03 to -5.51, 60 women). No trial was assessed as being at a low risk of bias for all quality domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Massage may have a role in reducing pain, and improving women's emotional experience of labour. However, there is a need for further research.

Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Intracutaneous or subcutaneous injection of sterile water is rapidly gaining popularity as a method of pain relief in labour and it is therefore essential that it is properly evaluated. Adequate analgesia in labour is important to women worldwide. Sterile water injection is inexpensive, requires basic equipment, and appears to have few side effects. It is purported to work for labour pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of sterile water injections for relief of pain (both typical contraction pain and intractable back pain) during labour compared to placebo (isotonic saline injections) or non-pharmacological interventions, and to identify any relevant effects on mode and timing of delivery, or safety of both mother and baby.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2011), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2010 to 30 May 2011), together with reference lists in retrieved studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double blind, controlled studies using intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injections for pain relief during labour. There were no restrictions on birth place, parity, risk, age, weight, gestation, or stage of labour. Potential comparators were placebo (saline) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. hypnosis or biofeedback).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials, and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements or uncertainties by discussion with a third review author. Primary outcome measures were at least 50% pain relief, or at least 30%, pain relief, patient global impression of change of at least 'good', mode of delivery, perinatal morbidity and mortality, maternal complications and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were women with any pain relief, use of rescue analgesia, and treatment group average pain relief. We made explicit judgements about potential biases in the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies, with 766 participants: four used intracutaneous injections, two subcutaneous, and one both. All reported on low back pain in labour only. Methodological quality was good, but four studies were at high risk of bias due to small size of treatment groups, incomplete outcome data, and performance bias.All studies reported treatment group mean or median scores, finding greater reduction in pain for sterile water. However, failure to demonstrate a normal distribution for pain intensity or relief, and use of different scales, meant meta-analysis was inappropriate. No study reported primary dichotomous efficacy outcomes. One reported the number self-scoring 4/10 cm or more reduction in pain; significantly more had this outcome with sterile water (50% to 60%) than with placebo (20% to 25%).There was no significant difference between sterile water and saline for rates of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.02), instrumental delivery (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.18), rescue analgesia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.69), timing of delivery, or Apgar scores. Two studies reported that more women treated with sterile water would request the same analgesia in future.No study reported on women's satisfaction with pain relief, women's sense of control in labour, women's satisfaction with the childbirth experience, mother/baby interaction, rates of breastfeeding, maternal morbidity, infant long-term outcomes, or cost. No adverse events were reported other than transient pain with injection, which was worse with sterile water.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes reported severely limit conclusions for clinical practice. We found little robust evidence that sterile water is effective for low back or any other labour pain. Neither did we find any difference in delivery or other maternal or fetal outcomes. Further large, methodologically rigorous studies are required to determine the efficacy of sterile water to relieve pain in labour.

Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence supporting the use of relaxation therapies for pain management in labour.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of relaxation methods for pain management in labour on maternal and perinatal morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2010), The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (November 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 November 2010), CINAHL (1980 to 30 November 2010), the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (30 November 2010), Chinese Clinical Trial Register (30 November 2010), Current Controlled Trials (30 November 2010), ClinicalTrials.gov, (30 November 2010) ISRCTN Register (30 November 2010), National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (30 November 2010) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 November 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing relaxation methods with standard care, no treatment, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality. We attempted to contact study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies (1374 women) in the review. Relaxation was associated with a reduction in pain intensity during the latent phase (mean difference (MD) -1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.97 to -0.53, one trial, 40 women) and active phase of labour (MD -2.48, 95% CI -3.13 to 0.83, two trials, 74 women). There was evidence of improved outcomes from relaxation instruction with increased satisfaction with pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 58.19, one trial, 40 women) and lower assisted vaginal delivery (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50, two trials, 86 women). Yoga was associated with reduced pain (mean difference (MD) -6.12, 95% CI -11.77 to -0.47), one trial, 66 women), increased satisfaction with pain relief (MD 7.88, 95% CI 1.51 to 14.25, one trial, 66 women), satisfaction with the childbirth experience (MD) 6.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 12.42, one trial, 66 women), and reduced length of labour when compared to usual care (MD -139.91, 95% CI -252.50 to -27.32, one trial, 66 women) and when compared with supine position (MD -191.34, 95% CI -243.72 to -138.96, one trial, 83 women). Trials evaluating music and audio analgesia found no difference between groups in the primary outcomes pain intensity, satisfaction with pain relief, and caesarean delivery. The risk of bias was unclear for the majority of trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Relaxation and yoga may have a role with reducing pain, increasing satisfaction with pain relief and reducing the rate of assisted vaginal delivery. There was insufficient evidence for the role of music and audio-analgesia. However, there is a need for further research.

Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns regarding unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of all modalities of epidural analgesia (including combined-spinal-epidural) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing all modalities of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, methodological quality and extracted all data. We entered data into RevMan and double checked it for accuracy. Primary analysis was by intention to treat; we conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses where substantial heterogeneity was evident.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 studies involving 9658 women; all but five studies compared epidural analgesia with opiates. Epidural analgesia was found to offer better pain relief (mean difference (MD) -3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.41 to -1.31, three trials, 1166 women); a reduction in the need for additional pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17, 15 trials, 6019 women); a reduced risk of acidosis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94, seven trials, 3643 women); and a reduced risk of naloxone administration (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.23, 10 trials, 2645 women). However, epidural analgesia was associated with an increased risk of assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.57, 23 trials, 7935 women), maternal hypotension (RR 18.23, 95% CI 5.09 to 65.35, eight trials, 2789 women), motor-blockade (RR 31.67, 95% CI 4.33 to 231.51, three trials, 322 women), maternal fever (RR 3.34, 95% CI 2.63 to 4.23, six trials, 2741 women), urinary retention (RR 17.05, 95% CI 4.82 to 60.39, three trials, 283 women), longer second stage of labour (MD 13.66 minutes, 95% CI 6.67 to 20.66, 13 trials, 4233 women), oxytocin administration (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.39, 13 trials, 5815 women) and an increased risk of caesarean section for fetal distress (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97, 11 trials, 4816 women). There was no evidence of a significant difference in the risk of caesarean section overall (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25, 27 trials, 8417 women), long-term backache (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, three trials, 1806 women), Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.20, 18 trials, 6898 women), and maternal satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.05, seven trials, 2929 women). We found substantial heterogeneity for the following outcomes: pain relief; maternal satisfaction; need for additional means of pain relief; length of second stage of labour; and oxytocin augmentation. This could not be explained by subgroup or sensitivity analyses, where data allowed analysis. No studies reported on rare but potentially serious adverse effects of epidural analgesia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia appears to be effective in reducing pain during labour. However, women who use this form of pain relief are at increased risk of having an instrumental delivery. Epidural analgesia had no statistically significant impact on the risk of caesarean section, maternal satisfaction with pain relief and long-term backache and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.

Labour analgesia: Recent advances

Advances in the field of labour analgesia have tread a long journey from the days of ether and chloroform in 1847 to the present day practice of comprehensive programme of labour pain management using evidence-based medicine. Newer advances include introduction of newer techniques like combined spinal epidurals, low-dose epidurals facilitating ambulation, pharmacological advances like introduction of remifentanil for patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, introduction of newer local anaesthetics and adjuvants like ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, sufentanil, clonidine and neostigmine, use of inhalational agents like sevoflourane for patient-controlled inhalational analgesia using special vaporizers, all have revolutionized the practice of pain management in labouring parturients. Technological advances like use of ultrasound to localize epidural space in difficult cases minimizes failed epidurals and introduction of novel drug delivery modalities like patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pumps and computer-integrated drug delivery pumps have improved the overall maternal satisfaction rate and have enabled us to customize a suitable analgesic regimen for each parturient. Recent randomized controlled trials and Cochrane studies have concluded that the association of epidurals with increased caesarean section and long-term backache remains only a myth. Studies have also shown that the newer, low-dose regimes do not have a statistically significant impact on the duration of labour and breast feeding and also that these reduce the instrumental delivery rates thus improving maternal and foetal safety. Advances in medical technology like use of ultrasound for localizing epidural space have helped the clinicians to minimize the failure rates, and many novel drug delivery modalities like PCEA and computer-integrated PCEA have contributed to the overall maternal satisfaction and safety.

Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined evidence supporting the use of acupuncture and acupressure for pain management in labour.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of acupuncture and acupressure for pain management in labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (October 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2010), and CINAHL (1980 to October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing acupuncture and acupressure with placebo, no treatment or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour. We included all women whether primiparous or multiparous, and in spontaneous or induced labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed meta-analysis using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. The outcome measures included pain intensity, satisfaction with pain relief, use of pharmacological pain relief, relaxation, caesarean section rate, augmentation with oxytocin, length of labour and anxiety.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with data reporting on 1986 women. Nine trials reported on acupuncture and four trials reported on acupressure. Less intense pain was found from acupuncture compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.33 to -0.67, one trial, 163 women). One trial increased satisfaction with pain relief compared with placebo control (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.19, 150 women). Reduced use of pharmacological analgesia was found in one trial of acupuncture compared with placebo (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88, 136 women), and compared with standard care, however, there was significant heterogeneity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83, three trials, 704 women). Fewer instrumental deliveries from acupuncture were found compared with standard care (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46, 0.98, three trials, 704 women); however, there was significant heterogeneity. Pain intensity was reduced in the acupressure group compared with a placebo control (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.19, one trial, 120 women), and a combined control (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18, two trials, 322 women). No trial was assessed as being at a low risk of bias for all of the quality domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture and acupressure may have a role with reducing pain, increasing satisfaction with pain management and reduced use of pharmacological management. However, there is a need for further research.

Aromatherapy for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence supporting the use of aromatherapy for pain management in labour.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of aromatherapy for pain management in labour on maternal and perinatal morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2010), The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (October 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 October 2010), CINAHL (1980 to 31 October 2010), the Australian and New Zealand Trials Registry (31 October 2010), Chinese Clinical Trial Register (31 October 2010), Current Controlled Trials (31 October 2010), ClinicalTrials.gov (31 October 2010), ISRCTN Register (31 October 2010), National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (31 October 2010) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (31 October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing aromatherapy with placebo, no treatment or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials (535 women) in the review. The trials found no difference between groups for the primary outcomes of pain intensity, assisted vaginal birth (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 2.28, one trial, 513 women; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.06 to 11.70, one trial, 22 women), and caesarean section (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.94, one trial, 513 women; RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.11 to 56.25, one trial, 22 women); there were more babies admitted to neonatal intensive care in the control group of one trial (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.42, one trial, 513 women) but this difference did not reach statistical significance. The trials found no differences between groups for the secondary outcomes of use of pharmacological pain relief (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.32, one trial, 513 women; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 20.45, one trial, 22 women), spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, one trial, 513 women; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.28, one trial, 22 women) or length of labour and augmentation (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.45, one trial, 513 women). The risk of bias was low in the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of studies evaluating the role of aromatherapy for pain management in labour. Further research is needed before recommendations can be made for clinical practice.

Biofeedback for pain management during labour

BACKGROUND

Labour is often associated with pain and discomfort caused by a complex and subjective interaction of multiple factors, and should be understood within a multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary framework. Within the non-pharmacological approach, biofeedback has focused on the acquisition of control over some physiological responses with the aid of electronic devices, allowing individuals to regulate some physical processes (such as pain) which are not usually under conscious control. The role of this behavioural approach for the management of pain during labour, as an addition to the standard prenatal care, has been never assessed systematically. This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews examining pain relief in labour, which will contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain relief for women in labour (in preparation).

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of the use of biofeedback in prenatal lessons for managing pain during labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), PubMed (1950 to 20 March 2011), EMBASE (via OVID) (1980 to 24 March 2011), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to 24 March 2011), and PsycINFO (via Ovid) (1806 to 24 March 2011). We searched for further studies in the reference lists of identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any form of prenatal classes which included biofeedback, in any modality, in women with low-risk pregnancies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included four trials (186 women) that hugely differed in terms of the diversity of the intervention modalities and outcomes measured. Most trials assessed the effects of electromyographic biofeedback in women who were pregnant for the first time. The trials were judged to be at a high risk of bias due to the lack of data describing the sources of bias assessed. There was no significant evidence of a difference between biofeedback and control groups in terms of assisted vaginal birth, caesarean section, augmentation of labour and the use of pharmacological pain relief. The results of the included trials showed that the use of biofeedback to reduce the pain in women during labour is unproven. Electromyographic biofeedback may have some positive effects early in labour, but as labour progresses there is a need for additional pharmacological analgesia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite some positive results shown in the included trials, there is insufficient evidence that biofeedback is effective for the management of pain during labour.

