Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

Are labor epidural catheters after a combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique more reliable than after a traditional epidural? A retrospective review of 9153 labor epidural catheters

BACKGROUND

The combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique may associate with a lower failure rate of epidural catheters compared to traditional epidural catheters. This may be significant for the parturients as failure of neuraxial analgesia has been associated with a negative impact on birth experience.

METHODS

In this one-year retrospective study, the failure rate of epidural catheters was compared between 3201 and 5952 epidural catheters after initiation of neuraxial analgesia by the CSE or traditional epidural technique, respectively. Parturient background information, labor parameters, and neuraxial interventions were collected from 9153 parturients. Failure was defined as replacement of a used epidural catheter by new regional analgesia procedures or general anesthesia during intrapartum cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was the failure rate of epidural catheters. The secondary outcome was the time from the initial analgesia intervention to the epidural catheter replacement and progression of labor during this time.

RESULTS

The CSE method was used at an earlier stage of labor, and the parturients were more often primiparous and undergoing induced labor. Earlier onset of analgesia, obesity, induced labor, anesthesiologist experience, and cesarean delivery were found to be significant cofactors for catheter failure. The unadjusted failure rate was 168/3201 (5.2%) and 223/5952 (3.7%) (OR 1.42 [1.16-1.75]) after initiation of analgesia by CSE or traditional epidural method. After controlling for the stage of labor, body mass index, induction of labor, and anesthesiologist's experience level, the adjusted OR for epidural catheter replacement was 1.04 (0.83-1.29) p = .736. The mean (SD) time until epidural catheter failure was 6.3 (4.4) and 4.0 (4.1) hours following initiation of analgesia by CSE or traditional epidural technique, respectively (p < .001). Cervical dilatation progressed from 4.3 (1.4) to 6.4 (2.1) cm and 5.1 (1.5) to 6.7 (1.7) cm between primary neuraxial analgesia and epidural catheter replacement.

CONCLUSION

CSE technique was not associated with a better survival rate of epidural catheters for provision of analgesia or epidural top-up anesthesia for intrapartum CD. In addition, the time to replacement of the catheter was significantly longer when analgesia was initiated with the CSE technique. Maternal satisfaction scores were lower if catheters required replacement.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on postdural puncture headache: a consensus report from a multisociety international working group

INTRODUCTION

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH.

METHODS

Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients' interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Is epidural analgesia non-inferior to intrathecal fentanyl as initiation for neuraxial analgesia in early non-spontaneous labour?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Intrathecal fentanyl, using the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique, provides rapid analgesia during early labour. Because of the technique's more complex and invasive nature, as its replacement we assessed the use of epidural analgesia in primiparous parturients with induced labour. The study was registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (NCT04645823). The aim was to compare the efficacy, duration of analgesia and maternal satisfaction. The primary outcome was the difference in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) between the interventions at 20 min after the analgesia administration.

METHODS

Sixty volunteering parturients were randomly allocated in 1:1 ratio to receive either intrathecal fentanyl 20 μg or epidural analgesia (fentanyl 100 μg and lidocaine 80 mg). Contraction pain and maternal satisfaction were assessed by 0-100 mm VAS for 30 min, respectively. Foetal heart rate abnormalities, the time to first epidural dose and the incidence of pruritus were recorded. Non-inferiority margin for mean (95% CI) VAS after epidural analgesia was set at 20 mm above the VAS value for intrathecal fentanyl at 20 min.

RESULTS

The contraction pain VAS fell from (median [interquartile range, IQR]) 82 (14) to 13 (20) mm and 76 (17) to 12 (27) mm in 20 min following the intrathecal fentanyl and epidural analgesia, respectively. The absolute mean difference (epidural-intrathecal fentanyl) in the VAS values was 3.3(-0.06 to 6.66) mm indicating non-inferiority. The median time to reach VAS <30 mm was 10 min in both groups. The duration until request for supplemental analgesia was 82(69-95) and 91(75-106) min after intrathecal fentanyl and epidural analgesia, respectively. The difference for the duration (epidural-intrathecal fentanyl) was 9 (6-12) min and for satisfaction-VAS 0.3 (-3.0 to 3.7) mm. There were no differences between the groups in the incidence of foetal heart rate abnormalities, while pruritus was more common after intrathecal fentanyl.

CONCLUSION

After 20 min, epidural analgesia by lidocaine and fentanyl was within the non-inferior threshold compared with intrathecal fentanyl in efficacy. The duration of action was not shorter than that of intrathecal fentanyl and maternal satisfaction was also similar.

Using part of the initial analgesic dose as the epidural test dose did not delay the onset of labor analgesia: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Epidural test dose for labor analgesia is controversial and varies widely in clinical practice. It is currently unclear whether using a portion of the initial dose for analgesia as the test dose delays the onset time of analgesia, compared to the traditional test dose.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-six parturients who chose epidural analgesia during labor were randomly assigned to two groups. The first dose in group L was 3 ml 1.5% lidocaine, and in the RF group was 10 ml 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 2 μg/ml fentanyl. After 3 min of observation, both groups received 8 ml 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 2 μg/ml fentanyl. The onset time of analgesia, motor and sensory blockade level, numerical pain rating scale, patient satisfaction score, and side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

The onset time of analgesia in group RF was similar to that in group L (group RF vs group L, 7.0 [5.0-9.0] minutes vs 8.0 [5.0-11.0] minutes, p = 0.197). The incidence of foot numbness (group RF vs group L, 34.9% vs 57.1%, p = 0.020) and foot warming (group RF vs group L, 15.9% vs 47.6%, p < 0.001) in group RF was significantly lower than that in group L. There was no difference between the two groups on other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with 1.5% lidocaine 3 ml, 0.1% ropivacaine 10 ml combined with 2 μg/ml fentanyl as an epidural test dose did not delay the onset of labor analgesia, and the side effects were slightly reduced.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100043071).

Whole-course application of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: A randomized, controlled trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine is known to prolong the analgesic duration of spinal anesthesia, but it can be challenging to achieve further extension without opioids. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate a novel analgesic strategy using dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to spinal-epidural anesthesia for elective cesarean surgery.

Methods

The study was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial conducted at a single center. Sixty parturients who underwent elective cesarean were randomly assigned to either group C or group D. Group D received an intrathecal injection of 12.5 mg ropivacaine and 5 μg dexmedetomidine followed by continuous epidural patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) infusion with a total volume of 100 ml, containing 0.2 % ropivacaine and 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine. Group C received an intrathecal injection of 12.5 mg ropivacaine with an equivalent saline placebo followed by a similar PCA infusion, containing 0.2 % ropivacaine and an equivalent saline placebo.

Results

The primary outcome was visual analog scale score on movement at 24 h after surgery. The results showed that the rest and motion pain scores in group D were significantly lower than those in group C at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after surgery (P < 0.05), with the differences at 24 h were 5.0 (5.0, 5.0)in group D versus 5.0 (5.0, 6.0) in group C (P = 0.04). Additionally, the time to the first PCA in group D was significantly longer than that in group C (P < 0.05), as well as the time of sensory and motor recovery.

Conclusions

Whole-course application of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to spinal-epidural anesthesia could effectively extend the analgesic duration of ropivacaine to 24 h following elective cesarean surgery.

A biased coin up-and-down sequential allocation trial to determine the ED90 of intrathecal sufentanil combined with ropivacaine 2.5 mg for labor analgesia

Purpose

To determine the 90 percent effective dose (ED90) of intrathecal sufentanil combined with ropivacaine 2.5 mg for labor analgesia and observe its safety for parturients and neonates.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, double-blind, biased coin up-and-down study. We injected a fixed 2.5 mg ropivacaine combined with a designated dose of sufentanil intrathecally to observe the labor analgesic effect. The initial dose of sufentanil was assigned 1.0 μg, and the remaining doses were assigned as per the biased coin up-and-down method. The criterion of successful response was defined as VAS ≤ 30 mm after intrathecal injection at 10 min. Safety was evaluated in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Results

The ED90 dose of intrathecal sufentanil combined with ropivacaine 2.5 mg (0.1%, 2.5 mL) was 2.61 μg (95% CI, 2.44 to 2.70 μg) by isotonic regression. No respiratory depression, hypotension, or motor block was observed. Thirty-one (77.5%) parturients complained of pruritus, and 14 (35.0%) suffered nausea and vomiting. Three neonates reported a 1 min Apgar score of ≤7, and none reported a 5 min Apgar score of ≤7.

Conclusion

The ED90 of intrathecal sufentanil combined with ropivacaine 2.5 mg for labor analgesia was 2.61 μg. The dose is safe for parturients and neonates.

