Economic considerations related to providing adequate pain relief for women in labour: comparison of epidural and intravenous analgesia

Analgesia for childbirth: modern insights into an age-old challenge and the quest for an ideal approach

SUMMARY It is widely recognized that childbirth may be the most painful experience in a woman’s lifetime and that women have a right to relief. There are many options, but the efficacy of only a few is supported by robust evidence. Many influences determine which method of pain relief is chosen, including social and cultural factors, availability, cost and personal preference. Due to human diversity and the differing perspectives of consumers, obstetric care providers and health administrators, there is no such thing as ‘an ideal approach’. In resource-rich societies, major advances in parturient safety and outcome flow from technique development and better monitoring. Greater awareness of the negative impact of untreated pain and of the relevance of genetic, cultural and social factors motivates research into better predictive models, novel therapies and optimization of existing methods.

Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled analgesia for pain relief in uterine artery embolization for uterine fibroids: a decision analysis

PURPOSE

This study was designed to compare the costs and effects of epidural analgesia (EDA) to those of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) for postintervention pain relief in women having uterine artery embolization (UAE) for systematic uterine fibroids.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on data from the literature by constructing a decision tree to model the clinical pathways for estimating the effects and costs of treatment with EDA and PCA. Literature on EDA for pain-relief after UAE was missing, and therefore, data on EDA for abdominal surgery were used. Outcome measures were compared costs to reduce one point in visual analogue score (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain 6 and 24 h after UAE and risk for complications.

RESULTS

Six hours after the intervention, the VAS was 3.56 when using PCA and 2.0 when using EDA. The costs for pain relief in women undergoing UAE with PCA and EDA were <euro>191 and <euro>355, respectively. The costs for EDA to reduce the VAS score 6 h after the intervention with one point compared with PCA were <euro>105 and <euro>179 after 24 h. The risk of having a complication was 2.45 times higher when using EDA.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this indirect comparison of EDA for abdominal surgery with PCA for UAE show that EDA would provide superior analgesia for post UAE pain at 6 and 24 h but with higher costs and an increased risk of complications.

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.

Analgesia for labour: a survey of Norwegian practice - with a focus on parenteral opioids

BACKGROUND

During the last two decades, epidural analgesia has become 'a gold standard' for labour pain in most Western countries. Newer short-acting opioids given systemically represent an alternative for adequate pain relief without using regional techniques. With this survey, we wish to explore how Norwegian hospitals practice labour analgesia, especially their use of systemic opioids.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to the head of all 46 registered Norwegian labour units in 2005. The questionnaire focused on epidural and the use of systemic opioids. In 2008, the same questionnaire was sent to the 19 largest units reporting >1000 births a year, seeking updated information.

RESULTS

Forty-three of the 46 original questionnaires were returned. An epidural frequency of 25.9% was registered. For epidural treatment, bupivacaine was the preferred local anaesthetic, while sufentanil was the opioid of choice for the majority of units. Pethidine was the most commonly used opioid for systemic administration (77%). All units reported nurse administration of systemic opioids. The intramuscular route was most commonly used, either alone (58%) or in combination with an intravenous (i.v.) administration (34%). Only one unit used i.v. fentanyl. There were only minor changes with the repeated survey, except for one large unit, which reported over a 50% increase in the epidural frequency.

CONCLUSION

In Norway, the frequency of epidural for labour analgesia is still relatively low, but seems to be increasing. Systemic opioids are often used instead of or as a supplement. Clinical practice seems to be conservative, and newer short-acting opioids are seldom used systemically.