Combined spinal epidural (CSE) analgesia: technique, management, and outcome of 300 mothers

A plausible causal relationship between the increased use of fentanyl as an obstetric analgesic and the current opioid epidemic in the US

Drug poisoning deaths have more than doubled in the United States since 2000 with fentanyl and fentanyl analogues primarily responsible for the jump in opioid deaths. Robust data indicate a convincing correlation between the exposure of the fetus to other labor medications (morphine, pethidine hydrochloride, barbiturates, phenobarbitone, meperidine, and secobarbital) and the later addiction of young adults to the same category of drug. We present the hypothesis that this effect is also true of the opioid, fentanyl: there is a causal relationship between the increased popularity of fentanyl as a labor anesthetic in the United States since the 1980's and the current epidemic of fentanyl abuse.

Bupivacaine in combination with fentanyl or sufentanil in epidural/intrathecal analgesia for labor: a meta-analysis

This study is to compare the effectiveness of combinational use of bupivacaine with fentanyl (BUPI-FEN) and sufentanil (BUPI-SUF) in epidural/intrathecal analgesia for labor. Electronic databases were searched for relevant research papers published between 1985 and 2014. Meta-analyses of mean differences or odds ratios were performed and statistical heterogeneity between the studies tested by I(2) index. Ten studies recruiting a total of 728 women in labor were selected. Concentrations of the anesthetics used as mean ± sd were bupivacaine 0.115 ± 0.056%, fentanyl 0.0007 ± 0.001%, and sufentanil 0.00017 ± 0.00022%. Duration of analgesia was not significantly different between BUPI-SUF and BUPI-FEN administered mothers (mean difference [95%CI] of -33.55 [-74.94, 7.83] minutes; P = .11) under random effects. The onset of analgesia was also not significantly different between both groups (mean difference [95%CI] of -0.61 [-1.38, 0.16] minutes; P = .12). The number of neonates with Apgar score < 7 was significantly lower in BUPI-FEN group (odd ratio [95%CI] of 0.31 [0.10, 0.95]; P < .05). Pruritus incidence was similar. In conclusion, BUPI-FEN combination exhibits significantly better tolerability at an approximate ratio of 6 FEN:1 SUF, albeit, both fentanyl and sufentanil in combination with bupivacaine provide similar analgesic properties via the epidural or intrathecal routes for labor pain relief.

The comparison of clinically relevant doses of intrathecal ropivacaine and levobupivacaine with fentanyl for labor analgesia

Background

Intrathecal labor analgesia using new local anesthetics such as ropivacaine or levobupivacaine becomes more popular by virtues of their safety and decreased motor weakness. However, the analgesic efficacy of the clinically effective intrathecal doses of these new local anesthetics combined with fentanyl has yet to be determined.

Methods

Sixty parturients who requested neuraxial analgesia in early active labor were randomly assigned to either ropivacaine (group R, n = 30) or levobupivacaine (group L, n = 30) group. Group R received 3 mg of intrathecal ropivacaine and the group L received 3 mg of intrathecal levobupivacaine mixed with 20 µg of fentanyl as part of a combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique. The associated block parameters, such as pain scores, duration of analgesia, the highest levels of the sensory block and motor block scores 30 mins after the injection were compared between two groups.

Results

Intrathecal ropivacaine offered shorter analgesia (87 ± 41 min vs. 122 ± 56 min, P < 0.05) with lower sensory height (T8.5 vs. T6, P < 0.05) and led to lower incidence of complete analgesia (73 vs. 97%, P < 0.05) compared with intrathecal levobupivacaine. Although motor weakness was comparable in both groups, significantly weak perineal squeezing was noticed in Group L (7 of 30 parturients vs. 16 of 30, P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Clinically relevant doses of intrathecal levobupivacaine in combination with fentanyl as part of a CSE technique provides more effective analgesia than equivalent doses of intrathecal ropivacaine in early labor, but is accompanied by slight motor weakness.