Handheld ultrasound-assisted versus palpation-guided combined spinal-epidural for labor analgesia: a randomized controlled trial

Preprocedural ultrasound assistance can enhance the efficacy of neuraxial anesthesia in obstetrics. We investigated whether the use of handheld ultrasound can shorten the procedural time of labor combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia compared with conventional landmark-guided methods. Eighty-four women requesting labor analgesia were randomly assigned to either handheld ultrasound-assisted or palpation-guided CSE analgesia. Primary outcome was procedure time of the CSE analgesia. Secondary outcomes included identification time, performance time, number of needle manipulations required for epidural/spinal success, first-attempt success rate, periprocedural pain scores, the incidence of accidental dural puncture, and patient satisfaction. Total procedure time did not significantly differ between the ultrasound and palpation groups (median [IQR], 191.5 [167-224] vs. 204.5 [163-358] s; P = 0.442). However, the performance time was significantly shorter in the ultrasound group (134.5 [115-177] vs. 183 [129-296] s; P = 0.011), although identification time was longer in the ultrasound group (53 [41-72] vs. 30.5 [21-45] s; P < 0.001). The epidural success rate at first insertion attempt was higher in the ultrasound group (85.7% vs. 59.5%, P = 0.014). Preprocedural handheld ultrasound assistance resulted in equivalent total procedure times but reduced performance times and higher first-attempt success rates. Therefore, clinicians may consider this technique for labor CSE analgesia.Trial registration: NCT04759547.

Accurate evaluation of the progress of delivery with transperineal ultrasound may improve vaginal delivery: a single-center retrospective study

Although digital examination of the cervix is the standard method used worldwide for evaluating the progress of delivery, it is subjective. Transperineal ultrasound (TPU) is combined with digital evaluation for accurate assessment of fetal descent and rotation of the advanced part of the fetus. This retrospective study aimed to clarify the impact of introducing TPU on perinatal outcomes at Mie University Hospital. We analyzed singleton pregnant women who underwent delivery management at our hospital between April 2020 and March 2021. Perinatal outcomes were compared between patients who used TPU (TPU+ group) and those who did not (TPU- group). The angle of progression and head direction were measured. The rate of vaginal delivery was significantly increased (90.9% vs. 71.6%; P = 0.0017), and the second stage of labor was significantly prolonged in the TPU+ group (148.1 vs. 75.8 min; P < 0.0001). A significant difference was observed in termination in the latent phase between the TPU+ group [3/8 (37.5%) cases] and TPU- group [20/25 (80.0%) cases] (P = 0.036). The rate of vaginal delivery can be increased through accurate evaluation of the progress of delivery with TPU.

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis and Pregnancy

Objective This study examined the interaction between adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and pregnancy, focusing on pregnancy outcomes, changes in back pain, and anesthesia use. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult patients with AIS who gave birth at our institution between 2006 and 2022. Results A total of 163 AIS patients with 263 pregnancies were included. The median age at delivery was 33 (range 18 to 50) years. Among 157 patients with information on prior scoliosis treatment, 66.9% had not received treatment, 20.4% had undergone spinal fusion, and 12.7% had received bracing. Of the 260 pregnancies with available data, 90.4% were delivered at term and 8.5% were preterm. Of the 257 pregnancies with information on anesthesia type, 35.0% received epidural anesthesia, 17.9% received spinal anesthesia, 37.7% received combined spinal and epidural anesthesia, 8.2% received no anesthesia, and 1.2% received intravenous or general anesthesia. Difficulty administering neuraxial anesthesia was reported in 6.1% of cases, and these patients were less likely to receive combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (6.3% versus 39.8%, p = 0.0123). Among 116 cases with recorded back pain during pregnancy, 67.2% reported increased pain, 31.9% reported similar pain, and one patient reported decreased pain. Of the 16 patients with pre and postpartum radiographs, eight showed a Cobb angle increase ≥ 3°, with five patients having an increase ≥ 5°. Conclusions Pregnancy can exacerbate back pain and pose challenges for neuraxial anesthesia in some AIS patients. Further large-scale, multi-institutional studies with standardized data collection are needed to fully understand the impact of pregnancy on AIS.

Effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus protocol on physician-administered rescue boluses of labor analgesia

Background

Prior studies have shown that programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) boluses, provide better pain relief, reduced motor block, and better patient satisfaction compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) techniques. We hypothesized that patients who had labor epidural analgesia (LEA) maintained with PIEB and PCEA would be less likely to receive a physician-administered rescue analgesia bolus compared to patients who had CEI and PCEA.

Methods

We searched our electronic medical record for patients who had CEI and PCEA from August 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 and for patients who had PIEB and PCEA from August 2, 2022 to December 31, 2022.

Results

A total of 792 and 665 patients had maintenance of LEA with CEI/PCEA and PIEB/PCEA, respectively. A multivariate logistic regression was performed and, after adjusting for variables of interest, patients who had PIEB and PCEA were less likely to receive one or more physician-administered rescue analgesia boluses (odds ratio 0.504; 95% confidence interval 0.392, 0.649; P < 0.001) compared to patients who had CEI and PCEA.

Conclusion

PIEB/PCEA was associated with fewer physician-administered boluses of rescue analgesia compared to CEI/PCEA when used for LEA.

Severe pre-eclampsia as a rare cause of profound hyponatraemia

Profound hyponatraemia, defined as sodium <125 mmol/L, is a very rare complication of pre-eclampsia (PET) with a relative paucity of cases reported. Pre-eclampsia is a multisystem disorder with a maternal mortality of up to 20%. Hyponatraemia is associated with disease severity, twin pregnancy, advanced maternal age, in vitro fertilisation and HELLP (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets). The authors present the case of a low-risk nulliparous woman presenting with frontal headache and normal BP at 31+2 weeks gestation. Laboratory investigations confirmed a sodium of 123 mmol/L. Her urine protein creatinine ratio was 322 mg/mmol. She developed PET (BP 171/100 mm Hg) refractory to pharmacological management. She underwent an emergency lower segment caesarean section and was delivered of a live neonate. The maternal serum sodium normalised within 24 hours. Hyponatraemia should be regarded as a marker of severity in the setting of pre-eclampsia and may be an indication for an expedited delivery. Prompt management is required to prevent convulsions, maternal mortality and adverse fetal outcomes.

Association between combined spinal-epidural analgesia and neurodevelopment at 3 years old: The Japan Environment and Children's Study

AIM

To investigate the association between maternal combined spinal-epidural analgesia during vaginal delivery and neurodevelopment in 3-year-old children.

METHODS

Using data from the Japan Environment and Children's Study, a birth cohort study on pregnant women and their offspring, we described the background, perinatal outcomes, and neurodevelopmental outcomes of participants with a singleton pregnancy who received combined spinal-epidural analgesia during vaginal delivery and those who did not. The association between maternal combined spinal-epidural analgesia and abnormalities in five domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition, was analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 59 379 participants, 82 (0.1%) children (exposed group) were born to mothers who received combined spinal-epidural analgesia during vaginal delivery. In the exposed versus control groups, 1.2% versus 3.7% had communication abnormalities (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]: 0.30 [0.04-2.19]), 6.1% versus 4.1% exhibited gross-motor abnormalities (1.36 [95% CI: 0.55-3.36]), 10.9% vs. 7.1% had fine-motor abnormalities (1.46 [95% CI: 0.72-2.96]), 6.1% vs. 6.9% showed difficulties with problem-solving (0.81 [95% CI: 0.33-2.01]), and 2.4% vs. 3.0% had personal-social problems (0.70 [95% CI: 0.17-2.85]).

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to combined spinal-epidural analgesia during vaginal delivery was not associated with the risk of neurodevelopmental abnormalities; however, the sample size of our study might not be appropriate for the study design.

Effects of neuraxial analgesia technique on labor and maternal-fetal outcomes: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of epidural analgesia (EA) and combined spinal epidural analgesia (SEA) on labor and maternal-fetal outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified and included 1499 patients with a single cephalic fetus who delivered at the study center from January 2015 to December 2018 and received neuraxial analgesia at the beginning of the active phase of labor (presence of regular painful contractions and cervical dilatation between 4 and 6 cm). Data including analgesia, labor characteristics, and maternal-fetal outcomes were retrieved from the prospectively collected delivery room database and medical records.

RESULTS

SEA was associated with a shorter first stage of labor than EA, with a median difference of 60 min. On multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis, neuraxial analgesia, gestational age, fetal weight, labor induction, and parity were independently associated with the first stage length: patients in the EA group were 1.32 times more likely to have a longer first stage of labor (95% CI 1.06-1.64, p = 0.012) than those in the SEA group. Additionally, a significantly lower incidence of fundal pressure was performed among patients who underwent SEA (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.9, p = 0.017). No associations were observed between the used neuraxial analgesia technique and other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SEA was associated with a shorter length of the first stage of labor and a lower rate of fundal pressure use than EA. Further studies confirming the effects of SEA on labor management and clarifying differences in maternal-fetal outcomes will allow concluding about the superiority of one technique upon the other.

High Dosage of Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia (PCEA) with Low Background Infusion during Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is well documented; however, it is unclear whether a high dosage of PCEA with a low dosage of background infusion during labor can be a safe and effective application.

METHODS

Group LH was administered a continuous infusion (CI) of 0.084 mL/kg/h with PCEA of 5 mL every 40 min. Group HL was given a CI of 0.028 mL/kg/h and PCEA of 10 mL every 40 min; Group HH was given a CI of 0.084 mL/kg/h and PCEA of 10 mL every 40 min. The primary outcomes were VAS pain score, the number of supplemental boluses, incidence of pain outbreaks, drug dose for pain outbreaks, PCA times, effective PCA times, anesthetic consumption, duration of analgesia, duration of labor and delivery outcome. Secondary outcomes included adverse reactions such as itching, nausea and vomiting during analgesia and neonatal Apgar scores 1 min and 5 min after birth.

