Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour

Esketamine Combined with Dexmedetomidine to reduce Visceral Pain During elective Cesarean Section Under Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia: A double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate the effect of intravenous esketamine combined with dexmedetomidine as supplemental analgesia in reducing intraoperative visceral pain during elective cesarean section under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA).

Patients and Methods

A total of 269 parturients scheduled for elective cesarean section under CSEA between May 2023 and August 2023 were assessed. The parturients were randomly allocated to receiving either intravenous infusion of 0.3-mg/kg esketamine combined with 0.5-μg/kg dexmedetomidine (group ED, n=76), 0.5-μg/kg dexmedetomidine (group D, n=76), or normal saline (group C, n=76) after umbilical cord clamping. The primary outcome was intraoperative visceral pain. Secondary outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain evaluation and other intraoperative complications.

Results

The incidence of visceral pain was lower in group ED [9 (12.7%)] than in group D [32 (43.8%)] and group C [36 (48.6%), P <0.0001]. The VAS score was also lower in group ED when exploring abdominal cavity [0 (0), P <0.0001] and suturing the muscle layer [0 (0), P =0.036]. The mean arterial pressure was higher in group D [83 (9) mmHg] and group ED [81 (11) mmHg] than in group C [75 (10) mmHg, P <0.0001] after solution infusion. The heart rate after infusion of the solution was lower in group D [80 (12) bpm] than in group C [86 (14) bpm] and group ED [85 (12) bpm, P = 0.016]. The incidence of transient neurologic or mental symptoms was higher in group ED compared to group C and group D (76.1% vs 18.9% vs 23.3%, P<0.0001).

Conclusion

During cesarean section, 0.3-mg/kg esketamine combined with 0.5-μg/kg dexmedetomidine can alleviate visceral traction pain and provide stable hemodynamics. Parturients receiving this regimen may experience transient neurologic or mental symptoms that can spontaneously resolve at the end of the surgery.

Non-pharmacological labor pain relive methods: utilization and associated factors among midwives and maternity nurses in Najran, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, pharmacological pain relief methods have been the most acceptable option for controlling labor pain, accompanied by numerous adverse consequences. Non-pharmacological labor pain relive methods can reduce labor pain while maintaining an effective and satisfying delivery experience and delaying the use of pharmacological methods. This study explores the utilization of non-pharmacological labor pain relive methods and its associated factors among midwives and maternity nurses.

METHODS

A cross-sectional research was conducted in Maternal and Children Hospital/Najran, Saudi Arabia, from April to May 2023 and incorporated a convenience sample of 164 midwives and maternity nurses. The data was collected using a self-reported questionnaire composed of five sections; basic data, facility-related factors, non-pharmacological labor pain relive utilization and attitude scales, and knowledge quiz. A logistic regression was used to determine the associated factors with non-pharmacological labor pain relive utilization.

RESULTS

The results revealed that 68.3% of participants utilized non-pharmacological labor pain relive methods. The midwives and maternity nurses helped the parturient to tolerate labor pain by applying the non-pharmacological labor pain relive methods, including; positioning (55.5%), breathing exercises (53.7%), comfortable and relaxing environment (52.4%), therapeutic communication (47%), positive reinforcement (40.9%), relaxation (40.2%), and therapeutic touch (31%). In addition, working unit, providers-patient ratio, working hours, non-pharmacological labor pain relive training, years of experience, and non-pharmacological labor pain relive attitude were significant determinants of non-pharmacological labor pain relive utilization (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

High non-pharmacological labor pain relive utilization was significantly associated with nurses' older age and higher education, working in the delivery room, lower nurse-patient ratio, lower working hours, in-services training, increased years of experience, and positive attitude. The study sheds light on the importance of handling the pre-mentioned factors to enhance non-pharmacological labor pain relive utilization.

