Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block

Combined spinal-epidural analgesia and epidural analgesia induced maternal fever with a similar timing during labor-A randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

Both epidural and combined spinal-epidural (EA and CSEA) analgesia can induce intrapartum maternal fever. CSEA has a more rapid onset and wider nerve block than EA. Therefore, CSEA might have a different profile of intrapartum maternal fever, including higher temperatures or earlier occurrence. This randomized clinical trial was to determine whether CSEA could cause maternal fever earlier than EA.

Methods

A randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was performed on 233 nulliparous full-term pregnant women during vaginal delivery. The pregnant women were randomly allocated into the EA group (n = 113) and the CSEA group (n = 120). The fever latent period, from analgesia start to fever occurrence, was the primary endpoint in this study. The temperature was measured every 30 min using an eardrum thermometer during labor analgesia. The fever was defined as an eardrum temperature of ≥38 °C.

Results

No difference was found in the maternal fever rate between the EA and the CSEA groups (10/113 vs. 7/120, P = 0.356). There was no significant difference in the fever latent period between the two groups (4.75 ± 0.86 h vs. 3.79 ± 2.2 h, p = 0.305). The temperatures at all points had no differences between EA and CSEA.

Conclusion

CSEA had a similar latent fever period as EA. A further study is warranted to confirm the similar characteristic between CSEA and EA in the development of intrapartum maternal fever.

Clinical trial registration

www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2000038793.

A comparative study of epidural labor analgesia and natural delivery without analgesia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of epidural labor analgesia and natural delivery without analgesia on labor duration, pain, uterine continuous contraction time, abnormal labor process and complications.

METHODS

A total of 220 primiparas in our hospital were selected and divided into two groups according to whether they accepted epidural labor analgesia, including 146 cases in the study group and 74 cases in the blank group. Primiparas in the study group received epidural block analgesia, and those in the blank group received routine labor without analgesia. Duration of the first, second and third stages of labor was observed and recorded. The NRS pain score and uterine continuous contraction time were detected before and after the analgesia. The abnormal situation and complications of primiparas in the two groups were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with those in the blank group, the duration of the first stage of labor and the amount of postpartum hemorrhage in the study group were decreased (all P<0.001). The primiparas' NRS score in the study group was lower than that in the blank group at 10 min, 15 min, 30 min, 60 min and 120 min after analgesia (all P<0.001). The duration of uterine contractions in the study group was lower than that in the blank group at 15 min, 30 min and 60 min after analgesia (all P<0.01). Compared with those in the blank group, primiparas in the study group had a higher probability of active phase arrest in the process of labor (P<0.05). Compared with the blank group, the probability of urinary retention in the study group increased (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The effect of epidural labor analgesia is better, which is conducive to shorten the time of the first stage of labor, good analgesic effect, shorter duration of the uterine contraction and higher safety.