A comparative study of patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and continuous infusion epidural analgesia (CIEA) during labour

Effects of different neuraxial analgesia modalities on the need for physician interventions in labour: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuraxial labour analgesia can be initiated with epidural (EPL), combined spinal epidural (CSE) or dural puncture epidural (DPE) and maintained with continuous epidural infusion (CEI), patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), but the optimal analgesia modality is still controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of commonly used neuraxial analgesia modalities on the proportion of women needing physician interventions, as defined by the need for physician-administered epidural top-ups for inadequate analgesia in labour.

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Wanfang Data were searched from January 1988 to August 2023 without language restriction.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more modalities of the following six neuraxial analgesia modalities in healthy labouring women: EPL+CEI+PCEA, EPL+PIEB+PCEA, CSE+CEI+PCEA, CSE+PIEB+PCEA, DPE+CEI+PCEA and DPE+PIEB+PCEA.

RESULTS

Thirty studies with 8188 women were included. Compared with EPL+CEI+PCEA, EPL+PIEB+PCEA [odds ratio (OR) = 0.44; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.22 to 0.86], CSE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.29; 95% CrI, 0.12 to 0.71) and DPE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.19; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.42) significantly reduced the proportion of women needing physician interventions. DPE+PIEB+PCEA had fewer women needing physician interventions than all other modalities, except for CSE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.63; 95% CrI, 0.25 to 1.62). There were no significant differences in local anaesthetic consumption, maximum pain score, and the incidence of instrumental delivery between the different neuraxial modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

PIEB+PCEA is associated with a lower risk of physician interventions in labour than CEI+PCEA. DPE or CSE and PIEB+PCEA may be associated with a lower likelihood of physician interventions than other neuraxial modalities. Otherwise, the new neuraxial analgesia techniques do not appear to offer significant advantages over traditional techniques. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to limited data and methodological limitations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42023402540).

Assessing Continuous Epidural Infusion and Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus for Their Effectiveness in Providing Labor Analgesia: A Mono-Centric Retrospective Comparative Study

Background and Objectives: Local anesthetics administered via epidural catheters have evolved from intermittent top-ups to simultaneous administration of continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using the same device. The latest programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) model is believed to create a wider and more even distribution of analgesia inside the epidural space. The switch from CEI + PCEA to PIEB + PCEA in our department began in 2018; however, we received conflicting feedback regarding workload from the quality assurance team. This study aimed to investigate the benefits and drawbacks of this conversion, including the differences in acute pain service (APS) staff workload, maternal satisfaction, side effects, and complications before and after the changeover. Materials and Methods: Items from the APS records included total delivery time, average local anesthetic dosage, and the formerly mentioned items. The incidence of side effects, the association between the duration of delivery and total dosage, and hourly medication usage in the time subgroups of the CEI and PIEB groups were compared. The staff workload incurred from rescue bolus injection, catheter adjustment, and dosage adjustment was also analyzed. Results: The final analysis included 214 and 272 cases of CEI + PCEA and PIEB + PCEA for labor analgesia, respectively. The total amount of medication and average hourly dosage were significantly lower in the PIEB + PCEA group. The incidences of dosage change, manual bolus, extra visits per patient, and lidocaine use for rescue bolus were greater in the PIEB + PCEA group, indicating an increased staff workload. However, the two groups did not differ in CS rates, labor time, maternal satisfaction, and side effects. Conclusions: This study revealed that while PIEB + PCEA maintained the advantage of decreasing total drug doses, it inadvertently increased the staff burden. Increased workload might be a consideration in clinical settings when choosing between different methods of PCEA.

Combined Programmed Intermittent Bolus and Patient-Controlled Bolus Is a More Favorable Setting for Epidural Pain Relief Than Continuous Infusion

Epidural analgesia is a suitable and effective treatment for labor pain. However, the preferable modality setting for delivery remains debatable. This study adopted a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) setting in conjunction with a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) setting to improve the quality of labor analgesia and reduce the number of medical staff. We conducted a prospective observational analysis of primigravida parturients scheduled for spontaneous labor, which required epidural analgesia for painless labor. A total of 483 healthy primigravida parturients with singleton pregnancies were included in this cohort; 135 nulliparous patients were assigned to the continuous infusion setting (CEI) group and 348 to the PIEB + PCEA group. Compared to the CEI setting, the PIEB + PCEA setting significantly reduced the manual rescue by the clinician, extended the time required for the first manual rescue dose, and acclaimed good maternal satisfaction. The use of the CEI mode increased for poor performance requiring more than two rescues with an odds ratio of 2.635 by a binary logistic regression analysis. Using the PIEB + PCEA setting as the maintenance infusion had a longer duration for the first requested manual rescue, fewer manual rescue boluses, excellent satisfaction, and no significant increase in adverse events compared to the CEI setting.

