Influence of different volumes and frequency of programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In labor, programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) can be defined as the bolus administration of epidural solution at scheduled time intervals. Compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) with or without patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), PIEB has been associated with decreased pain scores and need for rescue analgesia and increased maternal satisfaction. The optimal volume and dosing interval of PIEB, however, has still not been determined.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022362708).

SETTINGS

Labor.

PATIENTS

Pregnant patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Central, CINAHL, Global Health, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials that examined pregnant patients in labor who received CEI or PIEB with or without a PCEA component. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, facilitating the indirect comparison of PIEB with different volumes and dosing intervals through the common comparator of CEI and substituting or supplementing direct comparisons with these indirect ones. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 30 trials were included. For the first primary endpoint, need for rescue analgesia, PIEB delivered at a volume of 4 ml and frequency of 45 min (4/45) was inferior to PIEB 8/45 (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.12-11.33), PIEB 10/60 was superior to PIEB 2.5/15 (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16-0.82), PIEB 4/45 (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.71) and PIEB 5/60 (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.08-0.70), and PIEB 5/30 was not inferior to PIEB 10/60 (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.31-1.19). For the second primary endpoint, maternal satisfaction, no differences were present between the various PIEB regimens. The quality of evidence for these multiple primary endpoints was low owing to the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Importantly, PIEB 5/30 decreased the pain score at 4 h compared to PIEB 2.5/15 (MD 2.45; 95% CI 0.13-4.76), PIEB 5/60 (MD -2.28; 95% CI -4.18--0.38) and PIEB 10/60 (MD 1.73; 95% CI 0.31-3.16). Mean ranking of interventions demonstrated PIEB 10/60 followed by PIEB 5/30 to be best placed to reduce the cumulative dose of local anesthetic, and this resulted in an improved incidence of lower limb motor blockade for PIEB 10/60 in comparison to CEI (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.67). No differences in neonatal outcomes were found. Some concerns were present for the risk of bias in two thirds of trials and the risk of bias was shown to be high in the remaining one third of trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should focus on PIEB 5/30 and PIEB 10/60 and how the method of analgesia initiation, nature and concentration of local anesthetic, design of epidural catheter and rate of administration might influence outcomes related to the mother and neonate.

Comparison of different delivery modalities of epidural analgesia and intravenous analgesia in labour: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In labour, neuraxial analgesia is the standard in the provision of pain relief. However, the optimal mode of delivering epidural solution has not been determined, and some parturients may need an alternative to epidural analgesia. We sought to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare continuous epidural infusion (CEI), programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), computer-integrated CEI, computer-integrated PIEB, patient-controlled epidural bolus (PCEA), fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and remifentanil PCA, either alone or in combination.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials that included nulliparous and/or multiparous parturients in spontaneous or induced labour. The maintenance epidural solution had to include a low concentration local anesthetic and an opioid. Specific subgroups in the obstetric population such as preeclampsia were excluded. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, and continuous and dichotomous outcomes are presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Overall, 73 trials were included. For the first coprimary outcome, the need for rescue analgesia, CEI was inferior to PIEB and PIEB + PCEA was superior to PCEA alone, with a low certainty of evidence given the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. The second coprimary outcome, the maternal satisfaction, was improved by PIEB + PCEA compared with CEI + PCEA and PCEA alone, with a low quality of evidence in view of the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Fentanyl PCA increased the requirement for rescue analgesia and decreased maternal satisfaction relative to many methods of delivering epidural solution. In terms of secondary outcomes, PIEB increased analgesic efficacy compared with CEI, and PCEA reduced local anesthetic consumption at the expense of inferior analgesia relative to CEI and PIEB. PIEB + PCEA was superior to CEI + PCEA in regard to the pain score at 2 h and 4 h, consumption of local anesthetic, incidence of lower lower limb motor blockade and the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. Fentanyl and remifentanil PCA did not provide the same level of analgesia as all epidural methods, resulted in increasing analgesic ineffectiveness with time spent in labour, and predisposed to a higher incidence of side effects such as nausea and/or vomiting and sedation. Remifentanil PCA was superior to fentanyl PCA for analgesia at an early time point, and it increased the incidence of oxygen desaturation relative to other strategies of delivering epidural solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid PCA did not provide the same level of analgesia as epidural methods with a higher incidence of side effects. We interpret the findings of our systematic review and network meta-analysis as suggesting PIEB + PCEA to be the optimal delivery mode of epidural solution. Nevertheless, the potential differing importance of the various maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes in determining which is optimal has not, to our knowledge, been elucidated yet.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021254978); registered 27 May 2021.