Non-Pharmacological Pain Management in Labor: A Systematic Review

Childbirth is a remarkable, life-changing process and is frequently regarded as an excruciating, physically and emotionally demanding experience that women endure. Labor pain management poses a significant challenge for obstetricians and expectant mothers. Although pharmacological pain management is the gold standard, it still imposes risks on the mother and baby. Recently, non-pharmacological pain management (NPPM) has emerged as a safe, effective option. Six databases were searched for articles published up to 2023 using specific related keywords and defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The extraction and gathering of data was made so as to be categorized into physical, psychological, and complementary NPPM techniques. In light of the enormous development and diversity of NPPM techniques, the present review aims to examine contemporary NPPM knowledge and application, discussing efficacy, advantages, limitations, and potential adverse effects, with a specific focus on women's individual requirements, to strengthen obstetricians' knowledge in guiding decision-making for women in childbirth.

Assessment of availability and challenges of WHO recommended priority life-saving medicines for under five-year children in primary public health facilities of Amhara region

BACKGROUND

The world health organization (WHO) priority lifesaving medicines are medicines recommended for the prevention and treatment of leading causes of under-five morbidity and mortality. They should be available in all health systems and at all times. However, the availability of these medicines and its determinants is not well studied in Ethiopia in general and in primary public health facilities Amhara region in particular.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the availability and challenges of the WHO-recommended priority lifesaving medicines for under-five children in primary public health facilities of the Amhara region.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was conducted from February to December 2020 in 98 health centers and 22 primary hospitals in the Amhara region, Ethiopia. Facilities were selected with a simple random sampling technique. The data were collected through a pretested and structured questionnaire. Binary logistic regression was used to identify predictors associated with availability of WHO-recommended priority lifesaving medicines for under-five children.

RESULTS

The availability of oral rehydration salt was high (82.5%) and the availability of vitamin A (47.5%), morphine tablet (13.3%), and artesunate rectal suppository (7.5%) were within low and very low WHO range respectively. Budget adequacy (AOR = 12.9 CI= (2.1-78.2)), periodic review of stock level ((AOR = 13.4,CI=(1.9-92.0)), training on integrated pharmaceutical logistic system ((AOR = 4.5,CI=(1.0-20.5)), inclusion of WHO priority under five children facility specific medicine list (AOR = 12.4,CI=(2.3-66.4)), lead time for EPSA(Ethiopia Pharmaceutical Supply Agency) procurement (AOR = 7.9,CI=(1.3-44.8)) were significantly associated with availability of all WHO priority lifesaving medicines for under- five children.

CONCLUSION

The average availability of WHO-recommended priority lifesaving medicines for under-five children was low. The habit of updating bincard and adoption of the life-saving medicine list were the independent predictors of medication availability.

Sedative administration in Spanish hospitals in the context of perinatal loss: findings from a mixed-methods study

This article explores the contexts, processes and motivations behind the administration of sedatives (minor tranquilisers) in the time around perinatal loss. Using a mixed methods design, an online survey of 796 women and 13 narrative interviews were conducted. The participants had experienced a stillbirth or termination of pregnancy from 16 weeks or a neonatal death in Spanish hospitals. The quantitative (univariate and CHAID decision-tree) and qualitative (narrative-linguistic) analysis found that sedative administration was pervasive across care contexts and appears to be naturalised despite contradicting practice recommendations. Sedative administration was associated with emotional control and avoidance of loss, lack of accompaniment and on occasion with managing disruptive patients. Lack of informed consent was very common, with little explanation of side-effects prior to administration. In the participants' narratives, health professionals tended to construct sedatives as benign, but for some women the effects were counterproductive to loss and grief and related to persistent regrets about decisions. The study concludes that, in the context of perinatal loss, sedative administration was highly integrated into the fabric of medicalised care. As a socio-political and cultural practice underscored by gender-based care dynamics, there seems to be an imbalance between benefit and risk to women's welfare.

Virtual Reality Experience during Labour (VIREL); a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that virtual reality (VR) is effective in the reduction of labour pain. The implementation of alternative methods like VR to reduce labour pain can contribute to reduce patient request for pharmacological pain management methods and associated side effects. The aim of this study is to examine women's experiences, preferences and satisfaction in regard to the use of VR during labour.