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 September 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search on 30 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Quasi RCTs and cross-over trials were not considered for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials involving 3274 women met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed.Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses five outcomes showed a significant difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to speed of onset of analgesia from time of injection (mean difference (MD) -2.87 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -0.67; two trials, 129 women); the need for rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70; one trial, 42 women); urinary retention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; one trial, 704 women); and rate of instrumental delivery (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; six trials, 1015 women). Traditional epidural was more favourable in relation to umbilical venous pH (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.00; one trial, 55 women). There were no data on maternal satisfaction, blood patch for post dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, umbilical cord pH, rare neurological complications, analgesia for caesarean section after analgesic intervention or any economic/use of resources outcomes for this comparison. No differences between CSE and traditional epidural were identified for mobilisation in labour, the need for labour augmentation, the rate of caesarean birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache, maternal hypotension, neonatal Apgar scores or umbilical arterial pH.For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, three outcomes were statistically significant. Two of these reflected a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection with CSE and the third was of more pruritus with CSE compared to low-dose epidural (average RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.65; 11 trials, 959 women; random-effects, T² = 0.26, I² = 84%). There was no significant difference in maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; seven trials, 520 women; random-effects, T² = 0.00, I² = 45%). There were no data on respiratory depression, maternal sedation or the need for labour augmentation. No differences between CSE and low-dose epidural were identified for need for rescue analgesia, mobilisation in labour, incidence of post dural puncture headache, known dural tap, blood patch for post dural headache, urinary retention, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, headache, the need for labour augmentation, mode of delivery, umbilical pH, Apgar score or admissions to the neonatal unit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

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.

Continuous spinal anesthesia versus combined spinal epidural block for major orthopedic surgery: prospective randomized study

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES

In major orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs, continuous spinal anesthesia (CSA) and combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSE) are safe and reliable anesthesia methods. In this prospective randomized clinical study, the blockading properties and side effects of CSA were compared with single interspace CSE, among patients scheduled for major hip or knee surgery.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective clinical study conducted at the Institute for Regional Anesthesia, Hospital de Base, São José do Rio Preto.

METHODS

240 patients scheduled for hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty or femoral fracture treatment were randomly assigned to receive either CSA or CSE. Blockades were performed in the lateral position at the L3-L4 interspace. Puncture success, technical difficulties, paresthesia, highest level of sensory and motor blockade, need for complementary doses of local anesthetic, degree of technical difficulties, cardiocirculatory changes and postdural puncture headache (PDPH) were recorded. At the end of the surgery, the catheter was removed and cerebrospinal fluid leakage was evaluated.

RESULTS

Seven patients were excluded (three CSA and four CSE). There was significantly lower incidence of paresthesia in the CSE group. The resultant sensory blockade level was significantly higher with CSE. Complete motor blockade occurred in 110 CSA patients and in 109 CSE patients. Arterial hypotension was observed significantly more often in the CSE group. PDPH was observed in two patients of each group.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that both CSA and CSE provided good surgical conditions with low incidence of complications. The sensory blockade level and hemodynamic changes were lower with CSA.

[Comparison of intrathecal fentanyl and bupivacaine in combined spinal-epidural obstetric analgesia]

OBJECTIVES

To compare intrathecal injection of the opioid fentanyl to injection of bupivacaine, in terms of their effect of labour in the context within the combined spinal-epidural analgesia.

METHODS

Prospective single-blind trial in primiparas randomized to 2 groups for sedation with 25 microg of fentanyl or 2.5 mg of bupivacaine, followed in both cases by epidural infusion of ropivacaine. We measured time from puncture to delivery of the neonate, rescue analgesia, pain assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS), motor block, side effects, sensory level, Apgar score, and maternal satisfaction.

RESULTS

Sixty-four women were studied. The mean time elapsed between puncture and birth was 168.59 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], 134.16 to 203.03 minutes) in the bupivacaine group and 189.13 minutes (95% CI, 151.93 to 226.32 minutes) in the fentanyl group. The mean difference was -20.53 minutes (95% CI, -70.21 to 29.15 minutes). Survival analysis applied to duration of labor, using type of delivery as the final outcome, also failed to show a significant between-group difference (chi2=0.59, P=.447). No significant differences in use of rescue analgesia, VAS scores, or motor block were observed. The incidence of pruritus in the fentanyl group was 34.37%, but there were no differences in maternal satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings do not support the use of intradural fentanyl with the aim of shortening labor. Fentanyl leads to more pruritus, although this side effect does not affect maternal satisfaction.