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients, 60 in each group were randomly assigned to one of three groups included group LH, group HL or group HH. The VAS scores were obviously decreased in HL group and HH group in comparison with LL group at 2 h after analgesia and the time point of full cervical dilation and delivery of baby. The time for third stage of labor in HH group was increased compared with LH group and HL group. Incidence of pain outbreaks in LH group was obviously increased compared with HL and HH group. The effective PCA times in HL group and HH group were remarkably reduced compared with those in LH group.

CONCLUSIONS

High dose of PCEA with a low background infusion can reduce effective PCA times, incidence of outbreak pain and the total amount of anesthetics without diminishing analgesia effects. However, high dose of PCEA with a high background infusion can enhance analgesia effect but increase the third stage of labor, instrumental delivery ratio and the total amount of anesthetics.

Placenta accreta spectrum part I: anesthesia considerations based on an extended review of the literature

"Placenta accreta spectrum" (PAS) describes abnormal placental adherence to the uterine wall without spontaneous separation at delivery. Though relatively rare, PAS presents a particular challenge to anesthesiologists, as it is associated with massive peripartum hemorrhage and high maternal morbidity and mortality. Standardized evidence-based PAS management strategies are currently evolving and emphasize: "PAS centers of excellence", multidisciplinary teams, novel diagnostics/pharmaceuticals (especially regarding hemostasis, hemostatic agents, point-of-care diagnostics), and novel operative/interventional approaches (expectant management, balloon occlusion, embolization). Though available data are heterogeneous, these developments affect anesthetic management and must be considered in planed anesthetic approaches. This two-part review provides a critical overview of the current evidence and offers structured evidence-based recommendations to help anesthesiologists improve outcomes for women with PAS. This first part discusses PAS management in centers of excellence, multidisciplinary care team, anesthetic approach and monitoring, surgical approaches, patient safety checklists, temperature management, interventional radiology, postoperative care and pain therapy. The diagnosis and treatment of hemostatic disturbances and preoperative prepartum anemia, blood loss, transfusion management and postpartum venous thromboembolism will be addressed in the second part of this series.

Efficacy and Ease of Use of a Newly Designed Pencil-Point Epidural Needle Compared to Conventional Tuohy Epidural Needle: A Randomized Single-Blind Pilot Study

Background and objective Accidental dural puncture (ADP) and consequent post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) related to epidural needle use have prompted the design of a pencil-point epidural needle. The aim of this prospective, randomized, single-blind pilot study was to assess the efficacy, ease of use, patient satisfaction, and adverse events associated with this newly designed pencil-point epidural needle compared to a Tuohy conventional epidural needle in parturients receiving combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anesthesia for labor. Methods After obtaining the Institutional Research Board approval, 100 parturients were randomized to receive CSE anesthesia with either the new pencil-point epidural needle (Gertie Marx, IMD Inc., Huntsville, UT) (P group) or Tuohy needle (T group). We documented patients' height, weight, loss of resistance (LOR), number of attempts required, onset time of spinal anesthesia, difficulties with insertion of spinal needle, difficulties with insertion of the epidural needle and catheter, duration of the procedure, overall satisfaction of the provider and patient, ADP, PDPH, paresthesia, and pain. Results There was no difference in body mass index (BMI), LOR, number of attempts, and onset time of spinal anesthetic between the study groups. Success in obtaining cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) on the first attempt was 50/51 (98%) in the T group vs. 44/49 (89.8%) in the P group (p=0.108). The need for subsequent epidural needle readjustment to obtain CSF was higher in the P group (16/49, 32.7%) vs. the T group (3/51, 5.9%, p<0.001). Success on the first attempt with epidural catheter threading was lower with the pencil-point epidural needle compared to the Tuohy needle (69% vs. 98%, p<0.001). The anesthesiologist switched from the assigned pencil-point epidural needle to the Tuohy needle due to technical difficulties in 8/49 (16.3%) cases. The duration of the procedure was longer in the P group (16.43 ±6.33 minutes) compared to the T group (11.49 ±1.87 minutes) (p<0.001). User satisfaction was lower in the P group compared to the T group (34.7% vs. 90.2%, p<0.001). Patient satisfaction was lower with the pencil-point epidural needle compared to the Tuohy needle (75.5% vs. 92.2%, p=0.03). There was no difference in complication rates from the CSE procedure between groups (pain, paresthesia, ADP, and PDPH). Conclusion In this pilot study, the use of the pencil-point epidural needle for CSE was associated with less successful epidural catheter placement as well as low user and patient satisfaction compared to the Tuohy epidural needle. Modifications in the pencil-point epidural needle design are needed to improve efficacy and enhance user acceptance before a larger study can be conducted to evaluate the rates of ADP and PDPH.

Comparison of the outcomes of normal vaginal delivery with and without spinal anesthesia in mothers admitted to the maternity ward of Firoozabadi Hospital

Introduction and Objective

The study of the methods of controlling labor pain is very important. One of the methods of pain relief is spinal anesthesia. Due to the different opinions about the effects of spinal anesthesia on the delivery process and maternal and fetal consequences, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of spinal anesthesia and compare it with normal vaginal delivery without spinal anesthesia.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, 120 mothers, who were admitted to the maternity ward of Firoozabadi Hospital for delivery, were examined. The patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into two groups of 60 people, one group receiving spinal anesthesia and one without spinal anesthesia, and then, were evaluated in terms of clinical variables and complications of the mother and fetus. Data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software.

Results

The mean age of the mothers was 26.6 ± 5.9 years. Five mothers (4.2%) who received spinal anesthesia underwent emergency cesarean section and a significant difference was shown between the two groups (P = 0.02). The mean duration of the active phase of labor did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.2), but the duration of the second phase of labor was significantly longer in the mothers who received spinal anesthesia (P = 0.008).

Conclusion

Spinal anesthesia can be used as a low-complication method in vaginal delivery to reduce pain.

Dural puncture epidural versus conventional epidural analgesia for labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is a modification of the conventional epidural (EP) technique in that the dura is intentionally punctured with a spinal needle but without any spinal injection. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks associated with the DPE technique for labor analgesia. Randomized trials comparing DPE analgesia with EP analgesia for labor pain relief were systematically searched in the database of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine till 1^st August 2021. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with satisfactory pain relief following DPE or EP analgesia, which was defined as visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores ≤ 3/10 (or 30/100) measured 10 min and 20 min after initiation of labor analgesia. Totally ten trials with 1099 patients were included in this review. DPE technique increased the percentage of patients with VAS pain score ≤ 3/10 (or 30/100) both at 10 min (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.17, 1.74; p < 0.001; I² = 0%) and 20 min (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.04, 1.22; p = 0.005; I² = 0%) after labor analgesia. No adverse event was found with DPE analgesia. We conclude that compared with EP analgesia, DPE analgesia is beneficial for labor pain relief by shortening the time to achieve satisfactory pain control. Meanwhile, DPE analgesia is not associated with increased adverse maternal/fetal events.

Prevalence and risk factors of overt postpartum urinary retention among primiparous women after vaginal delivery: a case-control study

Background

Postpartum urinary retention (PUR) may lead to bladder neuromuscular damage and subsequently voiding dysfunction. However, the literature regarding the incidence of and risk factors for PUR remains unclear. Moreover, previously reported studies are limited to small sample sizes. Thus, this study aimed to assess the incidence of and risk factors for overt PUR after vaginal delivery.

Methods

This retrospective case-control study included all primiparas who delivered vaginally between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2019, at our institution. The case group comprised 677 women diagnosed with overt PUR who required catheterisation after delivery. The control group comprised 677 women without overt PUR randomly selected in a 1:1 ratio matched for date of delivery and who delivered immediately after each woman with overt PUR to minimise the impact of variations over time in obstetric practice. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the factors associated with overt PUR.

Results

Of the 12,609 women included in our study, 677 were diagnosed with overt PUR (incidence 5.37%). Univariate analysis identified epidural analgesia, episiotomy, perineal tears, instrument-assisted delivery, duration of labour stage, intrauterine operation, and vulvar oedema as risk factors for PUR. Multivariate logistic regression identified epidural analgesia (odds ratio [OR] = 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11–1.79, P = 0.005), vulvar oedema (OR = 6.92, 95% CI: 4.65–10.31, P < 0.001), forceps delivery (OR = 8.42, 95% CI: 2.22–31.91, P = 0.002), episiotomy (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.02–1.84, P = 0.035), and second-degree perineal tear (OR = 3.42, 95% CI: 2.37–4.94, P < 0.001) as significant independent risk factors for PUR.

Conclusions

PUR was highly associated with epidural analgesia, forceps delivery, vulvar oedema, episiotomy, and second-degree perineal tears. More attention should be paid to women at high risk to reduce the incidence of PUR.

