Obstetrical anaesthesia in Ontario

Social disparity and the use of intrapartum epidural analgesia in a publicly funded health care system

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the difference in use of labor epidural analgesia among women from different neighborhood socioeconomic groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Neighborhood socioeconomic variables from the 2001 Canadian Census were linked to singleton vaginal births from the Niday perinatal database (2004-2006) in Ontario, Canada. Births were divided into income and education groups by quintiles. Generalized estimating equations were employed to evaluate the association between labor epidural and neighborhood socioeconomic status. Supplementary analysis was conducted after stratifying data by hospital types.

RESULTS

Compared with those from the richest neighborhood, women from the poorest quintile were the least likely to receive labor epidural analgesia (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.61). The differences were smallest in teaching hospitals (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79) and largest in small community hospitals (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64). Similar association was found in neighborhood education quintiles.

CONCLUSION

The use of labor epidural analgesia is decreased with decreasing neighborhood economic and education levels.

Epidural analgesia practices for labour: results of a 2005 national survey in Ireland

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The last 25 years have seen changes in the management of epidural analgesia for labour, including the advent of low-dose epidural analgesia, the development of new local anaesthetic agents, various regimes for maintaining epidural analgesia and the practice of combined spinal-epidural analgesia. We conducted a survey of Irish obstetric anaesthetists to obtain information regarding the conduct and management of obstetric epidural analgesia in Ireland in 2005. The specific objective of this survey was to discover whether new developments in obstetric anaesthesia have been incorporated into clinical practice.

METHODS

A postal survey was sent to all anaesthetists with a clinical commitment for obstetric anaesthesia in the sites approved for training by the College of Anaesthetists, Ireland.

RESULTS

Fifty-three per cent of anaesthetists surveyed responded. The majority of anaesthetists (98%) use low-dose epidural analgesia for the maintenance of analgesia. Only 11% use it for test-dosing and 32% for the induction of analgesia. The combined spinal-epidural analgesia method is used by 49%, but two-thirds of those who use it perform fewer than five per month. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia was in use at only one site.

CONCLUSION

It appears that Irish obstetric anaesthetists have adopted the low-dose epidural analgesia trend for the maintenance of labour analgesia. This practice is not as widespread, however, for test dosing, the induction of analgesia dose or in the administration of intermittent epidural boluses to maintain analgesia when higher concentrations are used. Since its introduction in 2000, levobupivacaine has become the most popular local anaesthetic agent.

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.

Current practice in postoperative epidural analgesia: a german survey

We surveyed current German practice in postoperative epidural analgesia (EA). Of 300 questionnaires sent anonymously, 147 (49%) were returned fully completed. A 24-h acute pain service (APS) was offered in 41% of German hospitals. Seventy percent of the large teaching hospitals (>1000 beds) offered an APS, whereas just 9% of the hospitals of <500 beds provided an APS. Small-size hospitals (<200 beds) preferred ropivacaine as the local anesthetic (LA) in contrast to large teaching hospitals using more bupivacaine than ropivacaine. In the general ward setting, 36% of the respondents used plain LA, and 64% combined the LA with an opioid. If ropivacaine was used, 0.2% was the most popular concentration (78%), combined with morphine (17%), fentanyl (14%), or sufentanil (75%). If bupivacaine was used, 0.25% was the preferred concentration (30%), combined with morphine (40%), fentanyl (8%), or sufentanil (60%). On wards, 58% of German anesthetic departments used continuous epidural infusion, 57% bolus doses, and 20% patient-controlled EA mode. We conclude that the availability of a 24-h APS (41%) in German hospitals corresponds favorably to international data. EA with the combination of LAs and opioids was the most common modality in the ward setting.

IMPLICATIONS

We surveyed current German practice in postoperative epidural analgesia. We found that the availability of a 24-h acute pain service (41%) in German hospitals corresponds favorably to international practice. Epidural analgesia with the combination of local anesthetics and opioids was the most common modality in the ward setting.

Trends in labour and birth interventions among low-risk women in New South Wales

OBJECTIVE

To examine recent trends in obstetric intervention rates among women at low-risk of poor pregnancy outcome.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analytic study

SETTING AND POPULATION

A population of 336,189 women categorised as low-risk of a poor pregnancy outcome who gave birth to a live singleton in NSW from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1997.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Obstetric intervention rates including oxytocin induction and augmentation of labour, epidural analgesia, instrumental births, caesarean section and episiotomy

METHODS

Trends over time were assessed by fitting trend-lines to numbers of births or by trends in proportions. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the impact of epidural analgesia on instrumental birth over time.

