Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

A randomized comparison of epidural, dural puncture epidural, and combined spinal-epidural without intrathecal opioids for labor analgesia

Background and Aims

Dural puncture epidural (DPE) has been shown to improve labor analgesia over epidural (EPL), with fewer side effects than a combined spinal-epidural (CSE). However, there is some debate regarding the superiority of DPE over EPL and CSE. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of EPL, DPE, and CSE without intrathecal opioids on the epidural local anesthetic (LA) consumption and occurrence of side effects in early labor.

Material and Methods

We randomly assigned parturient to one of the 3 groups; EPL, DPE, or CSE. EPL and DPE groups received a 10 mL loading dose of 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg/mL. CSE group received intrathecal 2.5 mg bupivacaine (without opioids). Labor analgesia was maintained in all patients via patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). The primary outcome was the mean hourly consumption of epidural LA.

Results

The mean hourly consumption of epidural LA anesthetic was significantly lower in CSE (9.55 mL), compared with the EPL (11 mL), and DPE (10.5 mL), P < 0.01; but no significant difference was seen between EPL and DPE. Compared with EPL and DPE, CSE achieved faster time to complete analgesia defined as a numeric rating pain scale (NRPS) ≤1 and sensory block, lower NRPS in the first hour and higher frequencies of complete analgesia. There were no differences between groups in terms of physician top-up boluses, the occurrence of side-effects, mode of delivery, Apgar scores, and maternal satisfaction.

Conclusion

Compared with EPL and DPE, CSE without intrathecal opioids, had a less epidural LA consumption, faster onset of analgesia, with no difference in the incidence of side effects.

Trial Registration

This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03980951).

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.

Long-term effects of epidural analgesia in labor: a randomized controlled trial comparing high dose with two mobile techniques

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia provides the most effective pain relief in labor, but it is not known if it causes adverse long-term effects. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term effects of two mobile epidural techniques relative to high-dose epidural analgesia in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

A total of 1,054 nulliparous women were randomized to traditional high-dose epidural, combined spinal epidural, or low-dose infusion. Women in all groups were followed-up at 12 months postpartum by postal questionnaire to assess long-term symptoms. The primary long-term outcome was backache occurring within 3 months of the birth persisting for longer than 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes were frequent headaches and fecal and urinary stress incontinence.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in long-term backache after combined spinal epidural or low-dose infusion relative to high-dose epidural. Significantly less headache occurred in combined spinal epidural analgesia than high-dose epidural (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92), but no difference was found for low-dose infusion. Significantly less fecal incontinence (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30-0.87) and stress incontinence (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.00) occurred with low-dose infusion.

CONCLUSION

Trial evidence showed no long-term disadvantages and possible benefits of low-dose mobile relative to high-dose epidural analgesia.

Aphonia and quadriplegia---a rare complication following epidural labor analgesia

We report an obstetric patient who developed unusual neurological complications after an epidural injection of a local anesthetic and a narcotic in a seemingly faultless manner. Ten minutes after receiving a loading dose, the patient developed aphonia, quadriplegia, and facial palsy while retaining normal consciousness and stable hemodynamics. The episode spontaneously resolved 40 minutes later. We wish to draw attention to anesthesiologists of the possibility that even in the presence of a negative aspiration test or without noticeable dural puncture, the injected drugs may enter the intrathecal or subdural space instead of pooling entirely in the epidural compartment. Once an unexpected high block and unusual symptoms or signs are noted, a prompt differential diagnosis must be made and treatment initiated as soon as possible.

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 STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (June 2005).

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. Data were entered into RevMan and double checked. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat; sensitivity analyses excluded trials with > 30% of women receiving un-allocated treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies involving 6664 women were included, all but one study compared epidural analgesia with opiates. For technical reasons, data on women's perception of pain relief in labour could only be included from one study which found epidural analgesia to offer better pain relief than non-epidural analgesia (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.82 to -1.38, 1 trial, 105 women). However, epidural analgesia was associated with an increased risk of instrumental vaginal birth (relative risk (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.53, 17 trials, 6162 women). There was no evidence of a significant difference in the risk of caesarean delivery (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.23, 20 trials, 6534 women), long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12, 2 trials, 814 women), low neonatal Apgar scores at five minutes (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10, 14 trials, 5363 women), and maternal satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.18 95% CI 0.92 to 1.50, 5 trials, 1940 women). 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.

Evidence-based intrapartum care

Routine care in normal labour may range from supportive care at home to intensive monitoring and multiple interventions in hospital. Good evidence of effectiveness is necessary to justify interventions in the normal process of labour. Inadequate evidence is available to support perineal shaving, routine enemas, starvation in labour and excluding the choice for home births. Evidence supports continuity of care led by midwives, companionship in labour, restricting the use of episiotomy, and active management of the third stage of labour, including routine use of 10 units of oxytocin. Both benefits and risks are associated with routine amniotomy, continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, epidural analgesia, and oxytocin-ergometrine to prevent postpartum haemorrhage. More evidence is needed regarding the emotional consequences of labour interventions, home births, vaginal cleansing, opioid use, the partograph, second-stage labour techniques, misoprostol for primary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage, and strategies to promote evidence-based care in labour.