What's New in Neuraxial Labor Analgesia

Purpose of Review

This article provides an update of recent practice trends in neuraxial labor analgesia. It reviews available evidence regarding management of labor pain in obstetric patients with COVID-19, serious adverse events in obstetric anesthesia to help inform risk/benefit decisions, and increasingly popular neuraxial labor analgesia techniques and adjuvants. State-of-the-art modes of epidural drug delivery are also discussed.

Recent Findings

There has recently been a focus on several considerations specific to obstetric anesthesia, such as anesthetic management of obstetric patients with COVID-19, platelet thresholds for the safe performance of neuraxial analgesia in obstetric patients with thrombocytopenia, and drug delivery modes for initiation and maintenance of neuraxial labor analgesia.

Summary

Neuraxial labor analgesia (via standard epidural, dural puncture epidural, and combined spinal epidural techniques) is the most effective therapy to alleviate the pain of childbirth. SARS-CoV-2 infection is not, in and of itself, a contraindication to neuraxial labor analgesia or cesarean delivery anesthesia. Early initiation of neuraxial labor analgesia in patients with COVID-19 is recommended if not otherwise contraindicated, as it may reduce the need for general anesthesia should emergency cesarean delivery become necessary. Consensus regarding platelet thresholds for safe initiation of neuraxial procedures has historically been lacking. Recent studies have concluded that the risk of spinal epidural hematoma formation after neuraxial procedures is likely low at or above an imprecise range of platelet count of 70–75,000 × 10⁶/L. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in obstetric patients with COVID-19, but severe thrombocytopenia precluding initiation of neuraxial anesthesia is extremely rare. High neuraxial blockade has emerged as one of the most common serious complications of neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia in obstetric patients. Growing awareness of factors that contribute to failed conversion of epidural labor analgesia to cesarean delivery anesthesia may help avoid the risks associated with performance of repeat neuraxial techniques and induction of general anesthesia after failed epidural blockade. Dural puncture techniques to alleviate the pain of childbirth continue to become more popular, as do adjuvant drugs to enhance or prolong neuraxial analgesia. Novel techniques for epidural drug delivery have become more widely disseminated.

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).

[Spinal Analgesia - Cleverly Used for Vaginal Delivery]

Neuroaxial procedures are among the most effective ways of relieving pain during childbirth. Especially in the late phase of vaginal delivery, surprising moments, instrumental methods or special maneuvers require quick and sufficient analgesia. This refers to situations with a sudden, often unexpected and particularly pronounced intensity of pain. Here the advantages of spinal analgesia over the gold standard of obstetric analgesia, catheter epidural analgesia, can be used. Spinal analgesia is characterized by a fast onset of pain relief, a profound blockage and simple technical feasibility and, like other neuroaxial procedures, is comparatively uncomplicated in pregnant women. However, it is only effective if the delivery situation is well assessed. There is no possibility of repetition without re-puncture, so that limited duration of action is a significant disadvantage. Applied drugs correspond to those described for combined spinal and epidural analgesia, such as a mixture of low-dose bupivacaine and sufentanil, and can be adapted to local conditions. In the future, longer acting substances could overcome the main limitation (temporary effect) of spinal analgesia and suitable adjuvants could further increase the attractiveness of the procedure.

Pruritus after continuous administration of epidural morphine for post-cesarean delivery analgesia: a case control study

Background

Pruritus is one of the most common side effects of epidural morphine administered for post-surgery analgesia, and pregnant women tend to be highly susceptible. The relative contributions of morphine concentration, local anesthetics, and level of pain to pruritus after epidural morphine for post-cesarean delivery analgesia remain unclear. Accordingly, the present study aimed to identify risk factors for pruritus after continuous administration of epidural morphine for post-cesarean delivery analgesia.

Methods

This case control study was based on routinely collected clinical data. Participants included women who had undergone cesarean section and adopted a patient-controlled analgesia pump for postoperative analgesia. A series of logistic regression analyses were performed. Interaction terms were added to explore the moderation effects of combined local anesthetics and pain level on associations between morphine concentration and pruritus. Robustness of the results was checked through sensitivity analysis using propensity scores matching approach.

Results

Higher morphine concentration, assisted reproductive treatment, and multipara and cesarean section history were significantly more prevalent in the pruritus group than in the control group. The probabilities of pruritus at morphine concentrations of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 40 μg/mL increased sequentially from 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.35, 0.54 to 0.84, respectively. The trend remained steep in the ropivacaine stratum and became flatter when combined with levobupivacaine. At mild pain combined with levobupivacaine, the incidence of pruritus increased from 0.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1–0.68) in the 10 μg/mL morphine group to 0.48 (95% CI 0.1–0.88) in the 40 μg/mL morphine group. In the stratum of moderate pain combined with levobupivacaine, the incidence increased from 0.4 (95% CI 0.04–0.92) to 0.56 (95% CI 0.03–0.98). The results in the sensitivity analysis were in consistent with above findings.

Conclusions

Higher concentrations of morphine, multipara, and assisted reproductive treatment were factors associated with a higher probability of pruritus. Pain level or combined local anesthetics could moderate the association between morphine concentration and pruritus.

Lower, Variable Intrathecal Opioid Doses, and the Incidence of Prolonged Fetal Heart Rate Decelerations After Combined Spinal Epidural Analgesia for Labor: A Quality Improvement Analysis

Background

Combined spinal-epidurals with low-dose intrathecal opioids and local anesthetics are commonly used to initiate labor analgesia due to the fast onset of analgesia and good patient satisfaction. Intrathecal fentanyl has been associated with fetal bradycardia, and the rate may be higher at doses of 25 mcg and above. As such, our institution limits intrathecal fentanyl doses to less than 15 mcg for labor. Prompted by a few incidents of prolonged fetal bradycardia at even these low doses, we sought to audit the side effects associated with varying low doses of intrathecal fentanyl.

Methods

After IRB approval, a retrospective review was performed on 555 labor records from May–December, 2016. All the patients received combined spinal epidurals for labor analgesia. Intrathecal medication consisted of 1 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine, and varying fentanyl doses: 2.5, 5, 10, and 15 mcg. The incidences of prolonged fetal heart rate decelerations, emergent cesarean delivery, magnitude of pain reduction, pruritus requiring treatment, and hypotension were compared.

Results

Demographic variables were equivalent between the groups. There were no differences in the rates of prolonged fetal decelerations (in order of increasing fentanyl dose: 4.4%, 2.3%, 7.6%, 3.0%, p-value = 0.11), emergent cesarean delivery, magnitude of pain reduction, pruritus, or maternal hypotension.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the rates of prolonged fetal heart rate decelerations after combined spinal epidural with intrathecal bupivacaine and fentanyl does not differ for fentanyl doses of 15 mcg and below.

Continuous Maternal Hemodynamics Monitoring at Delivery Using a Novel, Noninvasive, Wireless,PPG-Based Sensor

Objective: To evaluate continuous monitoring of maternal hemodynamics during labor and delivery utilizing an innovative, noninvasive, reflective photoplethysmography-based device. Study design: The Biobeat Monitoring Platform includes a wearable wristwatch monitor that automatically samples cardiac output (CO), blood pressure (BP), stroke volume (SV), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), heart rate (HR) every 5 s and uploads all data to a smartphone-based app and to a data cloud, enabling remote patient monitoring and analysis of data. Low-risk parturients at term, carrying singletons pregnancies, were recruited at early delivery prior to the active phase. Big data analysis of the collected data was performed using the Power BI analysis tool (Microsoft). Next, data were normalized to visual presentation using Excel Data Analysis and the regression tool. Average measurements were compared before and after rupture of membranes, epidural anesthesia, fetal delivery, and placental expulsion. Results: Eighty-one parturients entered analysis. Epidural anesthesia was associated with a slight elevation in CO (5.5 vs. 5.6, L/min, 10 min before and after EA, p < 0.05) attributed to a non-significant increase in both HR and SV. BP remained stable as of counter decrease in SVR (1361 vs. 1319 mmHg⋅min⋅mL⁻¹, 10 min before and after EA, p < 0.05). Fetal delivery was associated with a peak in CO after which it rapidly declined (6.0 vs. 7.2 vs. 6.1 L/min, 30 min before vs. point of delivery vs. after delivery, p < 0.05). The mean BP remained stable throughout delivery with a slight increase at fetal delivery (92 vs. 95 vs. 92.1 mmHg, p < 0.05), reflecting the increase in CO and decrease in SVR (1284 vs. 1112 vs. 1280 mmHg⋅min⋅mL⁻¹, p < 0.05)with delivery. Placental expulsion was associated with a second peak in CO and decrease in SVR. Conclusions: We presented a novel application of noninvasive hemodynamic maternal monitoring throughout labor and delivery for both research and clinical use.