RESULTS

Rates of operative births did not rise despite increases in maternal age and use of epidural analgesia. Instrumental births declined over time from 26% to 22% among primiparas and 5% to 4% among multiparas. There was also a shift to vacuum extraction rather than forceps. Although instrumental birth was strongly associated with epidural analgesia, the strength of the association declined over the study period, for primiparas from an adjusted odds ratio of 7.2 to 5.2 and for multiparas from 13.2 to 10.3.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased use of epidural analgesia for labour has been a feature of the management of birth at term during the 1990s. The decline in the strength of association between epidural analgesia and instrumental birth may reflect improved epidural techniques and management of epidural labour, and recognition of the adverse maternal outcomes associated with forceps and vacuum births.

-Anesthesia and analgesia practice patterns in French obstetrical patients-

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of epidural analgesia (EA) for parturition and the techniques of anaesthesia for Caesarean section (CS).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PATIENTS

A series of 84,235 deliveries.

METHODS

The series was extracted from a total of 770,054 deliveries carried out in 1991, according to the number of births in each hospital (1/1 if the births were < or = 100 per year, up to 1/25 if they were > or = 2,000 per year). The data analyzed included: anaesthesia technique, whether or not there was an anaesthetist on night duty at the hospital, birth rate in the hospital, type of hospital: university (UH), general (GH) or private (PH). For vaginal deliveries, the mode of labour commencement (spontaneous or induced), the multiplicity of pregnancies and a history of past CS were also noted.

RESULTS

Vaginal deliveries: the overall rate of EA was 37.2%. EA were not carried out in 5% of maternity hospitals. In cases of spontaneous labour, the average rate was 32.1%, significantly less than for induced labour (59.6%, P < 0.0001) and in cases of previous CS (39%, P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in cases of multiple pregnancies (35.7%). The average rate of EA was correlated to the number of annual births (P < 0.001) and was increased when the anaesthetist was present in hospital at night (P < 0.001). It was also significantly lower in GH (P < 0.001) than in UH or PH, which were equivalent. Scheduled CS: general anaesthesia (GA) was carried out at a significantly higher rate than regional anaesthesia (RA) (49.7% vs 48.4%, P < 0.05). In 15.1% of hospitals, RA was not available. The incidence of RA was influenced neither by the rate of annual births nor by the presence of the anaesthetist in the hospital during night. However, RA was significantly less frequent in GH (46.3%, P < 0.001) than in UH (48.6%) and in PH (53.6%) which were equivalent. CS during labour: the incidence of RA was significantly higher than GA (53.2% vs 44.1%, P < 0.001). In 17.1% of hospitals, RA was never carried out. The rate of RA was correlated to the size of the maternity hospital, and significantly higher (P < 0.001) when the anaesthetist was present in hospital during night. The differences between UH, GH and EP were the same than for scheduled CS.

CONCLUSION

In France in 1991, the average rate of 37.2% for EA for obstetrics was high when compared to the rate in United Kingdom. It was equivalent to those in United States and Ontario, Canada. The discrepancies between hospitals were mainly related to structural and organizational factors. The influence of the size of the maternity hospital, the 24-hour service of EA was also shown in other studies. However, the difference between GA and UH and PH is a French particularity. The high rate of GA for CS differs largely with those in the UK or the USA. The time saving aspect of GA was probably an important factor for the choice of this technique. This study must be reactualized and enlarged to determine the demand of EA for labour by parturients and obstetricians.

An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals

PURPOSE

To see if the authors of review articles in anaesthesia journals are making use of systematic methods in their preparation.

METHODS

Twenty-five review articles published in 1995 in four major anaesthesia journals were analysed and compared with standard guidelines for the appraisal of reviews.

RESULTS

Of the 25 articles, only 14 stated a clear purpose. Only two revealed the search strategy used to identity articles for the review. None of the reviews featured any type of quality assessment of the primary studies included, or stated what criteria, if any, were used to determine what material was included or excluded. Useful areas for future research were highlighted in only seven reviews.

CONCLUSION

There is little evidence that reviews currently accepted for publication in anaesthesia journals have been prepared systematically.