Modern labor epidural analgesia: implications for labor outcomes and maternal-fetal health

Epidural analgesia is an important means of pain control during labor throughout the world. Over its historic development, it has been implicated in several undesirable outcomes, including prolongation of labor and increased need for operative delivery. These effects have emerged in some retrospective and observational studies, but such methods of investigation are highly prone to bias and are particularly ill-suited for the study of labor analgesia. In high-quality studies, including Cochrane reviews and meta-analyses, epidural analgesia has been suggested to extend the first stage of labor by 30 minutes and the second stage by 15 minutes, when compared with alternative forms of analgesia. Although this may be a reproducible effect, it may be argued that it is clinically negligible. With respect to mode of delivery, similar high-quality studies have consistently shown no increased risk of cesarean delivery associated with epidural analgesia. Some forms of epidural analgesia were associated with higher risk of assisted vaginal delivery, but the use of newer modalities has been shown to abolish this effect. Specific advancements have centered on reducing total anesthetic consumption, given that local anesthetic-induced motor block is theorized to interfere with maternal expulsive efforts in the second stage of labor. These measures include the use of low-concentration local anesthetic solutions equivalent to ≤0.1% bupivacaine, shown in meta-analyses to lead to no higher risk of assisted vaginal delivery relative to nonepidural analgesia. Additional advancements in the maintenance of analgesia include programmed intermittent epidural bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia, the combination of which has been shown to reduce the risk of assisted vaginal delivery, also likely mediated by reduction in local anesthetic dose. These techniques have gained popularity in the past two decades, such that studies published since 2005 show no higher risk of assisted vaginal delivery with epidural than with opioid analgesia (as reported in a Cochrane review). Labor epidural analgesia has implications for maternal and fetal health perinatally. It is known to result in transient maternal hypotension (particularly with initiation), which may progress to the level of necessitating fluid or vasopressor therapy. This is not clearly associated with any adverse outcomes. There is also a consistently higher incidence of fever in parturients receiving neuraxial anesthesia, likely of noninfectious origin, which has similarly not been associated with adverse neonatal outcomes. Finally, neonates of parturients who receive epidural analgesia have been shown to have no worse Apgar scores and more favorable acid-base status than their counterparts. These observations should serve to reassure providers that modern labor analgesia, as currently understood, is not consistently associated with any significant adverse outcomes for the parturient or fetus. In this review, we describe variations of modern labor epidural analgesia, conduct an in-depth review of current literature on its use, and explore the most up-to-date evidence on its implications for the progression and outcomes of labor, including the pertinent maternal and fetal side effects.

Neuraxial labor analgesia: Maintenance techniques

Since the advent of neuraxial analgesia for labor, approaches to maintaining intrapartum pain relief have seen significant advancement. Through pharmacologic innovations and improved drug delivery mechanisms, current neuraxial labor analgesia maintenance techniques have been shaped by efforts to maximize patient comfort during the birthing process, while minimizing undesirable side effects and promoting the unimpeded progress of labor. To these ends, a modern anesthesiologist may avail themselves of several techniques, including programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and dilute concentration local anesthetic + opioid epidural solutions. We explore the historical development and the evidential underpinnings of these techniques, in addition to several contemporary neuraxial labor analgesia practices. We also summarize current understanding of the effects these interventions have on maternal/fetal health and the labor course, as well as several important aspects of analgesic safety and monitoring.

Ropivacaine continuous wound infusion after mastectomy with immediate autologous breast reconstruction: A retrospective observational study

Continuous wound infusion usually provides postoperative analgesia as a multimodal analgesia with systemic opioid use. When continuous wound infusion of local anesthetics (LA) supports successful postoperative analgesia without systemic opioid use, the side effects of opioid can be reduced. Nevertheless, continuous wound infusion after mastectomy with immediate autologous breast reconstruction leads to concerns about wound healing. This study evaluated analgesic effects and wound healing conditions of continuous wound infusion of LA compared with opioid-based, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) in mastectomy with immediate autologous breast reconstruction.This retrospective observational study included females, aged between 33 and 67 years, who underwent mastectomy with immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Sixty-five patients were enrolled. The eligible patients were placed into 2 groups for managing postoperative pain, one used continuous wound infusion with 0.5% ropivacaine (ON-Q, n = 32) and the other used a fentanyl-based IV PCA (IV PCA, n = 33). Using the electronic medical record system, the postoperative recovery profiles were examined over 5 days using a visual analogue scale (VAS), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), incidence of sleep disturbance, frequency of rescue analgesic use, analgesia-related adverse events, length of hospital stay, and degree of patient satisfaction. The condition of the surgical wound was observed for 1 year after surgery.The primary endpoint was the intensity of pain at 6 hours after surgery. The VAS was comparable between the groups (P > .05). Although recovery profiles and the degree of patient satisfaction were similar between the groups, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the ON-Q group than in the IV PCA group on the day of surgery and postoperative day 1. No patients had severe wound complications. The satisfaction score of analgesia in the ON-Q group was comparable with that of the patients in the IV PCA group.This study demonstrates that single use of continuous wound infusion showed comparable analgesia with fentanyl-based IV PCA in patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Furthermore, the continuous infusion of LA directly on the surgical site did not significantly affect wound healing.

Parturient Controlled Epidural Analgesia with and without Basal Infusion of Ropivacaine and Fentanyl: A Randomized Trial

Introduction:

Parturient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is an established method of providing safe and effective labor analgesia.

Objective:

The aim of this single-blind, randomized controlled trial was to compare the efficacy of PCEA with or without basal infusion (BI) of ropivacaine and fentanyl for the effective management of labor pain associated with normal vaginal delivery.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 78 nulliparous parturients with vertex presentation at term and with cervical dilatation of 3–5 cm demanding for epidural analgesia (EA) were enrolled in the study. EA was initiated and maintained with ropivacaine 0.125% and fentanyl 2 μg/mL. Following an initial epidural loading volume of 8–10 mL, parturients were randomly allocated in two groups of 39 each. PCEA group received bolus of 5 mL at 200 mL/h with lockout interval of 15 min and with maximum volume of local anaesthetic was 20 mL/h and PCEA + BI group – receiving added BI rate of 5 mL/h along with same programmed parameters of PCEA pump.