METHODS

A qualitative interview study was conducted in a non-university teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Two VR applications, respectively a guided meditation and an interactive game were tested in eligible women with a singleton pregnancy, scheduled for induction of labour. For the primary outcome, patients' VR experience and application preference (meditation vs. game) were examined using a post-intervention questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. Three categories (with sub-categories) were used to guide interviews: "The VR experience", "Pain reduction", and "Usability of the VR application". Labour pain before and directly after VR was evaluated using the NRS score.

RESULTS

Twenty-four women, of whom 14 were nulliparous and ten multiparous, were included and 12 of these women participated in semi-structured interviews. Using within-subject paired t-test comparisons, compared to pain pre-VR, patients reported a highly significant 26% decrease in mean NRS scores during VR meditation (pain pre-VR = 6.71 + - 1.65 vs. pain after VR = 4.96 + - 2.01) [p < 0.001]. Compared to pain before VR game, patients also reported a highly significant 19% decrease in mean NRS scores during VR game (pain before VR game = 6.89 + - 1.88 vs. pain after VR game = 5.61 + - 2.23) [p = 0.001].

CONCLUSION

All women were highly satisfied with VR use during labour. Patients reported a highly significant reduction in pain during the interactive VR game and during meditation, patients preferred guided meditation. These results can contribute to the development of a potential promising new non-pharmacological tool to reduce labour pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04858984, date of registration: 26/04/2021 (retrospectively registered).

The Effects of Virtual Reality in Maternal Delivery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Extreme labor pain has negative effects; pharmacologic analgesic modalities are effective but are accompanied by adverse effects. Virtual reality (VR) works as a distracting nonpharmacologic intervention for pain and anxiety relief; however, the effects of VR use in laboring women is unknown.

Objective

Our study aimed to determine the safety and effectiveness of VR technology during labor and delivery and investigate whether it impacts labor and patient satisfaction.

Methods

In all, 7 databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wan-Fang Database) were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials of VR use in pregnancy and childbirth from the time of database construction until November 24, 2021. Two researchers extracted data and evaluated study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. Outcome measures were labor pain, anxiety, duration, satisfaction, and adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed where possible.

Results

A total of 12 studies with 1095 participants were included, of which 1 and 11 studies were rated as “Low risk” and “Some concerns” for risk of bias, respectively. Of the 12 studies, 11 reported labor pain, 7 reported labor anxiety, and 4 reported labor duration. Meta-analysis revealed that VR use could relieve pain during labor (mean difference –1.81, 95% CI –2.04 to –1.57; P<.001) and the active period (standardized mean difference [SMD] –0.41, 95% CI –0.68 to –0.14; P=.003); reduce anxiety (SMD –1.39, 95% CI –1.99 to –0.78; P<.001); and improve satisfaction with delivery (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.10-1.59; P=.003). The effects of VR on the duration of the first (SMD –1.12, 95% CI –2.38 to 0.13; P=.08) and second (SMD –0.22, 95% CI –0.67 to 0.24; P=.35) stages of labor were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

VR is safe and effective in relieving maternal labor pain and anxiety; however, due to the heterogeneity among studies conducted to date, more rigorous, large-scale, and standardized randomized controlled trials are required to provide a higher-quality evidence base for the use of VR technology in maternal labor, with the aim of improving experience and outcomes.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42021295410; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=295410

Sterile water injections for relief of labour pain (the SATURN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Up to 80% of women use some form of pharmacological analgesia during labour and birth. The side effects of pharmacological agents are often incompatible with the concurrent use of non-pharmacological pain relieving strategies, such as water immersion, ambulation and upright positioning, or may have negative effects on both the mother and fetus. Sterile water injections given into the skin of the lumbar region have been demonstrated to reduce back pain during labour. However, the injections given for back pain have no effect on abdominal contraction pain. The analgesic efficacy of sterile water injections for abdominal pain during childbirth is unknown. The injections cause an immediate, brief but significant pain that deters some women from using the procedure. This study aims to investigate the use of water injections given intradermally into the abdomen to relieve labour contraction pain. A vapocoolant spray will be applied to the skin immediately prior to the injections to reduce the injection pain.