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation, and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials (2658 women) met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed. Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses only three outcomes showed a difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to need for rescue analgesia and urinary retention, but associated with more pruritus. For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, four outcomes were statistically significant. CSE had a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection but was associated with more pruritus. CSE was also associated with a clinically non-significant lower umbilical arterial pH. No differences between CSE and epidural were seen for maternal satisfaction, mobilisation in labour, modes of birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache or blood patch and maternal hypotension. It was not possible to draw any conclusions with respect to maternal respiratory depression, maternal sedation and need for labour augmentation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and less pruritus with epidurals. There is no difference in ability to mobilise, obstetric outcome or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention and rescue interventions with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

The Effect of a Lidocaine Test Dose on Analgesia and Mobility After an Epidural Combination of Neostigmine and Sufentanil in Early Labor

We previously demonstrated the effectiveness of epidural sufentanil and the cholinesterase inhibitor, neostigmine, to initiate selective labor analgesia. Because the traditional lidocaine plus epinephrine test dose (TD) may alter the effect of subsequent epidural drugs, we undertook this investigation to evaluate the impact of a lidocaine TD on analgesia from a combination of epidural neostigmine plus sufentanil administered in early labor. Eighty healthy parturients were randomly allocated to two groups to receive a 3 mL-TD, either lidocaine 2%-epinephrine (1:200,000) or saline-epinephrine (1:200,000), followed 3 min later by epidural neostigmine 500 microg plus sufentanil 10 microg. Pain scores were recorded for 30 min after injection, as was the time elapsed from initial bolus until request for supplemental analgesia. Thirty minutes after injection, adequacy of motor function was evaluated by the parturient's ability to sit, stand up, bend her knees, and walk. Lidocaine TD hastened the onset (5 min vs 15 min) and increased duration (122 +/- 53 min vs 98 +/- 54 min; P = 0.02) of analgesia from epidural neostigmine plus sufentanil bolus. In contrast, the TD did not significantly impair the ability to sit, stand up, or bend the knees. The ability to ambulate, however, was reduced (57% vs 82%; P = 0.04). In conclusion, a traditional lidocaine TD significantly enhances the analgesic effect from the epidural neostigmine plus sufentanil combination, but affects ambulation in early labor.

Single-shot spinal block for labour analgesia in multiparous parturients*

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal analgesia (ITA) is effective in late, rapidly progressing labour. In 1998, our hospital implemented the use of single-shot spinal block for pain relief in multiparous parturients. As part of a quality assurance programme, we assessed the analgesic efficacy, obstetric and neonatal outcomes and maternal satisfaction after this form of analgesia now in routine use in our labour ward.

METHODS

Two hundred and twenty-nine consecutive multiparous parturients presenting for vaginal delivery and requesting analgesia were asked to participate in this prospective study. All parturients received our standard ITA: 2.5 mg bupivacaine (1 ml) + 25 microg fentanyl (0.5 ml) inserted via the L2-3 or L3-4 interspace. Routine monitoring included maternal vital signs, uterine contraction and fetal heart rate tracing. Pain scores (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0-10), sensory levels, motor block, side-effects and maternal satisfaction were recorded. Satisfactory analgesia was defined as a decrease in pain scores to three or less within 20 min after injection. The number of parturients requesting additional analgesia and the duration of spinal block (time from injection until request for additional medication after satisfactory analgesia had worn off) were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine parturients were included in the study. Satisfactory analgesia was achieved in 153 (73%) parturients. Fifty-five (26%) women requested additional analgesia: 38 (18%) because of unsatisfactory analgesia and 17 (8%) because analgesia ended before delivery. The duration of spinal block was 101 +/- 34 min. Pruritus occurred in 64%, fetal bradycardia in 7% and hypotension in 2% of deliveries. Pain relief was rated excellent by 65%, moderate by 20% and inadequate by 14% of the parturients. One hundred and sixty-nine (81%) women stated that they would like to have spinal analgesia again for pain relief during delivery.

CONCLUSION

The majority of multiparous parturients found ITA adequate for pain relief during delivery. However, modifications are required in terms of improved timing, reliability and duration of analgesia.

The management of accidental dural puncture during labour epidural analgesia: a survey of UK practice