Results:

No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of demographic characteristics, duration of labor, delivery methods, maternal satisfaction as well as Apgar score. Mean demand bolus in group PCEA + BI was 0.39 ± 0.59, whereas in group PCEA was 3.31 ± 0.77 (P < 0.05). Mean volume of drug used in group PCEA + BI was 25.57 ± 2.75 mL, while in group PCEA was 22.42 ± 4.56 mL (P = 0.0005). In PCEA + BI group, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was 0.07 ± 0.35 at 60 min and 0.06 ± 0.33 at 120 min, whereas in PCEA group, VAS was 0.32 ± 0.62 at 60 min and 0.26 ± 0.50 at 120 min (P = 0.05), respectively.

Conclusion:

BI when added to PCEA, it significantly reduces breakthrough labor pain and demand boluses without prolonging labor duration but at the cost of increased requirement of drug volume when compared to PCEA only group.

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.

Pain management during labor and vaginal birth

Neuraxial analgesia provides excellent pain relief in labor. Optimizing initiation and maintenance of neuraxial labor analgesia requires different strategies. Combined spinal-epidurals or dural puncture epidurals may offer advantages over traditional epidurals. Ultrasound is useful in certain patients. Maintenance of analgesia is best achieved with a background regimen (either programmed intermittent boluses or a continuous epidural infusion) supplemented with patient-controlled epidural analgesia and using dilute local anesthetics combined with opioids such as fentanyl. Nitrous oxide and systemic opioids are also used for pain relief. Nitrous oxide may improve satisfaction despite variable effects on pain. Systemic opioids can be administered by healthcare providers or using patient-controlled analgesia. Appropriate choice of drug should take into account the stage and progression of labor, local safety protocols, and maternal and fetal/neonatal side effects. Pain in labor is complex, and women should fully participate in the decision-making process before any one modality is selected.

Comparison between different epidural analgesia modalities for labor

INTRODUCTION

In recent years new modalities of epidural analgesia maintenance (EA) have been introduced.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare different modalities of EA maintenance for childbirth relating the time of expulsive and dilatation, motor blockade and delivery instrumentation (caesarean section, sucker, forceps, eutocic delivery or non-instrumented delivery).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients admitted for labor in the University Hospital Nuestra Señora de Candelaria between January 2013 and December 2015 were included. Independent modalities of EA, continuous infusion (CI), continuous infusion plus analgesia patient controlled epidural analgesia were determined as independent variables (CI+PCEA) and intermittent programmed epidural boluses plus patient controlled epidural analgesia (PIEB+PCEA).

RESULTS

There are no differences in expulsive time or dilation. There is a difference in the type of instrumentation, caesarean section, sucker, forceps, eutocic delivery or non-instrumented delivery (P>.05), with the percentage of eutocic deliveries in PIEB+PCEA of 66 versus 60 in CI and 65 in CI+PCEA. The percentage of caesarean sections was 23 in CI, in CI+PCEA and PIEB+PCEA of 17. CI increases by 27% the possibility of instrumented deliveries respect to PIEB+PCEA, there is no difference between CI+PCEA and PIEB+PCEA. The motor blockade at 60 and 90minutes reaches lower values with PIEB+PCEA with an average of 0 and a range of 0-1, compared to CI+PCEA 0 (0-4). Satisfaction with CI+PCEA ranges from 2-10 and with PIEB+PCEA 0-10.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to say that PIEB+PCEA is associated with higher frequency of non-instrumented deliveries. The possibility of instrumented deliveries increases with CI versus PIEB+PCEA. There is less motor block with PIEB+PCEA than with CI+PCEA. There are no differences in time of dilatation, expulsion, or patient satisfaction.

Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia following Combined Spinal-epidural Analgesia in Labour: The Effects of Adding a Continuous Epidural Infusion

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is used to maintain epidural analgesia following initial intrathecal analgesia. This trial investigated whether a continuous background infusion with PCEA provides superior analgesia to PCEA alone among patients who received combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia during labour.

Eighty parturients were randomized to either PCEA alone (PCEA) or PCEA with a background infusion of ropivacaine 0.15% with sufentanil 0.75 μg/ml at 2 ml/h (PCEA+CEI). PCEA settings were a bolus of 4 ml of the same analgesic solution with a lockout interval of 15 minutes.

Significantly more patients in the PCEA group required at least one anaesthetist intervention for breakthrough pain (27 [71%] vs 10 [25%] in the PCEA+CEI group, P<0.05). Consumption of local anaesthetic (excluding manually administered boluses) was similar between the groups. If anaesthetist-administered boluses were included, more local anaesthetic was consumed by the PCEA group (47.1±19.4 mg vs 35.6±12.0 mg in the PCEA+CEI group, P<0.05).

We conclude that PCEA with a background infusion provides effective analgesia with less anaesthetist workload and reduced local anaesthetic consumption as compared with PCEA without a background infusion.