Pain, stress, analgesia and postpartum depression: Revisiting the controversy with a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain and depression are associated, but it is uncertain if effective pain relief during labor by labor analgesia reduces the incidence of postpartum depression (PPD). This randomized, controlled study assessed whether combined spinal-epidural (CSE) labor analgesia is associated with a decreased risk of PPD. Other reported risk factors for PPD were also assessed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Parturients were randomly assigned to either CSE labor analgesia or normal vaginal delivery (n = 65 each). CSE parturients received 0.5 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally and PCEA with continuous infusion of 0.1% levobupivacaine and 2 μg/ml fentanyl @5 ml/h along with patient-controlled boluses with a lockout interval of 15 min. Parturients of both the groups were assessed using Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for depressive symptoms at day 3 and PPD at 6 weeks (primary outcome; defined as EPDS score ≥10 at 6 weeks postpartum). Secondary outcomes included pain scores, maternal satisfaction, and Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min. Parturients were also screened for several risk factors for PPD.

RESULTS

Incidence of PPD was 22.3%. The difference in incidence of PPD between the CSE group vs. control group was not significant (27.7% vs. 16.9%; Fisher's exact P = 0.103). Of all the risk factors analyzed in logistic regression model, perceived stress during pregnancy was the only significant predictor of the development of PPD (adjusted Odds Ratio 11.17, 95% Confidence interval 2.86-43.55; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CSE analgesia in laboring parturients does not reduce PPD at 6 weeks. Instead, perceived high stress during pregnancy appears to be the most important factor.

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.

Effects of different analgesic methods used for vaginal delivery on mothers and fetuses

Background/aim

Knowledge regarding pain relief during labor remains insufficient. We aimed to determine and compare the effectiveness and safety of epidural analgesia, combined spinal–epidural analgesia, and parenteral meperidine on both mothers and fetuses.

Materials and methods

This study was designed as an observational case-control study. We collected prospective data from patients whose labor pain management was conducted with meperidine in addition to retrospective cohort data of neuraxial methods; 138 patients were enrolled. Epidural analgesia group consisted of 68 patients, whereas combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia group and meperidine group consisted of 50 and 20 patients, respectively. We compared the delivery patterns, labor durations, pain levels, side effects, maternal satisfaction levels, and neonatal outcomes of the various pain management methods.

Results

Patient demographics, duration of first, second, and third labor stages, and instrumental delivery rates were comparable among groups (P > 0.05). Cesarean section tended to be less frequent in the CSE group. In the meperidine group, visual analog scale (VAS) values and sedation were significantly higher (P < 0.001) and maternal satisfaction lower (P < 0.001). Hypotension tended to be more frequent in the meperidine group. APGAR scores at the 1st and 5th min were similar among the groups and between meperidine subgroups defined by three different administration times (<1 h, 1‒4 h, ≥4 h; P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Neuraxial methods had no effect on instrumental delivery rates. CSE represented a near significant risk reduction in cesarean section. Our results demonstrated that regional analgesia methods were reasonably safe for both mother and fetus, and regional analgesia methods resulted in greater maternal satisfaction and pain control compared to meperidine.

Comparative Analgesic Effects of Intradermal and Subdermal Injection of Sterile Water on Active Labor Pain

Background

The labor pain is one of the factors encouraging pregnant women for cesarean section delivery. Recently, intradermal and subdermal injection of distilled water has shown to be effective in improving this pain.

Objectives

The present study aimed to determine which method has a greater impact on labor pain reduction.

Methods

In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, 121 nulliparous women with a gestational age of ≥ 37 weeks were randomly divided into three groups: (1) 0.5 cc sterile water injection subdermally at four sacral points with insulin needles (n = 40); (2) 0.5 cc sterile water injection intradermally (n = 39); and (3) needle contact with the mentioned points as the placebo (n = 42). Before the intervention, the VAS score was measured for labor pain, and it was repeated 10, 30, 60, and 90 min after the intervention. The results were compared between the three groups.

Results

Before the intervention, the mean VAS pain score had no significant difference between the three groups. However, 30, 60, and 90 min after the intervention, the mean pain score was significantly lower in the intradermal and subdermal injection groups than in the control group (P = 0.001); however, the difference between the intradermal and subdermal injection groups was not significant.

Conclusions

The injection of distilled water by either intradermal or subdermal method was associated with a significant reduction in the pain score during labor, but there was no difference between these two methods in terms of decreasing labor pain. As sterile water injection is a safe, effective, and low-cost method, it is proposed to increase the knowledge of midwives and obstetricians about this method.

Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management during labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined evidence about the use of acupuncture and acupressure for pain management in labour. This is an update of a review last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of acupuncture and acupressure for pain management in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, (25 February 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2019), CINAHL (1980 to February 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platfory (ICTRP) (February 2019) and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture or acupressure with placebo, no treatment or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour. We included all women whether nulliparous or multiparous, and in spontaneous or induced labour. We included studies reported in abstract form if there was sufficient information to permit assessment of risk of bias. Trials using a cluster-RCT design were eligible for inclusion, but quasi-RCTs or cross-over studies were not.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 trials with data reporting on 3960 women. Thirteen trials reported on acupuncture and 15 trials reported on acupressure. No study was at a low risk of bias on all domains. Pain intensity was generally measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10 or 0 to 100 with low scores indicating less pain. Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture Acupuncture may make little or no difference to the intensity of pain felt by women when compared with sham acupuncture (mean difference (MD) -4.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.94 to 4.09, 2 trials, 325 women, low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture may increase satisfaction with pain relief compared to sham acupuncture (risk ratio (RR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.19, 1 trial, 150 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the use of pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.89, 2 trials, 261 women, moderate-certainty evidence). Acupuncture may have no effect on assisted vaginal birth (very low-certainty evidence), and probably little to no effect on caesarean section (low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture compared to usual care We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces pain intensity compared to usual care because the evidence was found to be very low certainty (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.31, 95% CI -2.14 to -0.49, 4 trials, 495 women, I² = 93%). Acupuncture may have little to no effect on satisfaction with pain relief (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces the use of pharmacological analgesia because the evidence was found to be very low certainty (average RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85, 6 trials, 1059 women, I² = 70%). Acupuncture probably has little to no effect on assisted vaginal birth (low-certainty evidence) or caesarean section (low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture compared to no treatment One trial compared acupuncture to no treatment. We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces pain intensity (MD -1.16, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.81, 163 women, very low-certainty evidence), assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupuncture compared to sterile water injection We are uncertain if acupuncture has any effect on use of pharmacological analgesia, assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure compared to a sham control We are uncertain if acupressure reduces pain intensity in labour (MD -1.93, 95% CI -3.31 to -0.55, 6 trials, 472 women) or assisted vaginal birth because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure may have little to no effect on use of pharmacological analgesia (low-certainty evidence). Acupressure probably reduces the caesarean section rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71, 4 trials, 313 women, moderate-certainty evidence). Acupressure compared to usual care We are uncertain if acupressure reduces pain intensity in labour (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.69, 8 trials, 620 women) or increases satisfaction with pain relief (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.35, 1 trial, 105 women) because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure may have little to no effect on caesarean section (low-certainty evidence). Acupressure compared to a combined control Acupressure probably slightly reduces the intensity of pain during labour compared with the combined control (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18, 2 trials, 322 women, moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if acupressure has any effect on the use of pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 212 women), satisfaction with childbirth, assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the certainty of the evidence was all very low. No studies were found that reported on sense of control in labour and only one reported on satisfaction with the childbirth experience.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture in comparison to sham acupuncture may increase satisfaction with pain management and reduce use of pharmacological analgesia. Acupressure in comparison to a combined control and usual care may reduce pain intensity. However, for other comparisons of acupuncture and acupressure, we are uncertain about the effects on pain intensity and satisfaction with pain relief due to very low-certainty evidence. Acupuncture may have little to no effect on the rates of caesarean or assisted vaginal birth. Acupressure probably reduces the need for caesarean section in comparison to a sham control. There is a need for further high-quality research that include sham controls and comparisons to usual care and report on the outcomes of sense of control in labour, satisfaction with the childbirth experience or satisfaction with pain relief.

Effects of Labor Epidural Analgesia on Short Term Neonatal Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Epidural Analgesia (EA) is the most effective and most commonly used method for pain relief during labor. Some researchers have observed an association between EA and increased neonatal morbidity. But this observation was not consistent in many other studies.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the study was to examine whether exposure to epidural analgesia increased the risk of NICU admission. The secondary objectives included the risks of clinical chorioamnionitis, instrumental delivery, neonatal depression, respiratory distress, birth trauma, and neonatal seizure during the first 24 hours of life.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study involving 2360 low-risk nulliparous women who delivered at AWH, Qatar, during the two years between January 2016 December and 2017. Short-term neonatal outcomes of the mothers who received EA in active labor were compared with a similar population who did not receive EA. As secondary objectives, labor parameters like maternal temperature elevation, duration of the second stage of labor, and instrumental delivery were compared.

RESULTS

Significantly higher numbers of neonates were admitted to the NICU from the EA group (P<0.001, OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.46). They were more likely to have respiratory distress (P=0.01, OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.07), birth injuries (P=0.02, OR =1.71, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.74), admission temperature>37.5 °C (P=0.04, OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 11.49), need for oxygen on the first day (P=0.04, OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.07) and receive antibiotics (P<0.001, OR 2.06,95% CI 1.47 to 2.79). There was no difference in the Apgar score at 1 minute (P=0.12), need of resuscitation at birth (P=0.05), neonatal white cell count (P=0.34), platelet count (P=0.38) and C reactive protein (P=0.84). Mothers who received EA had a lengthier second stage (P<0.001), temperature elevation >37.5°C (P<0.001, OR 7.40, 95% CI 3.93 to 13.69) and instrumental delivery (P<0.001, OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.68).