Cognitive aids in the management of clinical emergencies: a systematic review

Clinical emergencies can be defined as unpredictable events that necessitate immediate intervention. Safety critical industries have acknowledged the difficulties of responding to such crises. Strategies to improve human performance and mitigate its limitations include the provision and use of cognitive aids, a family of tools that includes algorithms, checklists and decision aids. This systematic review evaluates the usefulness of cognitive aids in clinical emergencies. Following a systematic search of the electronic databases, we included 13 randomised controlled trials, reported in 16 publications. Each compared cognitive aids with usual care in the context of an anaesthetic, medical, surgical or trauma emergency involving adults. Most trials used only clinicians in the development and testing of the cognitive aids, and only some trials provided familiarisation with the cognitive aids before they were deployed. The primary outcome was the completeness of care delivered to the patient. Cognitive aids were associated with a reduction in the incidence of missed care steps from 43.3% to 11% (RR (95%CI) 0.29 (0.15-0.16); p < 0.001), and the quality of evidence was rated as moderate. The use of cognitive aids was related to decreases in the incidence of errors, increases in the rate of correctly performed steps and improvement in the clinical teamwork skills scores, non-technical skills scores, subjective conflict resolution scores and the global assessment of team performance. Cognitive aids had an inconsistent influence on the time to first intervention and time to complete care of the patient's condition. It is possible that this was a reflection of how common or rare the crisis in question was as well as the experience and expertise of the clinicians and team. Sufficient thought should be applied to the development of the content and design of cognitive aids, with consideration of the pre-existing guideline ecosystem. Cognitive aids should be tested before their deployment with adequate clinician and team training.

Biofeedback for treatment of awake and sleep bruxism in adults: systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Bruxism is a disorder of jaw-muscle activity characterised by repetitive clenching or grinding of the teeth which results in discomfort and damage to dentition. The two clinical manifestations of the condition (sleep and awake bruxism) are thought to have unrelated aetiologies but are palliated using similar techniques. The lack of a definitive treatment has prompted renewed interest in biofeedback, a behaviour change method that uses electronic detection to provide a stimulus whenever bruxism occurs. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of research into biofeedback for bruxism; to assess the efficacy and acceptability of biofeedback therapy in management of awake bruxism and, separately, sleep bruxism in adults; and to compare findings between the two variants.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature examining biofeedback as an intervention directed at controlling primary bruxism in adults. We will search electronic databases and the grey literature using a predefined search strategy to identify randomised and non-randomised studies, technical reports and patents. Searches will not be restricted by language or date and will be expanded through contact with authors and experts, and by following up reference lists and citations. Two authors, working independently, will conduct screening of search results, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment and a third will resolve any disagreements. The primary outcomes of acceptability and effectiveness will be assessed using only randomised studies, segregated by bruxism subtype. A meta-analysis of these data will be conducted only if pre-defined conditions for quality and heterogeneity are met, otherwise the data will be summarized in narrative form. Data from non-randomised studies will be used to augment a narrative synthesis of the state of technical developments and any safety-related issues. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013006880.

DISCUSSION

Biofeedback is not new, but its place in the clinical management of bruxism remains unclear. New research, and the availability of miniaturized consumer-grade devices, makes a systematic review timely to guide treatment decisions and inform future research.