Automated mandatory bolus versus basal infusion for maintenance of epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

Childbirth may cause the most severe pain some women experience in their lifetime. Epidural analgesia is an effective form of pain relief during labour and is considered to be the reference standard. Traditionally epidural analgesia has been delivered as a continuous infusion via a catheter in the epidural space, with or without the ability for the patient to supplement the analgesia received by activating a programmable pump to deliver additional top-up doses, known as patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). There has been interest in delivering maintenance analgesic medication via bolus dosing (automated mandatory bolus - AMB) instead of the traditional continuous basal infusion (BI); recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the AMB technique leads to improved analgesia and maternal satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of automated mandatory bolus versus basal infusion for maintaining epidural analgesia in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinial Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 January 2018. We screened the reference lists of all eligible trials and reviews. We also contacted authors of included studies in this field in order to identify unpublished research and trials still underway, and we screened the reference lists of the included articles for potentially relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all RCTs that compared the use of bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI for providing pain relief during epidural analgesia for labour in women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: risk of breakthrough pain with the need for anaesthetic intervention; risk of caesarean delivery; risk of instrumental delivery. Secondary outcomes included: duration of labour; local anaesthetic consumption. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies with a total of 1121 women. Ten studies enrolled healthy nulliparous women only and two studies enrolled healthy parous women at term as well. All studies excluded women with complicated pregnancies. There were variations in the technique of initiation of epidural analgesia. Seven studies utilized the combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique, and the other five studies only placed an epidural catheter without any intrathecal injection. Seven studies utilized ropivacaine: six with fentanyl and one with sufentanil. Two studies used levobupivacaine: one with sufentanil and one with fentanyl. Three used bupivacaine with or without fentanyl. The overall risk of bias of the studies was low.AMB probably reduces the risk of breakthrough pain compared with BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour (from 33% to 20%; risk ratio (RR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.92, 10 studies, 797 women, moderate-certainty evidence). AMB may make little or no difference to the risk of caesarean delivery compared to BI (15% and 16% respectively; RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.21, 11 studies, 1079 women, low-certainty evidence).AMB may make little or no difference in the risk of instrumental delivery compared to BI (12% and 9% respectively; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06, 11 studies, 1079 women, low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the mean duration of labour with AMB compared to BI (mean difference (MD) -10.38 min; 95% CI -26.73 to 5.96, 11 studies, 1079 women, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in the hourly consumption of local anaesthetic with AMB compared to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia during labour (MD -1.08 mg/h; 95% CI -1.78 to -0.38, 12 studies, 1121 women, moderate-certainty evidence). Five out of seven studies reported an increase in maternal satisfaction with AMB compared to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour; however, we did not pool these data due to their ordinal nature. Seven studies reported Apgar scores, though there was significant heterogeneity in reporting. None of the studies showed any significant difference between Apgar scores between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is predominantly moderate-certainty evidence that AMB is similar to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour for all measured outcomes and may have the benefit of decreasing the risk of breakthrough pain and improving maternal satisfaction while decreasing the amount of local anaesthetic needed.

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.

Modern Neuraxial Anesthesia for Labor and Delivery

The availability of safe, effective analgesia during labor has become an expectation for women in most of the developed world over the past two or three decades. More than 60% of women in the United States now receive some kind of neuraxial procedure during labor. This article is a brief review of the advantages and techniques of neuraxial labor analgesia along with the recent advances and controversies in the field of labor analgesia. For the most part, we have aimed the discussion at the non-anesthesiologist to give other practitioners a sense of the state of the art and science of labor analgesia in the second decade of the 21st century.

Implementation of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus for the Maintenance of Labor Analgesia

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) is an exciting new technology that has the potential to improve the maintenance of epidural labor analgesia. PIEB compared with a continuous epidural infusion (CEI) has the potential advantage of greater spread within the epidural space and therefore better sensory blockade. Studies have demonstrated a local anesthetic-sparing effect, fewer instrumental vaginal deliveries, less motor blockade, and improvements in maternal satisfaction with PIEB compared with CEI. However, the optimal PIEB regimen and pump settings remain unknown, and there are a number of logistical issues and practical considerations that should be considered when implementing PIEB. The PIEB bolus size and interval, PIEB start time delay period, and patient-controlled epidural analgesia bolus size and lockout time can influence the efficacy of PIEB used for epidural labor analgesia. Educating all members of the health care team is critical to the success of the technique. This review summarizes the role of PIEB for the maintenance of labor analgesia, outlines implementation strategies, suggests optimal settings, and presents potential limitations of the technique.

Obstetric analgesia - update 2016

Neuraxial labor analgesia can be initiated via combined spinal-epidural (CSE) or stand-alone epidural. Pros and cons of these techniques are outlined in this review. In recent years computer-integrated patient-controlled epidural analgesia (CI-PCEA) and programed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) have been developed, adding to continuous infusion and PCEA for the maintenance of neuraxial analgesia. Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) and fever can occur secondary to labor epidural that both have clinical relevance for the care givers. Insights into the mechanism of epidural fever and treatment strategies for PDPH are outlined. Due to the increase in obesity the specific considerations for this patient group are discussed. New data have been presented for remifentanil, an ultra-shortly acting opioid, that is used in obstetric analgesia. Without breaking new data, the use of nitrous oxide especially by midwives has a kind of renaissance, and this will be discussed, too.