Methods

In this pragmatic, placebo controlled trial 154 low-risk women in labour at term with a labour pain score ≥ 60 on a 100 millimitre visual analogue scale (VAS) will be randomly allocated to receive either six injections of sterile water or a sodium chloride 0.9% solution as a placebo (0.1–.0.3 ml per injection). Three injections are given along the midline from the fundus to the supra-pubis and three laterally across the supra-pubis. The primary outcome will be the difference in VAS score 30 min post injection between groups. Secondary outcomes include VAS score of the injection pain on administration, VAS score of labour pain at 60 and 90 min, maternal and neonatal birth outcomes.

Discussion

Access to effective pain relief during labour is fundamental to respectful and safe maternity care. Pharmacological analgesics should support rather than limit other non-pharmacological strategies. Sterile water injections have the potential to provide an alternative form of labour pain relief that is easy to administer in any labour and birth setting, and compatible with other non-pharmacological choices.

Trial registration

ANZCTR (ACTRN12621001036808) Date submitted: 22/06/2021. Date registered: 05/08/2021. https://www.anzctr.org.au/

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06093-3.

Investigating dissemination of scientific information on Twitter: A study of topic networks in opioid publications

While previous research has mostly focused on the “number of mentions” of scientific research on social media, the current study applies “topic networks” to measure public attention to scientific research on Twitter. Topic networks are the networks of co-occurring author keywords in scholarly publications and networks of co-occurring hashtags in the tweets mentioning those publications. We investigate which topics in opioid scholarly publications have received public attention on Twitter. Additionally, we investigate whether the topic networks generated from the publications tweeted by all accounts (bot and nonbot accounts) differ from those generated by nonbot accounts. Our analysis is based on a set of opioid publications from 2011 to 2019 and the tweets associated with them. Results indicated that Twitter users have mostly used generic terms to discuss opioid publications, such as “Pain,” “Addiction,” “Analgesics,” “Abuse,” “Overdose,” and “Disorders.” A considerable amount of tweets is produced by accounts that were identified as automated social media accounts, known as bots. There was a substantial overlap between the topic networks based on the tweets by all accounts (bot and nonbot accounts). This result indicates that it might not be necessary to exclude bot accounts for generating topic networks as they have a negligible impact on the results. This study provided some preliminary evidence that scholarly publications have a network agenda-setting effect on Twitter.

The Effect of Pethidine Analgesia on Labor Duration and Maternal-Fetal Outcomes

Background and Aim:

Opioid analgesics had been used from time to time for treating labor pain. However, their use have been concerning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of pethidine on duration of active phase of labor, labor pain and maternal-neonatal outcomes.

Methods:

In the present case-control study, the study group received a 50 mg pethidine intramuscular injection upon the start of active phase of labor, and the control group consisted of patients who receive placebo injeciton. In both groups, vital signs were measured before, and at 0, 5, 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes after the injection. Pain intensity was evaluated with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) prior to, and 1 hour and 2 hours after injection. Data regarding labor phase durations, maternal side effects, newborn APGAR scores and fetal respiratory problems were recorded.

Results:

102 patients in Pethidine group and 92 patients in control group, were included into the study. Labor pain VAS-scores were significantly lower in the study group (p<0.001). Moreover, active phase of labor duration was significantly shorter in the study group (p<0.001). Maternal pulse significantly decreased, and maternal nausea-vomiting was frequent in the study groups. However, the groups were similar in terms of other side effects and neonatal outcomes.

Conclusions:

Pethidine significantly reduces active phase of labor duration, has a favorable analgesic effect in treating labor pain and is not associated with serious maternal or neonatal complications. It is therefore considered an acceptable agent for use during active phase of labor. (www.actabiomedica.it)

The Analgesic Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation on Labor: A Randomized Control Study

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the analgesic effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on labor.

Methods

Primiparas with single birth and head presentation were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into three groups: TEAS group (n = 76), patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) group (n = 75), and control group without any analgesic measures (n = 78).