The management of accidental dural puncture and postdural puncture headache in obstetric practice continues to be of great interest. This survey aims to explore the current management of this complication in the United Kingdom and compares the findings to a similar survey undertaken in 1993. A postal questionnaire was sent to all maternity units (n = 248). The return rate was 71%. Of these, 144 units (85%) now have written guidelines for the management of accidental dural puncture compared to 58% in 1993. In 47 units (28%), the epidural catheter is now routinely placed intrathecally following accidental dural puncture; in 69 units (41%) the catheter is re-sited and in the remaining 53 units (31%) either option is allowed. This is in contrast to the previous survey, which found that catheters were re-sited in 99% of units. Only 31 units (18%) now limit the second stage of labour and 19 (11%) avoid pushing and deliver by ventouse or forceps, whilst 116 units (69%) allow labour to take place without any intervention. Only 44 units (26%) now treat postdural puncture headache with an epidural blood patch as soon as it is diagnosed, whereas in 120 units (71%) the blood patch is performed only after failure of conservative measures. Due to the large increase in the use of the intrathecal catheter following this complication, a follow-up questionnaire was posted 5 months later to those units (n = 99) that reported this practice in the initial survey, with a 94% response rate. The two most commonly cited reasons for intrathecal catheterisation were to avoid further dural puncture (76%) and to allow immediate analgesia for labour (75%).

Ambulatory labor analgesia: what does an obstetrician need to know?

A simple statement that describes the degree of the patient's satisfaction with the pain relief from her labor epidural analgesia has often assessed the quality of labor analgesia as perceived by the patient. Many laboring parturients, midwives, obstetricians and anesthesiologists are increasingly concerned by the limitations of traditional epidural labor analgesia. In general, women dislike the inability to void, the often-dense motor block, the feeling of numbness of the lower body, the total lack of the urge to bear down, and the complete perineal anesthesia. Continuous search for balanced labor analgesia that provides relief from pain, while preserving motor function, has led to the development of an ambulatory labor analgesia technique. This article assesses the validity of various strongly advocated opinions as to whether parturients benefit from ambulation in labor and also reviews the current trends in ambulatory labor analgesia.

Efficacy and side effect profile of varying doses of intrathecal fentanyl added to bupivacaine for labor analgesia

The purpose of this randomized, double blinded and controlled study was to determine the optimal dose of intrathecal fentanyl when combined with bupivacaine 2.5 mg for initiation of labor analgesia. Parous parturients with cervical dilation between 3 and 5 cm were randomized to receive intrathecal fentanyl 0 (control), 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 micrograms, combined with bupivacaine 2.5 mg, followed by a lidocaine/epinephrine epidural test dose. Visual analog pain scores (VAPS) and the presence of side effects were determined every 15 min until the parturient requested additional analgesia. Fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings were compared between groups. All parturients who received fentanyl >/= 15 micrograms had VAPS < 20 mm and duration of analgesia > 15 min, but this was not true for all parturients with fentanyl doses < 15 micrograms. Duration of analgesia was shorter for fentanyl groups 0, 5 and 10 micrograms, compared to groups 15, 20 and 25 micrograms, but there was no difference between the 15, 20 and 25 micrograms groups. There was no difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, or in FHR tracing changes. The incidence of pruritus was greater in all fentanyl groups compared to control. These data suggest that, when combined with intrathecal bupivacaine 2.5 mg, fentanyl 15 micrograms provides satisfactory analgesia to all parturients. Higher fentanyl doses produced no additional benefit in duration or quality of analgesia.

Meningococcal meningitis after combined spinal-epidural analgesia

We present a case of bacterial meningitis in a 32-year-old parturient following combined spinal-epidural analgesia for labour. The patient made a full recovery with no residual neurological sequelae, but important lessons were learnt. Firstly, investigating obstetricians and physicians were unaware that a combined spinal-epidural technique included an intrathecal component, so did not consider treating organisms that might be acquired by this route. Anaesthetists, on the other hand, in the absence of an isolated organism, saw this as a likely combined spinal-epidural complication. Infectious disease experts eventually diagnosed community-acquired meningococcal meningitis by analysing bacterial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragments using polymerase chain reaction studies. This test and the management of suspected meningitis in the post-partum period are discussed.

The effect of epidural test dose on motor function after a combined spinal-epidural technique for labor analgesia

Labor analgesia initiated with intrathecal bupivacaine and fentanyl, without a local anesthetic epidural test dose, provides effective analgesia and allows ambulation. In this study, we sought to determine the effect of a lidocaine-epinephrine test dose administered immediately after the initiation of combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia with bupivacaine 2.5 mg and fentanyl 25 micro g on parturients' hemodynamic stability, posterior column function, motor strength, and subjective ability to walk. Parturients (n = 153) were randomized to receive either 3 mL of epidural saline or lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000. Hemodynamic variables, proprioception, straight leg raise, and the modified Bromage score were analyzed in 110 parturients who completed the study protocol and were not different between groups. Vibratory sense, the ability to perform a partial deep knee bend and to step up on a stool, and the subjective ability to walk were impaired in a larger number of parturients in the lidocaine-epinephrine group at 30 min (P < 0.05). At 60 min, there were no differences between the groups except that fewer parturients in the lidocaine-epinephrine group could step up on a stool. The straight leg raise against resistance and the modified Bromage scale did not correlate well with other tests of motor strength (Spearman's rho, 0.273-0.405). These data suggest that the test dose should be avoided immediately after initiation of CSE analgesia when early ambulation is desired.