Management of Pain in the Critically Ill

Analgesia for critically ill patients can be provided most effectively by the use of modern techniques. Under standing of the anatomical pathways for nociceptive sig nal transmission allows the use of techniques that mod ulate or block nociceptive information at several levels (periphery, spinal cord, and systemic). A comprehen sive discussion of analgesic techniques at each level is presented. Formulation of a treatment plan is discussed. Several examples are presented to show the decision- making process for the use of modern analgesic tech niques in critically ill patients.

Patient-controlled regional analgesia is effective in children: a preliminary report

PURPOSE

To report a preliminary analysis of prospectively recorded data in 27 children in whom patient-controlled regional analgesia (PCRA) was used for postoperative pain control following lower limb surgery.

METHODS

Under general anesthesia, perineural catheters (popliteal and fascia iliaca compartment block) were inserted and infused with ropivacaine 0.2% (0.02 mL.kg(-1).hr(-1)). Additional demand doses were left to the child's discretion (0.1 mL.kg(-1)and a 30-min lockout interval).

RESULTS

The average total dose of ropivacaine administered was 4.9 +/- 2 mg.kg(-1)over 48 hr. Visual analogue scale and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale scores were always inferior to 5/10 and 6/13, respectively. Motor block was observed in two children and two children needed rescue analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary observations indicate that PCRA in children provides satisfactory postoperative pain relief following lower limb surgery.

Comparison of computer-integrated patient-controlled epidural analgesia with no initial basal infusion versus moderate basal infusion for labor and delivery: A randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims:

Computer-integrated patient-controlled epidural analgesia (CIPCEA) is a novel epidural drug delivery system. It automatically adjusts the basal infusion based on the individual's need for analgesia as labor progresses.

Materials and Methods:

This study compared the time-weighted local anesthetic (LA) consumption by comparing parturients using CIPCEA with no initial basal infusion (CIPCEA0) with CIPCEA with initial moderate basal infusion of 5 ml/H (CIPCEA5). We recruited 76 subjects after ethics approval. The computer integration of CIPCEA titrate the basal infusion to 5, 10, 15, or 20 ml/H if the parturient required respectively, one, two, three, or four patient demands in the previous hour. The basal infusion reduced by 5 ml/H if there was no demand in the previous hour. The sample size was calculated to show equivalence in LA consumption.

Results:

The time-weighted LA consumption between both groups were similar with CIPCEA0 group (mean [standard deviation (SD)] 8.9 [3.5] mg/H) compared to the CIPCEA5 group (mean [SD] 9.9 [3.5] mg/H), P = 0.080. Both groups had a similar incidence of breakthrough pain, duration of the second stage, mode of delivery, and patient satisfaction. However, more subjects in the CIPCEA0 group required patient self-bolus. There were no differences in fetal outcomes.

Discussion:

Both CIPCEA regimens had similar time-weighted LA consumption and initial moderate basal infusion with CIPCEA may not be required.

No evidence of real progress in treatment of acute pain, 1993-2012: scientometric analysis

Over the past 2 decades, many new techniques and drugs for the treatment of acute pain have achieved widespread use. The main aim of this study was to assess the progress in their implementation using scientometric analysis. The following scientometric indices were used: 1) popularity index, representing the share of articles on a specific technique (or a drug) relative to all articles in the field of acute pain; 2) index of change, representing the degree of growth in publications on a topic compared to the previous period; and 3) index of expectations, representing the ratio of the number of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed. Publications on specific topics (ten techniques and 21 drugs) were assessed during four time periods (1993–1997, 1998–2002, 2003–2007, and 2008–2012). In addition, to determine whether the status of routine acute pain management has improved over the past 20 years, we analyzed surveys designed to be representative of the national population that reflected direct responses of patients reporting pain scores. By the 2008–2012 period, popularity index had reached a substantial level (≥5%) only with techniques or drugs that were introduced 30–50 years ago or more (epidural analgesia, patient-controlled analgesia, nerve blocks, epidural analgesia for labor or delivery, bupivacaine, and acetaminophen). In 2008–2012, promising (although modest) changes of index of change and index of expectations were found only with dexamethasone. Six national surveys conducted for the past 20 years demonstrated an unacceptably high percentage of patients experiencing moderate or severe pain with not even a trend toward outcome improvement. Thus, techniques or drugs that were introduced and achieved widespread use for acute pain management within the past 20 years have produced no changes in scientometric indices that would indicate real progress and have failed to improve national outcomes for relief of acute pain. Two possible reasons for this are discussed: 1) the difference between the effectiveness of old and new techniques is not clinically meaningful; and 2) resources necessary for appropriate use of new techniques in routine pain management are not adequate.

Attachment styles, pain, and the consumption of analgesics during labor: a prospective observational study

Individuals with less secure attachment styles have been shown to experience more pain than people with more secure attachment styles; however, attachment styles have not yet been examined in the context of labor pain and analgesic consumption. The purpose of this prospective observational study was to assess the influence of the mother's attachment style on the perception of labor pain, as assessed by a visual analog scale and analgesic consumption. Eighty-one pregnant women with a mean age of 32 years (standard deviation = 5.1) were assessed during the third trimester of pregnancy and during labor. The physical predictors of labor pain were recorded, and the adult attachment style was assessed with the Adult Attachment Scale-Revised. For labor analgesia, a low dose of patient-controlled epidural analgesia protocol (ropivacaine .6 mg/mL plus sufentanil .5 μg/mL) was used. Women with a secure attachment style reported significantly less labor pain (P < .001) and a significantly lower analgesic consumption during labor (P < .001) than insecurely attached women. These findings suggest that women's attachment style was associated with labor pain and analgesic consumption and support the relevance of the attachment theory as a promising conceptual framework for understanding labor pain.

