Patient-controlled epidural technique improves analgesia for labor but increases cesarean delivery rate compared with the intermittent bolus technique

A Meta-Analysis of Comparing Intermittent Epidural Boluses and Continuous Epidural Infusion for Labor Analgesia

With the development of medical equipment and techniques in labor anesthesia, it is a major issue to investigate the risks and treatment effects among techniques such as continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and intermittent epidural bolus (IEB). However, there is a controversial result regarding two techniques. This study was conducted through meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for labor analgesia between the CEI and IEB techniques. The pooled results were presented as weighted mean differences (WMDs) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and odds ratios (ORs) together with 95% CIs, respectively. Eleven RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Four hundred sixty-five parturients accepted CEI, whereas 473 parturients accepted IEB labor analgesia. Elven identified low- risk bias studies were recruited for meta-analysis. The results presented no statistical difference in cesarean delivery rate between IEB and CEI (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.37) and duration of second stage of labor (WMD, -3.82 min; 95% CI, -8.28 to 0.64). IEB had statistically significant lessened risk of instrumental delivery (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90) and for the use in local anesthetic (WMD, -1.71 mg bupivacaine equivalents per hour; 95% CI, -1.88 and -1.55). Accepted IEB had a higher score of maternal satisfaction (WMD, -6.95 mm; 95% CI, -7.77 to -6.13). Based on evidence, IEB showed a greater benefit for slightly reducing the use in local anesthetic, reduced risk of instrumental delivery, and improved maternal satisfaction for the requirement of labor epidural analgesia for healthy women. In the future, more studies need to be conducted to practice the IEB regimen and explore its influence on labor analgesia.

Update on best available options in obstetrics anaesthesia: perinatal outcomes, side effects and maternal satisfaction. Fifteen years systematic literature review

PURPOSE

In modern obstetrics, different pharmacological and non-pharmacological options allow to obtain pain relief during labour, one of the most important goals in women satisfaction about medical care. The aim of this review is to compare all the analgesia administration schemes in terms of effectiveness in pain relief, length of labour, mode of delivery, side effects and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases in the interval time between January 1999 and March 2013. Key search terms included: “labour analgesia”, “epidural anaesthesia during labour” (excluding anaesthesia for Caesarean section), “epidural analgesia and labour outcome” and “intra-thecal analgesia”.

RESULTS

10,331 patients were analysed: 5,578 patients underwent Epidural-Analgesia, 259 patients spinal analgesia, 2,724 combined spinal epidural analgesia, 322 continuous epidural infusion (CEI), 168 intermittent epidural bolus, 684 patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia and 152 intra-venous patient-controlled epidural analgesia. We also considered 341 women who underwent patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia in association with CEI and 103 patients who underwent patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia in association with automatic mandatory bolus.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences occurred among all the available administration schemes of neuraxial analgesia. In absence of obstetrical contraindication, neuraxial analgesia has to be considered as the gold standard in obtaining maternal pain relief during labour. The options available in the administration of analgesia should be known and evaluated together by both gynaecologists and anaesthesiologists to choose the best personalized scheme and obtain the best women satisfaction. Since it is difficult to identify comparable circumstances during labour, it is complicate to standardize drugs schemes and their combinations.

Modern neuraxial labor analgesia: options for initiation, maintenance and drug selection

In the present review we outline the state-of-the-art of neuraxial analgesia. As neuraxial analgesia remains the gold standar of analgesia during labor, we review the most recent literature on this topic. The neuraxial analgesia techniques, types of administration, drugs, adjuvants, and adverse effects are investigated from the references. Most authors would agree that central neuraxial analgesia is the best form to manage labor pain. When neuraxial analgesia is administered to the parturient in labor, different management choices must be made by the anesthetist: how will we initiate analgesia, how will analgesia be maintained, which local anesthetic will we use for neuraxial analgesia and which adjuvant drugs will we combine? The present manuscript tries to review the literature to answer these questions.

A randomized controlled trial of three patient-controlled epidural analgesia regimens for labor

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is a safe and effective mode of maintaining labor analgesia; however, the ideal PCEA regimen is controversial.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we examined the analgesic efficacy of demand-only PCEA and PCEA with background infusion. We recruited 300 nulliparous parturients. Analgesia was initiated with intrathecal ropivacaine 2 mg and fentanyl 15 microg and maintained with epidural ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL. Parturients were randomized to one of three groups. Group 0: demand-only PCEA, bolus of 5 mL, lockout interval of 15 min. Group 5: background infusion of 5 mL/h, bolus of 5 mL, lockout interval of 12 min. Group 10: background infusion of 10 mL/h, bolus of 5 mL, lockout interval of 10 min. The maximum dose of all groups was 20 mL/h. The primary outcome was incidence of breakthrough pain. Secondary outcomes included intrapartum pain scores, neuraxial blockade characteristics, side effects, the total and hourly volume of ropivacaine, neonatal outcomes, and obstetric outcomes.