CONCLUSION

EA increases NICU admission, antibiotic exposure, neonatal birth injuries, need for positive pressure ventilation at birth, and respiratory distress in the first 24 hours of life. Mothers on epidural analgesia have prolonged second stage of labor, a higher rate of instrumental delivery, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, fetal distress, and temperature elevation.

Comparison of ropivacaine combined with sufentanil for epidural anesthesia and spinal-epidural anesthesia in labor analgesia

BACKGROUND

To compare the application and efficacy of ropivacaine combined with sufentanil for continuous epidural anesthesia (CEA) and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) in labor analgesia.

METHODS

Three hundred sixty pregnant women requesting labor analgesia from October 2017 to August 2018 were selected retrospectively. According to the anesthetic method, subjects were divided into CSEA group and CEA group. Ropivacaine combined with sufentanil were used in all subjects. The labor time, visual analogue scale (VAS), Apgar score of newborn, adverse pregnancy outcomes and adverse drug reactions were observed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in pre-analgesia (T₀) VAS scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS scores of first stage of labor (T₁), second stage of labor (T₂) and third stage of labor (T₃) in CSEA group were significantly lower than CEA group (P < 0.01). The onset time, T₁ and total labor time in CSEA group were significantly shorter than CEA group (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between T2 and T3 (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes and Apgar scores at 1, 5 and 10 min after birth between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse drug outcomes in CSEA group was significantly lower than CEA group (P < 0.01). Maternal satisfaction in CSEA group was significantly higher than CEA group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Considering ropivacaine combined with sufentanil for CSEA achieved a shorter onset time and labor period, significant analgesic effect, lower adverse drug reactions rates and higher subject satisfaction than CEA, it may be worthy of clinical promotion and application.

Combining Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia versus Single-Shot Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-Analysis of 5 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

This study compared combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and single-shot spinal anesthesia (SSSA) by performing a meta-analysis.

Material/Methods

An electronic search of relevant studies was done through 2017. Primary endpoints included duration of surgery, and time for (1) sensory recovery to thoracic vertebra (T10), (2) maximal sensory, (3) motor blockade, and (4) motor recovery. Secondary endpoints were the adverse effects. RevMan 5.3 analytical software was used with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the analytic parameters. Standard deviation and mean were used to evaluate data by weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CI.

Results

A total of 370 patients were analyzed. A similar duration of surgery was observed with CSEA and SSSA (WMD: 0.24, 95%CI: −3.41–3.89; P=0.90). Time to maximal sensory blockade (WMD: 0.96, 95%CI: −2.91–4.83), time to maximal motor blockade (WMD: 0.25, 95%CI: −2.46–2.96), time for complete motor recovery (WMD: −6.28, 95%CI: −29.42–16.86), and time for sensory recovery to T10 vertebra (WMD: 0.42, 95%CI: −11.07–11.91) were not significantly different. Adverse effects such as hypotension (OR: 1.49, 95%CI: 0.27–8.31), pruritus (OR: 0.23, 95%CI: 0.03–2.18), nausea/vomiting (OR: 0.84, 95%CI: 0.12–5.99). and shivering (OR: 0.53, 95%CI: 0.11–2.56) were also similar with CSEA and SSSA.

Conclusions

CSEA was not associated with significantly different maximal duration of sensory/motor blockade, complete motor recovery, sensory regression to T10, or adverse drug events compared to SSSA. Hence, both should be considered effective in cesarean delivery.

A priori choice of neuraxial labour analgesia and breastfeeding initiation success: a community-based cohort study in an Italian baby-friendly hospital

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the nature of the decision about receiving neuraxial labour analgesia is associated with breastfeeding initiation success (BIS), defined as exclusive breastfeeding until discharge associated with postnatal weight loss <7% at 60 hours from birth.

DESIGN

Single-centre community-based cohort study.

SETTING

An Italian baby-friendly hospital, from 1 July 2011 to 22 September 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Inclusion criteria: women vaginally delivering singleton cephalic newborns and willing to breastfeed.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

women who delivered in uterus-dead fetuses, were single or requested but did not receive neuraxial analgesia. Overall, 775 out of the 3628 enrolled women received neuraxial analgesia.

RESULTS

Compared with women who tried to cope with labour pain, those who decided a priori to receive neuraxial analgesia had less BIS (planned vaginal birth: 2121/3421 (62.0%), vs 102/207 (49.3%; p<0.001; risk difference (RD), 12.7%); actual vaginal birth: 1924/2994 (64.3%), vs 93/189 (49.2%; p<0.001; RD, 15.1%)). Multivariable analyses with antelabour-only confounders confirmed both associations (planned vaginal birth: relative risk (RR), 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.87; actual vaginal birth: RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.80). Although women who requested analgesia as a last resort had less BIS than did those successfully coping with labour pain in the bivariable analyses (planned vaginal birth: 1804/2853 (63.2%), vs 317/568 (55.8%; p=0.001; RD, 7.4%); actual vaginal birth: 1665/2546 (65.4%), vs 259/448 (57.8%; p=0.002; RD, 7.6%)), multivariable analyses with either antelabour-only or peripartum confounders did not confirm these associations (planned vaginal birth: RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.23; actual vaginal birth: RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with trying to cope with labour pain, a priori choice of neuraxial analgesia is negatively associated with BIS. Conversely, compared with having successfully coped with pain, requesting neuraxial analgesia as a last resort is not negatively associated with BIS.

By regulating miR-182-5p/BCL10/CYCS, sufentanil reduces the apoptosis of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells caused by ropivacaine

Sufentanil is a type of opioid analgesic and is usually used to facilitate painless labor in combination with the local anesthetic ropivacaine. One aim of the current study was to investigate the effects of sufentanil and ropivacaine on umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (UCMSCs). A second aim of this study was to determine whether sufentanil attenuated the cytotoxicity of ropivacaine in vitro. UCMSCs were divided into 3 groups: one was treated with ropivacaine at a concentration of 50, 100, 200, or 400 μg/mL, another was treated with sufentanil at a concentration of 0.5, 5, 50, or 500 nmol/L, and a third was treated with a combination of ropivacaine at a concentration of 200 μg/mL and sufentanil at a concentration of 0.5, 5, 50, or 500 nmol/L. Results indicated that cell proliferation decreased in cells treated with ropivacaine while it increased in cells treated with sufentanil. In addition, sufentanil limited the inhibitory effect of ropivacaine on UCMSC growth in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Combined treatment with ropivacaine at a concentration of 200 μg/mL and sufentanil at a concentration of 500 nmol/L decreased the proportion of dead and apoptotic UCMSCs, and fewer cells were arrested in the S phase compared to cells treated with ropivacaine. Sufentanil inhibited the apoptosis induced by ropivacaine by increasing miR-182-5p, which regulated the expression of mRNA of the pro-apoptotic genes B-cell lymphoma/leukemia 10 (BCL10) and cytochrome c, somatic (CYCS). Sufentanil also increased the expression of mRNA of anti-apoptotic genes. In short, ropivacaine inhibits the cell viability and induces the apoptosis of UCMSCs in vitro while sufentanil attenuates this apoptosis by regulating miR182-5p/BCL10/CYCS.

Evaluation of association factors for labor episodic pain during epidural analgesia

Purpose

Epidural analgesia provides safe and effective labor pain relief. However, labor episodic pain can occur during epidural analgesia, requiring epidural top-ups, and may result in decreased patient satisfaction. The primary aim of our study was to investigate the factors associated with labor episodic pain during epidural analgesia.

Patients and methods

Electronic and hardcopy records of labor deliveries between January 2012 and December 2015 were reviewed at KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore. The primary outcome was the prevalence of episodic pain. Demographic, clinical and anesthetic data were retrieved. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify associated risk factors for labor episodic pain experienced by parturients while receiving epidural analgesia. Model performance was assessed by area under the curve (AUC) from the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results

The prevalence of labor episodic pain was 14.2% (2,951 of 20,798 parturients). The risk factors associated with labor episodic pain, which are given here as factor (OR, 95% CI), are the following: need for epidural resiting (11.4, 7.53-17.28), higher pain scores intrapartum (1.34, 1.32-1.36), higher Bromage scores (1.12, 1.02-1.22), the need for instrumental delivery (1.32, 1.16-1.52), the need for cesarean delivery (1.41, 1.26-1.59), the presence of venous puncture (1.29, 1.03-1.62), the presence of dural puncture (14.28, 5.92-34.43), the presence of high block (6.05, 1.39-26.35), the need for a urinary catheter (1.17, 1.17-1.34), larger volumes of local anesthetics used (1.01, 1.01-1.01) and higher body mass index (1.01, 1.01-1.02), and decreased maternal satisfaction (0.97, 0.97-0.98). The AUC was 0.80.

Conclusion

Knowledge of these factors may allow for future interventions in management to prevent labor episodic pain. Further research is needed to validate these association factors.