Results

Compared with the control group, the visual analog scores of the TEAS group and the PCEA group at each time point decreased (P < 0.01). The decrease was greater in the PCEA group than that in the TEAS group (P < 0.01). At 120 minutes after analgesia, there were significant differences in plasma β-endorphin content between the TEAS group, PCEA group, and control group (P < 0.01). The difference between the PCEA group and the control group was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Among the parturients having a vaginal delivery, the duration of the first stage of labor was significantly shorter in the TEAS group and control group than in the PCEA group (P < 0.01). The duration of the second stage of labor was significantly shorter in the TEAS group than in the PCEA group (P < 0.01). Oxytocin usage rate during labor was significantly lower in the TEAS group and control group than in the PCEA group (P < 0.01), and adverse reactions were significantly fewer in the TEAS group and control group than in the PCEA group (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

The duration of the first and second stage of labor is significantly shorter in the TEAS group than in the PCEA group. TEAS does not increase the use rate of oxytocin or the rate of cesarean section and will not bring about obvious maternal or fetal adverse reactions.

Effectiveness of breathing exercises, foot reflexology and back massage (BRM) on labour pain, anxiety, duration, satisfaction, stress hormones and newborn outcomes among primigravidae during the first stage of labour in Saudi Arabia: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Labour pain is among the severest pains primigravidae may experience during pregnancy. Failure to address labour pain and anxiety may lead to abnormal labour. Despite the many complementary non-pharmacological approaches to coping with labour pain, the quality of evidence is low and best approaches are not established. This study protocol describes a proposed investigation of the effects of a combination of breathing exercises, foot reflexology and back massage (BRM) on the labour experiences of primigravidae.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomised controlled trial will involve an intervention group receiving BRM and standard labour care, and a control group receiving only standard labour care. Primigravidae of 26-34 weeks of gestation without chronic diseases or pregnancy-related complications will be recruited from antenatal clinics. Eligible and consenting patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or the control group stratified by intramuscular pethidine use. The BRM intervention will be delivered by a trained massage therapist. The primary outcomes of labour pain and anxiety will be measured during and after uterine contractions at baseline (cervical dilatation 6 cm) and post BRM hourly for 2 hours. The secondary outcomes include maternal stress hormone (adrenocorticotropic hormone, cortisol and oxytocin) levels, maternal vital signs (V/S), fetal heart rate, labour duration, Apgar scores and maternal satisfaction. The sample size is estimated based on the between-group difference of 0.6 in anxiety scores, 95% power and 5% α error, which yields a required sample size of 154 (77 in each group) accounting for a 20% attrition rate. The between-group and within-group outcome measures will be examined with mixed-effect regression models, time series analyses and paired t-test or equivalent non-parametric tests, respectively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects of the Ministry of Health in the Saudi Arabia (H-02-K-076-0319-109) on 14 April 2019, and from the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (JKEUPM) Universiti Putra Malaysia on 23 October 2019, reference number: JKEUPM-2019-169. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results from this trial will be presented at regional, national and international conferences and published in indexed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN87414969, registered 3 May 2019.

Pain management for medical and surgical termination of pregnancy between 13 and 24 weeks of gestation: a systematic review

Background

High‐quality care for termination of pregnancy (TOP) requires pain to be effectively managed; however, practices differ, and the available guidelines do not specify optimal strategies.

Objective

To guide providers in effective pain management for second‐trimester medical and surgical TOP.

Search strategy

We searched PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases, and the US National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry, from inception to the end of June 2019, and hand‐searched reference lists.

Selection criteria

Trials comparing pain management strategies with no treatment, placebo or active interventions during induced medical or surgical TOP, occurring between 13 and 24 weeks of gestation, and reporting direct or indirect measures of pain.

Data collection and analysis

Both authors summarised and systematically assessed the evidence and risk of bias using standard tools.