Epidural analgesia for labor: Current techniques

Epidural analgesia is an extremely effective and popular treatment for labor pain. In this review, we trace the history of the use of epidural analgesia and its refinements. We then outline the goals of treatment and methods used to attain those goals. The use of low concentrations of local anesthetics, combined with lipid-soluble opioids, does not impede the progress of labor or depress the newborn. The incidence of side effects is low. Maintenance of analgesia that allows patient control enhances patient satisfaction.

Parenteral opioids for maternal pain relief in labour

BACKGROUND

Parenteral opioids are used for pain relief in labour in many countries throughout the world.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of different types, doses and modes of administration of parenteral opioids given to women in labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2010) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining the use of intramuscular or intravenous opioids (including patient controlled analgesia) for women in labour. We looked at studies comparing an opioid with placebo or another opioid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, collected data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving more than 7000 women that compared an opioid with placebo or another opioid administered intramuscularly or intravenously. The 54 studies reported on 27 different comparisons, and for many outcomes only one study contributed data. Overall the evidence was of poor quality regarding the analgesic effect of opioids, satisfaction with analgesia, adverse effects and harm to women and babies. There were few statistically significant results. Many of the studies had small sample sizes, and low statistical power. Overall, findings indicated that parenteral opioids provided some pain relief and moderate satisfaction with analgesia in labour, although up to two-thirds of women who received opioids reported moderate or severe pain and/or poor or moderate pain relief one or two hours after administration. Opioid drugs were associated with maternal nausea, vomiting and drowsiness, although different opioid drugs were associated with different adverse effects. There was no clear evidence of adverse effects of opioids on the newborn. We did not have sufficient evidence to assess which opioid drug provided the best pain relief with the least adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Parenteral opioids provide some relief from pain in labour but are associated with adverse effects. Maternal satisfaction with opioid analgesia was largely unreported but appeared moderate at best. We did not examine the effectiveness and safety of parenteral opioids compared with other methods of pain relief in labour and this review needs to be examined alongside related Cochrane reviews. More research is needed to determine which analgesic intervention is most effective, and provides greatest satisfaction to women with acceptable adverse events for mothers and their newborns.

Epidural blood patching for preventing and treating post-dural puncture headache

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in Issue 2, 2002. Dural puncture is a common procedure, but leakage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the resulting dural defect may cause post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) after the procedure, and this can be disabling. Injecting an epidural blood patch around the site of the defect may stop this leakage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the possible benefits and harms of epidural blood patching in both prevention and treatment of PDPH.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane PaPaS Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE and EMBASE in April 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared epidural blood patch versus no epidural blood patch in the prevention or treatment of PDPH among all types of participants undergoing dural puncture for any reason. The primary outcome of effectiveness was postural headache.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data from studies considered eligible for inclusion. We invited authors of all such studies to provide any details that were unavailable in the published reports. We performed intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses using the Peto O-E method. We also extracted information about adverse effects (post-dural puncture backache and epidural infection).

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (379 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic epidural blood patch improved PDPH compared to no treatment (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.64, one study), conservative treatment (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.14, two studies) and epidural saline patch (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.55, one study). However, prophylactic epidural blood patch did not result in less PDPH than a sham procedure (one study). Therapeutic epidural blood patch resulted in less PDPH than conservative treatment (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76, one study) and a sham procedure (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.39, one study). Backache was more common with epidural blood patch. However, these studies had very small numbers of participants and outcome events, as well as uncertainties about trial methodology, which preclude reliable assessments of the potential benefits and harms of the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review authors do not recommend prophylactic epidural blood patch over other treatments because there are too few trial participants to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn. However, therapeutic epidural blood patch showed a benefit over conservative treatment, based on the limited available evidence.