A Review of the Impact of Obstetric Anesthesia on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes

Obstetric anesthesia has evolved over the course of its history to encompass comprehensive aspects of maternal care, ranging from cesarean delivery anesthesia and labor analgesia to maternal resuscitation and patient safety. Anesthesiologists are concerned with maternal and neonatal outcomes, and with preventing and managing complications that may present during childbirth. The current review will focus on recent advances in obstetric anesthesia, including labor anesthesia and analgesia, cesarean delivery anesthesia and analgesia, the effects of maternal anesthesia on breastfeeding and fever, and maternal safety. The impact of these advances on maternal and neonatal outcomes is discussed. Past and future progress in this field will continue to have significant implications on the health of women and children.

Labor Analgesia Onset With Dural Puncture Epidural Versus Traditional Epidural Using a 26-Gauge Whitacre Needle and 0.125% Bupivacaine Bolus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbar epidurals (LEs) provide excellent analgesia. Combined spinal epidural and dural puncture epidural (DPE) are 2 techniques to expedite neuraxial analgesia onset. In DPE, dura is punctured but medication is not administered in the cerebrospinal fluid. Expedited analgesia onset has been demonstrated with DPE, using 0.25% bupivacaine; however, this concentration may impede an unassisted vaginal birth and is not currently used for induction and maintenance of labor analgesia. The primary goal of this study was to compare the percentage of patients who achieved adequate labor analgesia following DPE or LE with an epidural bolus of 0.125% bupivacaine. Adequate labor analgesia was defined as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measurement ≤ 10 mm on a 100-mm scale during active contractions, measured 10 minutes after epidural bolus initiation.

METHODS

Laboring patients were randomly assigned to receive LE or DPE. Immediately before epidural placement, subjects marked a VAS score during an active contraction and parturients with VAS < 50 mm were excluded. The epidural space was identified by a loss of resistance technique to saline (17G Tuohy needle [Arrow International, Inc, Redding, PA]). In the DPE group, dura was punctured with a 26G Whitacre needle (Arrow International, Inc). In all participants, a 19G epidural catheter (Arrow International, Inc) was inserted. An epidural bolus was then administered over 3 minutes (12 mL, 0.125% bupivacaine, 50 μg fentanyl) followed by infusion (0.1% bupivacaine, 2 μg/mL fentanyl). After initiation of epidural bolus (time zero), VAS measurements were collected at 2-minute intervals for up to 20 minutes. Median time to achieve adequate analgesia by treatment group was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Time to achieving adequate analgesia was evaluated using a Cox regression model. All analyses were conducted in SAS version 9.4. (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) RESULTS:: Data were analyzed from 80 participants (40 per group). Adequate analgesia at 10 minutes did not differ by neuraxial technique (DPE = 55.3% vs LE = 44.7%; P= .256). However, parturients receiving DPE had shorter median times to adequate analgesia (median [95% confidence interval], 8 minutes [6-10] vs 10 minutes [8-14]) and a 67% increase in the relative risk of achieving adequate analgesia compared to LE (relative risk = 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.64; P= .042).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the percentage of parturients achieving adequate labor analgesia at 10 minutes after epidural bolus did not differ by technique, DPE was associated with faster time to VAS ≤ 10 mm compared with LE.

Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Parenteral opioids (intramuscular and intravenous drugs including patient-controlled analgesia) are used for pain relief in labour in many countries throughout the world. This review is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability to women of different types, doses and modes of administration of parenteral opioid analgesia in labour. A second objective is to assess the effects of opioids in labour on the baby in terms of safety, condition at birth and early feeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (11 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining the use of intramuscular or intravenous opioids (including patient-controlled analgesia) for women in labour. Cluster-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion, although none were identified. We did not include quasi-randomised trials. We looked at studies comparing an opioid with another opioid, placebo, no treatment, other non-pharmacological interventions (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)) or inhaled analgesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of each evidence synthesis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 studies that compared an opioid with placebo or no treatment, another opioid administered intramuscularly or intravenously or compared with TENS applied to the back. Sixty-one studies involving more than 8000 women contributed data to the review and these studies reported on 34 different comparisons; for many comparisons and outcomes only one study contributed data. All of the studies were conducted in hospital settings, on healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 37 to 42 weeks' gestation. We excluded studies focusing on women with pre-eclampsia or pre-existing conditions or with a compromised fetus. Overall, the evidence was graded as low- or very low-quality regarding the analgesic effect of opioids and satisfaction with analgesia; evidence was downgraded because of study design limitations, and many of the studies were underpowered to detect differences between groups and so effect estimates were imprecise. Due to the large number of different comparisons, it was not possible to present GRADE findings for every comparison.For the comparison of intramuscular pethidine (50 mg/100 mg) versus placebo, no clear differences were found in maternal satisfaction with analgesia measured during labour (number of women satisfied or very satisfied after 30 minutes: 50 women; 1 trial; risk ratio (RR) 7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 128.87, very low-quality evidence), or number of women requesting an epidural (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; very low-quality evidence). Pain scores (reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) score of at least 40 mm: 50 women; 1 trial; RR 25, 95% CI 1.56 to 400, low-quality evidence) and pain measured in labour (women reporting pain relief to be "good" or "fair" within one hour of administration: 116 women; 1 trial; RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.47, low-quality evidence) were both reduced in the pethidine group, and fewer women requested any additional analgesia (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, low-quality evidence).There was limited information on adverse effects and harm to women and babies. There were few results that clearly showed that one opioid was more effective than another. Overall, findings indicated that parenteral opioids provided some pain relief and moderate satisfaction with analgesia in labour. Opioid drugs were associated with maternal nausea, vomiting and drowsiness, although different opioid drugs were associated with different adverse effects. There was no clear evidence of adverse effects of opioids on the newborn. We did not have sufficient evidence to assess which opioid drug provided the best pain relief with the least adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Though most evidence is of low- or very-low quality, for healthy women with an uncomplicated pregnancy who are giving birth at 37 to 42 weeks, parenteral opioids appear to provide some relief from pain in labour but are associated with drowsiness, nausea, and vomiting in the woman. Effects on the newborn are unclear. Maternal satisfaction with opioid analgesia was largely unreported. The review needs to be examined alongside related Cochrane reviews. More research is needed to determine which analgesic intervention is most effective, and provides greatest satisfaction to women with acceptable adverse effects for mothers and their newborn.

Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management 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 about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I2 = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I2 = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I2 = 73%; Tau2 = 1.89; Chi2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.

Anesthesiologists' Preferences regarding Visitor Presence during Placement of Neuraxial Labor Analgesia

INTRODUCTION

Neuraxial labor analgesia has become an integral part of modern obstetric anesthetic practice. Presence of a familiar person during its placement may be beneficial to the patient. A survey was sent to anesthesiologists practicing obstetric anesthesia in the USA to determine their views.

METHODS

The survey queried the following: existence of a written policy; would they allow a visitor; visitor's view, sitting or standing; reasons to allow or not allow a visitor; and influence by other staff on the decision. The responses were analyzed using multiple chi-square analyses.

RESULTS

Most practitioners supported allowing a visitor during placement. Reduction of patient anxiety and fulfillment of patient request were the major reasons for allowing a visitor. Sitting position and no view of the workspace were preferred. Visitor interference and safety were cited as the major reasons for precluding a visitor. Nonanesthesia providers rarely influenced the decision. Epidural analgesia was the preferred technique. Essentially no bias was found in the responses; there was statistical uniformity regardless of procedures done per week, years in practice, professional certification, geographic region (rural, urban, or suburban), or academic, private, or government responders.

CONCLUSION

The practice of visitor presence during the placement of neuraxial labor analgesia is gaining acceptance.

Effectiveness and safety of moderate-intensity aerobic water exercise during pregnancy for reducing use of epidural analgesia during labor: protocol for a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia during labor can provide effective pain relief, but can also lead to adverse effects. The practice of moderate exercise during pregnancy is associated with an increased level of endorphins in the blood, and this could also provide pain relief during labor. Aerobic water exercises, rather than other forms of exercise, do not negatively impact articulations, reduce edema, blood pressure, and back pain, and increase diuresis. We propose a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a moderate water exercise program during pregnancy on the need for epidural analgesia during labor.

METHODS

A multi-center, parallel, randomized, evaluator blinded, controlled trial in a primary care setting. We will randomised 320 pregnant women (14 to 20 weeks gestation) who have low risk of complications to a moderate water exercise program or usual care.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this research will contribute toward understanding of the effects of a physical exercise program on pain and the need for analgesia during labor.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry identifier: 14097513 register on 04 September 2017. Retrospectively registered.