Main results

We included seven medical and four surgical TOP studies, with 453 and 349 participants, respectively. The heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes prevented pooled analyses. Medical TOP: women receiving routine or continuous epidural analgesia experienced mild pain. The prophylactic use of nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decreased pain (mean difference −0.5, P < 0.001) and additional opioid requirements (3.5 versus 7 mg, P = 0.04) compared with placebo/other treatment. Paracervical block was ineffective. No studies assessed intramuscular (IM)/intravenous (IV) opioid or nonpharmacological treatment. Surgical TOP: general anaesthesia/deep IV sedation alleviated pain. Nitrous oxide was ineffective. No studies assessed moderate IV sedation, IV/IM opioid, paracervical block without sedation, NSAID or nonpharmacological treatment.

Conclusion

Based on limited data, regional analgesia and NSAIDs mitigated second‐trimester medical TOP pain; general anaesthesia/deep IV sedation alleviated surgical TOP pain.

Tweetable abstract

Although women experience intense pain during second‐trimester termination of pregnancy, few data are available to inform their treatment.

Although women experience intense pain during second‐trimester termination of pregnancy, few data are available to inform their treatment.

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.

Qualitative exploration of women's experiences of intramuscular pethidine or remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia for labour pain

OBJECTIVES

To explore women's experiences of remifentanil or pethidine for labour pain and infant feeding behaviours at 6weeks post partum.

DESIGN

Qualitative postnatal sub-study to the randomised controlled trial of remifentanil intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) versus intramuscular pethidine for pain relief in labour (RESPITE). Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted at 6 weeks post partum, and thematic analysis was undertaken.

SETTING

Women recruited to the RESPITE trial from seven UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty women consented and 49 (30 remifentanil group and 19 pethidine group) completed the interview.

RESULTS

Eight themes emerged which encompassed women's antenatal plans for pain management (Birth Expectations) through to their future preferences for pain relief (Reflections for Future Choices). Many women who used remifentanil felt it provided effective pain relief (Effectiveness of Pain Relief), whereas women in the pethidine group expressed more mixed views. Both groups described side effects, with women using pethidine frequently reporting nausea (Negative Physiological Responses) and women using remifentanil describing more cognitive effects (Cognitive Effects). Some women who used remifentanil reported restricted movements due to technical aspects of drug administration and fear of analgesia running out (Issues with Drug Administration). Women described how remifentanil enabled them to maintain their ability to stay focused during the birth (Enabling a Sense of Control). There was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and continuation between pethidine and remifentanil groups (Impact on Infant Behaviour and Breastfeeding).

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative insights from a follow-up study to a trial which explored experiences of intravenous remifentanil PCA with intramuscular pethidine injection found that remifentanil appeared to provide effective pain relief while allowing women to remain alert and focused during labour, although as with pethidine, some side effects were noted. Overall, there was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and duration between the two groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN29654603.

Relation between Length of Exposure to Epidural Analgesia during Labour and Birth Mode

Objective: To appraise the relationship between the length of exposure to epidural analgesia and the risk of non-spontaneous birth, and to identify additional risk factors. This study is framed within the MidconBirth project. Study design: A multicentre prospective study was conducted between July 2016 and November 2017 in three maternity hospitals in different Spanish regions. The independent variable of the study was the length of exposure to epidural analgesia, and the dependent variable was the type of birth in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. The data was analyzed separately by parity. A multivariate logistic regression was performed. The odds ratios (OR), using 95% confidence intervals (CI) were constructed. Main outcome measures: During the study period, 807 eligible women gave birth. Non-spontaneous births occurred in 29.37% of the sample, and 75.59% received oxytocin for augmentation of labour. The mean exposure length to epidural analgesia when non-spontaneous birth happened was 8.05 for primiparous and 6.32 for multiparous women (5.98 and 3.37 in spontaneous birth, respectively). A logistic regression showed the length of exposure to epidural during labour was the major predictor for non-spontaneous births in primiparous and multiparous women followed by use of oxytocin (multiparous group). Conclusions: The length of exposure to epidural analgesia during labour is associated with non-spontaneous births in our study. It highlights the need for practice change through the development of clinical guidelines, training programs for professionals and the continuity of midwifery care in order to support women to cope with labour pain using less invasive forms of analgesia. Women also need to be provided with evidence-based information.