IMPLICATIONS

A lidocaine-epinephrine epidural test dose (3 mL of lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000), injected immediately after the initiation of combined spinal-epidural labor analgesia with bupivacaine 2.5 mg and fentanyl 25 microg, may interfere with the ability to perform simple tests of motor function and ambulation.

Ambulatory epidural anesthesia and the duration of labor

OBJECTIVES

Ambulatory epidural analgesia has become a common option for women in labor in France. We tested the hypothesis that a method of epidural analgesia that allowed women to walk had specific advantages regarding mode of delivery, consumption of local anesthetic, oxytocin requirement, and labor duration.

METHODS

Two hundred and twenty-one women with uncomplicated pregnancies who presented in spontaneous labor between 36 and 42 weeks of gestation or who were scheduled for induced labor were randomly divided into two groups, ambulatory and non-ambulatory. All were given intermittent epidural injections of 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.6 microg/ml sufentanil for analgesia during labor (P<0.05 was considered significant). None of the women had previous cesarean delivery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in mode of delivery, consumption of local anesthetic, or oxytocin requirement. However, a significant difference was noted in labor duration (173.4+/-109.9 min vs. 236.4+/-130.6 min; P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Walking with ambulatory labor analgesia shortens labor duration but has no other effect on the progress and outcome of labor.

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation, and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia during labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (July 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2002) and EMBASE (1974 to June 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials identified from searching were assessed for inclusion by the same two reviewers independently. Review Manager software was used for calculation of the treatment effect represented by odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) using a fixed effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials (2047 women) met our inclusion criteria. Of the 25 outcomes analysed from these studies CSE shows a reduced time from first injection to effective maternal analgesia WMD -5.50 minutes (95% CI -6.47 to -4.52; four trials), an increased incidence of maternal satisfaction OR 4.69 (95% CI 1.27 to 17.29; three trials), and an increased incidence of pruritus OR 2.79 (95% CI 1.87 to 4.18; nine trials). No difference was found between CSE and epidural techniques with regards to maternal mobility, rescue analgesia requirements, the incidence of post dural puncture headache (PDPH) or blood patch, hypotension, urinary retention, mode of delivery, or admission of the baby to the neonatal unit.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no standard CSE or epidural technique. Compared with epidural, CSE provides faster onset of effective pain relief from the time of injection, and increases the incidence of maternal satisfaction. However, CSE women experience more itch. There is no difference between CSE and epidural techniques with respect to: the incidence of forceps delivery, maternal mobility, PDPH, caesarean section rates or admission of babies to the neonatal unit. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

Comparison of continuous infusion versus midwife administered top-ups of epidural bupivacaine for labour analgesia: effect on second stage of labour and mode of delivery

Using a population-based study we retrospectively compared the effect of continuous versus intermittent top-up epidural analgesia on the outcome of labour at the University Hospital of Wales. We analysed the labour outcome of 410 primigravid deliveries over an 18-month period during a change in delivery suite protocol. Data were retrieved from the Cardiff Births Survey and the sample was analysed in two groups: group 1 (n = 201) received a continuous infusion of 0.1% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 2 microg/mL and group 2 (n = 209) received intermittent top-ups of the same solution. Outcome measures were the number of operative deliveries and the proportion of those deliveries that were due to prolongation of the second stage of labour. There were no significant differences in terms of group characteristics, women undergoing assisted vaginal delivery (group 1: 83 vs. group 2: 70, OR 0.8 CI 0.5-1.2), caesarean section (group 1: 59 vs. group 2: 61, OR 1.0 CI 0.6-1.5), and women with prolonged second stage (group 1: 50 vs. group 2: 47, OR 1.1 CI 0.6-1.8). The presumed reduction in motor blockade associated with intermittent top-up epidural regimes did not affect the outcome of labour.