RESULTS

The incidence of breakthrough pain and the maximum visual analog scale (0-100 mm scale) pain scores were higher in Group 0 versus Groups 5 and 10 (43% vs 17% and 11%, P < 0.001 and 37 +/- 28 vs 22 +/- 26 and 16 +/- 25 [mean +/- SD], P < 0.001), respectively. Group 10 had a longer duration of effective analgesia compared with Group 0 (mean 895 min, 95% CI 823-966 vs 565 min, 95% CI 454-677, P < 0.001) and increased ropivacaine consumption, and was associated with a longer duration of the second stage of labor.

CONCLUSION

Demand-only PCEA (5-mL bolus, 15-min lockout interval) resulted in less local anesthetic consumption but an increased incidence of breakthrough pain, higher pain scores, shorter duration of effective analgesia, and lower maternal satisfaction, when compared with PCEA with background infusion (5-mL bolus, 10-12-min lockout interval, and 5-10 mL/h infusion).

Impact of pain level on second-stage delivery outcomes among women with epidural analgesia: results from the PEOPLE study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to assess the effect of suboptimal second-stage pain control on the risk of difficult delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a secondary analysis of the Pushing Early Or Pushing Late with Epidural (PEOPLE) randomized, controlled trial cohort on second-stage nulliparous women. We defined suboptimal pain control as a visual analog pain scale score of 30 or greater on a scale of 100 and evaluated initial postrandomization and subsequent pain control on obstetrical interventions and outcomes. We estimated adjusted relative risk for caesarean delivery using logistic regression models to control for confounding variables and to evaluate the role of effect measure modifiers.

RESULTS

One thousand seven hundred fifty-six women were included in the cohort, of which 1565 (89.1%) had optimal analgesia and 191 (10.9%) had suboptimal analgesia. Women with suboptimal analgesia had an increased risk of cesarean delivery of 2.97 (1.52-5.80), midpelvic procedures of 1.83 (1.10-3.05), and third- and fourth-degree perineal tears of 1.82 (1.03-3.21). As compared with women with sustained optimal analgesia, increasing levels of pain were associated with an increase in difficult deliveries, 2.19 (1.50-3.21). The improvement of relief among women with initial suboptimal initial analgesia did not alter the risk of difficult deliveries.

CONCLUSION

Although most women achieve optimal epidural analgesia, the inability to sustain optimal epidural analgesia is associated with an increased risk of adverse second-stage obstetrical outcomes.

Continuous Compared With Intermittent Epidural Infusion on Progress of Labor and Patient Satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

To compare continuous with intermittent epidural infusion on the duration of labor and patients' satisfaction in nulliparous women.

METHODS

Nulliparous women who requested epidural analgesia during labor were randomly allocated to receive either a continuous infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine with 2 microg/mL fentanyl at a rate of 8 mL/h (group A) or intermittent bolus of 10 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine on demand (group B). Controls were nulliparous women who did not receive epidural analgesia (group C). Included were singleton term pregnancies with cervical dilatation between 2 cm and 5 cm. A comparison was made between the groups regarding the duration of the active phase and the second stage of labor and patients' satisfaction. Secondary outcomes investigated were the mode of delivery, analgesia-related complications, and intrapartum and postpartum complications. Cord pH and Apgar score measured neonatal outcome.

RESULTS

Sixty-three parturients were randomly assigned to receive continuous infusion, and 64 received intermittent bolus infusion. Sixty-three patients served as controls. Mean duration of the active phase and the second stage of labor were not statistically different between groups A and B. Each technique produced comparable analgesia, achieving equivalent maternal satisfaction, with no apparent complications. The active phase of labor was prolonged by an average of 60 minutes and the 2nd stage by an average of 36 minutes regardless of the type of epidural compared with controls. The mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcome were not significantly different among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that both continuous and intermittent epidural infusion produce comparable analgesia achieving equivalent maternal satisfaction with no difference regarding the duration of labor between them. Although patients receiving epidural analgesia experienced longer labors compared with controls, both mothers and neonates were unharmed.