PERSPECTIVE

This study showed that women with an insecure attachment style were more likely to report higher pain before patient-controlled epidural analgesia and higher analgesic consumption and to request supplemental analgesia during labor. The assessment of adult attachment has the potential to identify women at high risk of poorly coping with pain during childbirth.

[Labor pain worries future fathers more than the mothers]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the concerns of the future father about labor pain and another 9 items which could be important to the well-being of the mother during delivery. To investigate any possible differences in opinion between the future father and mother.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An anonymous and voluntary questionnaire was offered to the father and the pregnant patient during the last month of pregnancy. They had to answer the questionnaire separately, scoring 10 items in a 0-10 point ordinal scale, according to their concerns and the importance for the good development of the delivery (0= not concerned about/insignificant to 10=concerned about/great importance). The items included were: 1) esthetic aftermath, 2) embarassment, 3) continous information, 4) walking during labor, 5) drinking during labor, 6) companionship, 7) labor pain, 8) keeping composure, 9) kindness, 10) room comfortability. Data on age, education, parity and nationality were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 147 questionnaires were completed, 99 by mothers, and 48 by fathers. Pain was the most important concern for the future fathers scoring a mean (SD) of 8.15 (2), while continuous information 7.71 (2.5), kindness 7.9 (2.1), and companionship 8.21 (2.3) were more important than pain for mothers. A statistically significant difference was found between fathers and mothers regarding labor pain (P=.001), walking during labor (P=.003), and drinking during labor (P=.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The result of our study suggests that increasing the presence of the father during the delivery process, and taking care of the emotional aspects and the quality of the information given could be very important for the perception of satisfaction.

Maternal ambulation during labor

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the recent advances in labor epidural analgesia, which may have an impact on maternal ambulation during labor.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the advent of new epidural adjuvant drugs and new epidural delivery systems, we are now able to use very low concentration local anesthetic solutions with a reduction in the total doses of local anesthetic administered. This allows a much greater preservation of lower limb motor function in the parturient, with a subsequent positive effect on maternal ambulation. Although it is well documented that maternal satisfaction scores are higher with ambulatory epidurals than with other more conventional epidural techniques, the other positive effects, such as shorter labor times, and a reduction in instrumental and cesarean delivery rates, thought to have been associated with ambulatory epidurals, have however been more difficult to prove.

SUMMARY

Since the earliest 'walking epidural' was described in the early 1990s, there has been much research into finding the ideal regional technique for labor analgesia that provides excellent analgesia with high maternal satisfaction scores while having little adverse effect on obstetric outcome. This review attempts to map the journey of the 'walking epidural' from its earliest form to its more recognizable modern day appearance.

Epidural analgesia for labor: Current techniques

Epidural analgesia is an extremely effective and popular treatment for labor pain. In this review, we trace the history of the use of epidural analgesia and its refinements. We then outline the goals of treatment and methods used to attain those goals. The use of low concentrations of local anesthetics, combined with lipid-soluble opioids, does not impede the progress of labor or depress the newborn. The incidence of side effects is low. Maintenance of analgesia that allows patient control enhances patient satisfaction.

Advances in labor analgesia

The pain of childbirth is arguably the most severe pain most women will endure in their lifetimes. The pain of the early first stage of labor arises from dilation of the lower uterine segment and cervix. Pain from the late first stage and second stage of labor arises from descent of the fetus in the birth canal, resulting in distension and tearing of tissues in the vagina and perineum. An array of regional nerve blocks, systemic analgesic, and nonpharmacologic techniques are currently used for labor analgesia. Nonpharmacologic methods are commonly used, but the effectiveness of these techniques generally lacks rigorous scientific study. Continuous labor support has been shown to decrease the use of pharmacologic analgesia and shorten labor. Intradermal water injections decrease back labor pain. Neuraxial labor analgesia (most commonly epidural or combined spinal-epidural) is the most effective method of pain relief during childbirth, and the only method that provides complete analgesia without maternal or fetal sedation. Current techniques commonly combine a low dose of local anesthetic (bupivacaine or ropivacaine) with a lipid soluble opioid (fentanyl or sufentanil). Neuraxial analgesia does not increase the rate of cesarean delivery compared to systemic opioid analgesia; however, dense neuraxial analgesia may increase the risk of instrumental vaginal delivery.

Progress in analgesia for labor: focus on neuraxial blocks

Neuraxial analgesia is widely accepted as the most effective and the least depressant method of providing pain relief in labor. Over the last several decades neuraxial labor analgesia techniques and medications have progressed to the point now where they provide high quality pain relief with minimal side effects to both the mother and the fetus while maximizing the maternal autonomy possible for the parturient receiving neuraxial analgesia. The introduction of the combined spinal epidural technique for labor has allowed for the rapid onset of analgesia with minimal motor blockade, therefore allowing the comfortable parturient to ambulate. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia techniques have evolved to allow for more flexible analgesia that is tailored to the individual needs of the parturient and effective throughout the different phases of labor. Computer integrated systems have been studied to provide seamless analgesia from induction of neuraxial block to delivery. New adjuvant drugs that improve the effectiveness of neuraxial labor analgesia while decreasing the side effects that may occur due to high dose of a single drug are likely to be added to future labor analgesia practice. Bupivacaine still remains a popular choice of local anesthetic for labor analgesia. New local anesthetics with less cardiotoxicity have been introduced, but their cost effectiveness in the current labor analgesia practice has been questioned.