Nurses and midwives' experiences of using non-pharmacological interventions for labour pain management: a qualitative study in Ghana

BACKGROUND

Non-pharmacological interventions hold promise in reducing labour pain, with minimal or no harm to the mother, foetus and the progress of labour and are simple and cost-effective. Yet their use has not been adequately explored in clinical settings, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

This was a descriptive phenomenological study. Fifteen (15) nurses and midwives working in labour wards of two hospitals in Ghana were interviewed. Data analysis was guided by the principles of coding by Bailey and the constant comparative approach to generate themes. Ethics approval was obtained from the 37 Military Teaching Hospital Institutional Review Board in Ghana.

RESULTS

Three major themes were identified that described the experiences of nurses and midwives regarding their use of non-pharmacological interventions in managing labour pain. These were familiarity with non-pharmacological interventions, perceived benefits of non-pharmacological interventions, and barriers to the use of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of labour pain.

CONCLUSIONS

While some non-pharmacological pain management interventions were known and used by the nurses and midwives, they were not familiar with a good number of these interventions. Nurses and midwives perceived these interventions to be beneficial yet a number of barriers prevented easy utilisation.

Pethidine in Low Doses versus Dipyrone for Pain Relief in Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

 To compare low doses of pethidine with dipyrone in labor analgesia.

METHODS

 In a randomized prospective study conducted by Universidade de Fortaleza, in the state of Ceará, Brazil, between May and December 2016, 200 full-term parturients, with very painful uterine contractions and exhibiting uterine cervix dilatation ≥ 5 cm, were selected to receive a single intravenous dose of either 0.25 mg/kg of pethidine (n = 100) or of 25 mg/kg of dipyrone (n = 100). Pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale. The data were analyzed using the Student t-test, the chi-square test and the likelihood ratio.

RESULTS

 There was a significant improvement in pain in 35% of the parturients. Both drugs presented a similar analgesic effect 1 hour after the intervention (p = 0.692). There was no analgesic effect during the evaluation of the second hour after the intervention with pethidine or dipyrone. There were no adverse effects, such as maternal drowsiness, nausea or vomiting, related to the drugs used.

CONCLUSION

 Pethidine in low doses and dipyrone presented equivalent analgesia during labor.

PUBLIC REGISTRY OF CLINICAL TRIALS

 RBR-4hsyy4.

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour.

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial.

SETTING

15 hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data.

INTERVENTION

Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia versus epidural analgesia in labour. A multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain relief during labour is a topic of major interest in the Netherlands. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most effective method of pain relief and recommended as first choice. However its uptake by pregnant women is limited compared to other western countries, partly as a result of non-availability due to logistic problems. Remifentanil, a synthetic opioid, is very suitable for patient controlled analgesia. Recent studies show that epidural analgesia is superior to remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in terms of pain intensity score; however there was no difference in satisfaction with pain relief between both treatments.

METHODS/DESIGN

The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled study that assesses the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil patient controlled analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is as effective in improving pain appreciation scores as epidural analgesia, with lower costs and easier achievement of 24 hours availability of pain relief for women in labour and efficient pain relief for those with a contraindication for epidural analgesia.Eligible women will be informed about the study and randomized before active labour has started. Women will be randomly allocated to a strategy based on epidural analgesia or on remifentanil patient controlled analgesia when they request pain relief during labour. Primary outcome is the pain appreciation score, i.e. satisfaction with pain relief.Secondary outcome parameters are costs, patient satisfaction, pain scores (pain-intensity), mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal side effects.The economic analysis will be performed from a short-term healthcare perspective. For both strategies the cost of perinatal care for mother and child, starting at the onset of labour and ending ten days after delivery, will be registered and compared.

DISCUSSION

This study, considering cost effectiveness of remifentanil as first choice analgesia versus epidural analgesia, could strongly improve the care for 180.000 women, giving birth in the Netherlands yearly by giving them access to pain relief during labour, 24 hours a day.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch Trial Register NTR2551, http://www.trialregister.nl.