Epidural therapy for the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia in non labouring women

BACKGROUND

Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy-specific multi-organ disorder, which is characterised by hypertension and multisystem organ involvement and which has significant maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Failure of the placental vascular remodelling and reduced uteroplacental flow form the etiopathological basis of pre-eclampsia. There are several established therapies for pre-eclampsia including antihypertensives and anticonvulsants. Most of these therapies aim at controlling the blood pressure or preventing complications of elevated blood pressure, or both. Epidural therapy aims at blocking the vasomotor tone of the arteries, thereby increasing uteroplacental blood flow. This review was aimed at evaluating the available evidence about the possible benefits and risks of epidural therapy in the management of severe pre-eclampsia, to define the current evidence level of this therapy, and to determine what (if any) further evidence is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of the extended use of epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women. This review aims to compare the use of extended epidural therapy with other methods, which include intravenous magnesium sulphate, anticonvulsants other than magnesium sulphate, with or without use of the antihypertensive drugs and adjuncts in the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia.This review only considered the use of epidural anaesthesia in the management of severe pre-eclampsia in the antepartum period and not as pain relief in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 July 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing epidural therapy versus traditional therapy for pre-eclampsia in the form of antihypertensives, anticonvulsants, magnesium sulphate, low-dose dopamine, corticosteroids or a combination of these, were eligible for inclusion. Trials using a cluster design, and studies published in abstract form only are also eligible for inclusion in this review. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. There were no relevant data available for extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one small study (involving 24 women). The study was a single-centre randomised trial conducted in Mexico. This study compared a control group who received antihypertensive therapy, anticonvulsant therapy, plasma expanders, corticosteroids and dypyridamole with an intervention group that received epidural block instead of the antihypertensives, as well as all the other four drugs. Lumbar epidural block was given using 0.25% bupivacaine, 10 mg bolus and 5 mg each hour on continuous epidural infusion for six hours. This study was at low risk of bias in three domains but was assessed to be high risk of bias in two domains due to lack of allocation concealment and blinding of women and staff, and unclear for random sequence generation and outcome assessor blinding.The included study did not report on any of this review's important outcomes. Meta-analysis was not possible.For the mother, these were: maternal death (death during pregnancy or up to 42 days after the end of the pregnancy, or death more than 42 days after the end of the pregnancy); development of eclampsia or recurrence of seizures; stroke; any serious morbidity: defined as at least one of stroke, kidney failure, liver failure, HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets), disseminated intravascular coagulation, pulmonary oedema.For the baby, these were: death: stillbirths (death in utero at or after 20 weeks' gestation), perinatal deaths (stillbirths plus deaths in the first week of life), death before discharge from the hospital, neonatal deaths (death within the first 28 days after birth), deaths after the first 28 days; preterm birth (defined as the birth before 37 completed weeks' gestation); and side effects of the intervention. Reported outcomesThe included study only reported on a single secondary outcome of interest to this review: the Apgar score of the baby at birth and after five minutes and there was no clear difference between the intervention and control groups.The included study also reported a reduction in maternal diastolic arterial pressure. However, the change in maternal mean arterial pressure and systolic arterial pressure, which were the other reported outcomes of this trial, were not significantly different between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness, safety or cost of using epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women.High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate the use of epidural agents as therapy for treatment of severe pre-eclampsia. The rationale for the use of epidural is well-founded. However there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to show that the effect of epidural translates into improved maternal and fetal outcomes. Thus, there is a need for larger, well-designed studies to come to an evidence-based conclusion as to whether the lowering of vasomotor tone by epidural therapy results in better maternal and fetal outcomes and for how long that could be maintained. Another important question that needs to be answered is how long should extended epidural be used to ensure any potential clinical benefits and what could be the associated side effects and costs. Interactions with other modalities of treatment and women's satisfaction could represent other avenues of research.

Effects of Intradermal Sterile Water Injections in Women with Low Back Pain in Labor: A Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial

Background:

In addition to the pain caused byuterine contractions during labour, continuous and severe back pain is observed in 33% of women. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological methods are available for managing this pain. Sterile water injection is considered as alternative method for nonpharmacological pain management.

Aims:

To assess the satisfaction level and effectiveness of sterile water injection for back pain among women in labour.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial.

Methods:

A total of 168 term, healthy women with labour pain and severe back pain were randomized into the sterile water injection (study) and dry injection (placebo) groups. Injections were applied to the rhombus of Michaelis in the sacral area. Pain scores were assessed at 10, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min using a visual analogue scale. Additionally, the need for epidural analgesia, Apgar score, mode of delivery, time of delivery, maternal satisfaction, and breastfeeding score were assessed.

Results:

The mean back pain scores at 30 min after injections were significantly lower in the study group (study group: 31.66±11.38; placebo: 75±18.26, p<0.01). The mean decrease in pain scores after 30 min according to baseline was significantly higher in the study group (study group: 54.82±7.81; placebo: 13.33±12.05, p<0.01). The need for epidural analgesia, time of delivery, mode of delivery, and Apgar and breastfeeding scores were similar in both groups. Maternal satisfaction from the analgesic effect was significantly higher in the study group (study group: 84.5%; placebo: 35.7%, p<0.01).

Conclusion:

The application of sterile water injection is effective for relieving back pain in the first stage of labour and has a sufficient satisfaction level among women.

Central neuraxial analgesia for labor: an update of the literature

Numerous techniques are in use to provide analgesia for labor, of which central neuraxial block is widely considered superior to non-neuraxial options. Central neuraxial techniques have evolved over many years to provide greater efficacy, safety and maternal satisfaction. This narrative review focuses on the literature relating to central neuraxial labor analgesia from the past 5 years, from November 2010 to October 2015. We discuss the evidence related to the various central neuraxial techniques used, the increasingly widespread use of ultrasound guidance and the evidence surrounding other novel methods of central neuraxial block insertion. The timing of institution of central neuraxial analgesia in labor is considered, as are the advances in maintenance regimens for labor analgesia.

Efficacy and Safety of 3 Different Anesthesia Techniques Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

This study compared the efficacy and safety of 3 different anesthesia techniques used in total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Material/Methods

We allocated 198 patients preparing to undertake THA into 3 groups: general anesthesia group (GA group, n=66), caudal epidural anesthesia group (CEA group, n=66), and spinal-epidural anesthesia group (SEA group, n=66). We compared postoperative adverse effects occurring in patients of the 3 anesthesia groups. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Minimum Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, and β-amyloid (Aβ) expression were calculated to determine the effects of different anesthesia on the postoperative pain and cognitive dysfunction of patients.

Results

The CEA and SEA groups had lower rates of perioperative adverse effects than in the GA group. Patients in the GA group required significantly higher administration of analgesics after the surgery than those in CEA and SEA groups. Higher Aβ expression levels and VAS scores, as well as lower MMSE scores, were also seen in the GA group compared with the other 2 groups.

Conclusions

CEA and SEA were more effective than GA in THA, and CEA seemed to be a better anesthesia technique than SEA.

Effects of combined spinal epidural labor analgesia on episiotomy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

According to some published studies, neuraxial analgesia may be associated with prolonged labor and an increased risk for instrumental vaginal delivery. However, its effects on episiotomy are unknown. This study aimed to examine the incidence of episiotomy with and without combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSEA) during labor.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study, in which the computerized medical records of nulliparous women with singleton, cephalic and live births were reviewed and women with and without CSEA were matched based on their propensity scores. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine the association between CSEA and the incidence of episiotomy during vaginal delivery.

RESULTS

In the cohort study with 11,994 vaginal deliveries, 5748 received CSEA and 6246 did not receive CSEA. 4116 CSEA women were successfully matched with 4116 Non-CSEA women. In the univariate analysis, the incidence of episiotomy was 47.4% in the CSEA group and 44.7% in the Non-CSEA group. However, after a multivariable logistic regression analysis, CSEA did not increase the risk of episiotomy (adjusted OR, 1.080; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.988-1.180).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CSEA during labor and vaginal delivery did not increase the risk of episiotomy.

Implementation of Robert's Coping with Labor Algorithm© in a large tertiary care facility

OBJECTIVE

to implement use of Roberts' Coping with Labor Algorithm^© (CWLA) with laboring women in a large tertiary care facility.

DESIGN

this was a quality improvement project to implement an alternate approach to pain assessment during labor. It included system assessment for change readiness, implementation of the algorithm across a 6-week period, evaluation of usefulness by nursing staff, and determination of sustained change at one month. Stakeholder Theory (Friedman and Miles, 2002) and Deming's (1982) Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle, as adapted by Roberts et al (2010), provided the framework for project implementation.

SETTING

the project was undertaken on a labor and delivery (L&D) unit of a large tertiary care facility in a southwestern state in the USA. The unit had 19 suites with close to 6000 laboring patients each year.

PARTICIPANTS

full, part-time, and per diem Registered Nurse (RN) staff (N=80), including a subset (n=18) who served as the pilot group and champions for implementing the change.

FINDINGS

a majority of RNs held a positive attitude toward use of the CWLA to assess laboring women's coping with the pain of labor as compared to a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). RNs reported usefulness in using the CWLA with patients from a wide variety of ethnicities. A pre-existing well-developed team which advocated for evidence-based practice on the unit proved to be a significant strength which promoted rapid change in practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

this work provides important knowledge supporting use of the CWLA in a large tertiary care facility and an approach for effectively implementing that change. Strengths identified in this project contributed to rapid implementation and could be emulated in other facilities. Participant reports support usefulness of the CWLA with patients of varied ethnicity. Assessment of change sustainability at 1 and 6 months demonstrated widespread use of the algorithm though long-term determination is yet needed.