Modern neuraxial labor analgesia: options for initiation, maintenance and drug selection

In the present review we outline the state-of-the-art of neuraxial analgesia. As neuraxial analgesia remains the gold standar of analgesia during labor, we review the most recent literature on this topic. The neuraxial analgesia techniques, types of administration, drugs, adjuvants, and adverse effects are investigated from the references. Most authors would agree that central neuraxial analgesia is the best form to manage labor pain. When neuraxial analgesia is administered to the parturient in labor, different management choices must be made by the anesthetist: how will we initiate analgesia, how will analgesia be maintained, which local anesthetic will we use for neuraxial analgesia and which adjuvant drugs will we combine? The present manuscript tries to review the literature to answer these questions.

Phase 1 development of an index to measure the quality of neuraxial labour analgesia: exploring the perspectives of childbearing women

PURPOSE

Modern neuraxial labour analgesia reflects a shift in obstetrical anesthesia thinking - away from a simple focus on pain relief towards a focus on the overall quality of analgesia. However, advances in the methods used to measure outcomes have not kept pace with clinical progress, and these approaches must evolve to facilitate meaningful assessment of the advances provided towards the quality of analgesia. Developing a tool to measure the quality of neuraxial labour analgesia that research has achieved is best guided by women's perspectives. As the initial step in developing an instrument to quantitatively measure quality neuraxial labour analgesia, this qualitative descriptive study explored childbearing women's experiences and perspectives regarding this subject.

METHODS

Twenty-eight postpartum women, all delivering with neuraxial labour analgesia, were recruited from three hospitals in the greater Toronto area. Twenty-five women described a priori plans to use neuraxial labour analgesia, or they described themselves as having been open to the idea. Women's experiences and perspectives of neuraxial labour analgesia were explored in focus groups and in-depth interviews < or =72 hr following childbirth.

RESULTS

Four major themes emerged: 1)The Enormity of Labour Pain; 2) Fear and Anxiety Related to Epidural Pain Relief; 3) What Women Value about Epidural Pain Relief; and 4) The Relative Value of Achieving Epidural Pain Relief vs Avoidance of Epidural Drug Side Effects. Participants broadly described quality neuraxial labour analgesia as pain relief without side effects. Responses affirmed the importance of traditionally measured outcomes as attributes of quality neuraxial labour analgesia, e.g., pain relief and side effects, as well as the overall importance of pain control during labour and delivery. For research to capture the experience of quality neuraxial labour analgesia, findings suggest that this outcome involves physical, cognitive, and emotional dimensions that must be measured. The findings further suggest an important relationship between each of these dimensions and perceptions of control.

CONCLUSIONS

Women's perspectives must be incorporated into the assessment of quality neuraxial labour analgesia in order for research to measure this outcome in a meaningful manner. Study findings have important implications for scale development, interpretation of existing research, and antenatal education.

Epidural Labor Analgesia: Continuous Infusion Versus Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia With Background Infusion Versus Without a Background Infusion

The purpose of this study was to compare the total epidural dose of 3 commonly used labor epidural modalities. After local institutional review board approval, 195 laboring parturients received an epidural catheter for labor analgesia. All patients received an initial bolus of 0.1% ropivacaine (10 mL) and fentanyl (100 microg). Maintenance of labor analgesia consisted of ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL. Patients were then randomly assigned into 3 groups: Group 1 (continuous epidural infusion [CEI]), continuous infusion at 10 mL/h; group 2 (CEI + patient-controlled epidural analgesia [PCEA]), CEI at 5 mL/h with a demand dose of 5 mL allowed every 20 minutes with a 20 mL/h maximum dose; group 3 (PCEA), demand doses only of 5 mL every 15 minutes with a 20 mL/h maximum dose. Measured variables included total epidural dose, total bolus requests and boluses delivered, number of staff interventions, pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100), modified Bromage scores, stage I and II labor duration, delivery outcome, and maternal satisfaction after delivery. No differences were noted with respect to pain VAS, modified Bromage scores, stage I and II labor duration, number of staff interventions, delivery outcome, and maternal satisfaction score. Total infusion dose was lower in demand dose only PCEA compared with CEI and CEI + PCEA groups (P = < .01). Demand dose-only PCEA results in less total epidural dose compared with CEI and CEI + PCEA without affecting labor duration, motor block, pain VAS, maternal and neonatal outcomes, and maternal satisfaction.

PERSPECTIVE

This article compares 3 commonly used labor epidural delivery modalities (traditional continuous epidural infusion, patient-controlled epidural analgesia with a background infusion, and demand dose-only patient-controlled epidural analgesia). Benefits in epidural dose reduction with demand dose only PCEA does not translate into improved maternal and neonatal outcome.