Intrathecal ropivacaine or bupivacaine with fentanyl for labour

Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) is widely used to provide pain relief in labour while minimizing motor blockade. Aiming to further reduce associated motor weakness, we compared ropivacaine 2.5 mg in the intrathecal injection with a standard bupivacaine CSE in a double-blind study. Forty women were randomized to receive either bupivacaine 2.5 mg or ropivacaine 2.5 mg intrathecally, both with fentanyl 0.025 mg. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the onset, duration or quality of analgesia or the level of sensory block attained. Forty per cent of the women (8/20) receiving bupivacaine developed detectable motor block compared with only 5% (1/20) in the ropivacaine group (P<0.05). Vibration sense was impaired in one woman in each group. Adverse effects did not differ between groups. We conclude that intrathecal ropivacaine 2.5 mg in combination with fentanyl 0.025 mg as part of a CSE technique provides rapid and safe analgesia for labour as effective as that achieved with bupivacaine 2.5 mg and with significantly less motor block.

Effect of epidural analgesia on the fetal heart rate

Fetal heart rate (FHR) changes occasionally follow the use of labor epidurals. Most studies of the phenomenon have focused on specific techniques, but similar timing and appearance suggest a common cause. Induction of analgesia may transiently alter the balance between factors encouraging and inhibiting uterine contractions with subsequent changes of FHR patterns. Regardless the etiology, these changes are transient and do not produce maternal or fetal morbidity. However, they must be promptly recognized and treated if necessary.

Either sufentanil or fentanyl, in addition to intrathecal bupivacaine, provide satisfactory early labour analgesia

PURPOSE

The study was aimed primarily at comparing the duration of analgesia produced by intrathecal fentanyl 25 microg with sufentanil 5 microg when added to bupivacaine 1.25 mg as the initial component of the combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique in early labour.

METHODS

Forty healthy parturients were randomly assigned into two groups to receive either intrathecal sufentanil 5 microg plus bupivacaine 1.25 mg (Group S) or intrathecal fentanyl 25 microg plus bupivacaine 1.25 mg (Group F). Apart from the duration of analgesia, pain scores and side effects were also evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the duration of analgesia (mean 109 +/- SD 49 min in Group F vs 118 +/- 54 min in Group S, P=0.9). Group F had a more rapid onset of analgesia (P <0.05) and a higher cephalad block (median T4 vs T7, P <0.05) in the first 30 min after the block. No difference in the side effects was detected.

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl 25 microg is a good alternative to sufentanil 5 microg when added to bupivacaine 1.25 mg for early labour analgesia.

Evaluation of a spinal needle locking device for use with the combined spinal epidural technique

Success of the 'needle-through-needle' technique for combined spinal epidural analgesia requires the immobilisation of the spinal needle during intrathecal injection. A device that achieves this was evaluated in 200 labouring women, randomly allocated to receive a combined spinal epidural using the CSEcure(R) (SIMS Portex, UK) locking needle or a conventional, non-locking technique. Data collection included the incidence of dural click as the spinal needle penetrated the dura mater, presence of cerebrospinal fluid in the spinal needle hub and the number of technical failures with the spinal component. Successful dural punctures with the spinal needle were similar for locking and non-locking needles (99.0 vs. 98.0%; p = 0.55), despite a small but significant reduction in dural click with the locking needle compared with the non-locking technique (97. 0 vs. 84.7%; p < 0.01). Although not statistically significant, there was a higher number of technical failures, mainly due to spinal needle movement, in the non-locking group (9.1 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.08). The locking needle device may be a useful alternative to conventional methods for combined spinal epidural analgesia.

The effect of the addition of ropivacaine or bupivacaine upon pruritus induced by intrathecal fentanyl in labour

Sixty patients in early labour were randomly allocated to one of three groups. The control group received intrathecal fentanyl 25 microg, the ropivacaine group received intrathecal fentanyl 25 microg and ropivacaine 2.5 mg while the bupivacaine group received intrathecal fentanyl 25 microg and bupivacaine 2.5 mg. The incidence of pruritus was 100% in controls, compared with 85% in the ropivacaine group (not significant) and 75% in the bupivacaine group (p = 0.003). The severity of pruritus was significantly less in the ropivacaine (p = 0.006) and bupivacaine (p = 0.001) groups. Most patients developed pruritus by 30 min. Pruritus above the abdomen was not reduced in patients receiving local anaesthetics. There were no significant differences in the mean pain visual analogue score, systolic blood pressure, maternal heart rate and upper level of reduced pin-prick sensation in the first 30 min. Intrathecal ropivacaine and, more so, intrathecal bupivacaine reduce the incidence and severity of pruritus from intrathecal fentanyl for labour analgesia.