A survey of labor patient-controlled epidural anesthesia practice in California hospitals

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) offers many advantages over continuous epidural infusions for labor analgesia including fewer physician interventions, improved analgesia and satisfaction, and reduced local anesthetic doses. However, anesthesiologists have been slow to adopt this technique, first described in 1988. No previous studies have evaluated specific labor patient-controlled epidural analgesia practices in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine labor epidural and patient-controlled epidural analgesia practices among California hospitals.

METHODS

Following institutional review board exemption approval, an online survey was created using freeonlinesurveys.com. An anonymous survey was sent via e-mail to 230 California Society of Anesthesiologists' members chosen at random to represent their hospitals' labor analgesia practices.

RESULTS

We received 133 replies from the 230 survey requests sent, a 58% response rate. The median labor epidural rate among the hospitals involved was 65% (range 0-95%). Overall, only 25% of California hospitals use patient-controlled epidural analgesia for analgesia in labor, with greater use among hospitals with dedicated obstetric anesthesia coverage and larger numbers of deliveries. Reasons given for not using patient-controlled epidural analgesia include cost, clinician preference, safety concerns and the inconvenience of change.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the potential advantages of patient-controlled epidural analgesia over continuous epidural infusions for labor analgesia, patient-controlled epidural analgesia has not been widely adopted in California hospitals. Education regarding this technique is needed to encourage its increased use.

Efficacy and plasma levels of ropivacaine for children: controlled regional analgesia following lower limb surgery

BACKGROUND

Continuous regional analgesia (CRA) is considered a safe and efficacious technique for postoperative pain relief in children after lower limb surgery. We recently evaluated the feasibility of patient-controlled regional analgesia (PCRA) in a similar acute pain situation and we concluded that PCRA might be advantageous over CRA in terms of lower costs, risk of systemic toxicity while producing similarly adequate analgesia. We therefore prospectively compared both techniques in the paediatric population.

METHODS

In total, 30 children undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery were randomized to receive PCRA or CRA with ropivacaine 0.2%. Visual analogue scale scores, rescue analgesia, overall satisfaction, motor blockade and plasma ropivacaine concentrations were recorded for 48 h.

RESULTS

Adequate analgesia was achieved with both techniques. No significant difference was noted for rescue analgesia, overall satisfaction and motor blockade. In contrast, children in the PCRA group received significantly less local anaesthetics than those in the CRA group. In addition, total plasma concentrations of ropivacaine were significantly reduced in the PCRA group as compared with the CRA group during the 48 h postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques are efficacious and satisfactory. However, PCRA with ropivacaine 0.2% can provide adequate postoperative analgesia for paediatric orthopaedic procedures with smaller doses of ropivacaine than CRA.

[Patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labour: in practice]

OBJECTIVES

Update on patient controlled epidural analgesia for labour.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review of the recent data on local anaesthetics, additional analgesics and of publications on the various protocols used.

DATA COLLECTION

Pubmed database was checked with the following key words: PCEA, labour, opioids, clonidine. The abstracts of the ASA meetings from 2000 to 2005 were also examined.

RESULTS

Patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is the method of choice for optimal labour pain management. The advantages of this technique are numerous. Some of them are established: consistent reduction in overall local anathetic requirement, less motor blockade, safety of the technique and team workload reduction. A better adequacy with the analgesic requirements and an increase in overall patient satisfaction are frequently retrieved, provided that the choice of the analgesics and the PCEA parameters are adequately chosen.

CONCLUSION

The use of PCEA improves the quality of analgesic management offered to the parturients who are more and more willing to have a "more natural" childbirth. The PCEA gives them more autonomy and, in fine, enables them to better enjoy this unique event. The main barrier to a more widespread diffusion of PCEA in many institutions remains the financial issue, although a well-selected device and low cost disposables allow a reduction of indirect costs by decreasing care giver workload.

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor using ropivacaine and fentanyl provides better maternal satisfaction with less local anesthetic requirement

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using ropivacaine and fentanyl provides better maternal satisfaction and less anesthetic requirement than conventional continuous epidural infusion (CEI) during labor, we studied 58 uncomplicated parturients (singleton, vertex presentation).

METHODS

After establishing effective epidural analgesia with 11 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine, all parturients were randomly divided into one of two groups: the PCEA group (n = 29) or the CEI group (n = 29). In the PCEA group, the pump was initiated to deliver a basal infusion at 6 ml x h(-1) and a demand dose of 5 ml; the lockout interval was 10 min, and there was a 31 ml x h(-1) limit. The drugs used were 0.1% ropivacaine + fentanyl 2 microg x ml(-1). In the CEI group, epidural analgesia was maintained with the same solution as the PCEA group at a constant rate of 10 ml x h(-1). If parturients requested additional analgesia in the CEI group, we added 8 ml of epidural 0.2% ropivacaine without fentanyl.

RESULTS

Parturients' demographic data, such as duration of labor, mode of delivery, Apgar score, and umbilical arterial pH did not differ between the two groups. However, the hourly requirement of ropivacaine was significantly less in the PCEA group than in the CEI group (9.3 +/- 2.5 vs. 17.6 +/- 7.6 mg x h(-1); P < 0.05). Parturients' satisfaction assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale tended to be higher in the PCEA group than in the CEI group. Side effects such as nausea, hypotension, and itching were similar for the two groups.

CONCLUSION

We found that PCEA was an effective means of providing optimal analgesia, with better satisfaction during labor and less local anesthetic requirement.