Neuraxial labor analgesia: Maintenance techniques

Technical aspects of neuraxial analgesia during labor and maternity care: an updated overview

Labor analgesia is increasingly widespread throughout the world with a rate ranging from 10 to 60%. The benefits regarding clinical and non-clinical maternal-fetal outcomes are currently discussed in international scientific literature. Even stage of labor needs a different and appropriate approach to control the pain; however, different techniques are reported in literature. The following study intends to give a brief overview of the characteristics of the different neuraxial and non-neuraxial techniques currently available and the non-technical skills necessary for effective assistance to pregnant women, providing insights on the topic to understand critical issues at the same time. After bibliographic research since 2018 to 2023, many randomized controlled trials, literature reviews, systematic reviews, and metanalysis were evaluated to create this brief overview. The following pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches were assessed: spinal techniques, such as epidural analgesia (EA), combined spinal-epidural (CSE), dural puncture epidural (DPE), and continuous spinal anesthesia (CSA); pharmacological administration of nitrous oxide (N2O) and systemic opioids (morphine, fentanyl, and pethidine); as the third one transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), acupressure/acupuncture, aromatherapy, and breathing exercises. All the assessed approaches are relatively safe and effective, but the association of technical and non-technical skills is needed to improve the maternal and fetus outcome. More studies are needed to clarify what is the best approach to labor analgesia.

The impact of epidural ropivacaine versus levobupivacaine for labor analgesia on maternal and fetal outcomes: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Newer neuraxial local anesthetic agents which have been used as epidural analgesia have shown to provide reliable pain relief during labor. Ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are newer agents now used for labor analgesia. However, even though few studies have made their comparison with bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine have seldom systematically been compared. Therefore, in this analysis, we aimed to systematically show the impact of epidural ropivacaine versus levobupivacaine for labor analgesia on maternal and fetal outcomes.

METHODS

http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane database and Google Scholar were searched for studies comparing ropivacaine versus levobupivacaine for labor analgesia. Maternal and fetal outcomes were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. The RevMan software 5.4 was used to analyze data in this study. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data post analysis.

RESULTS

A total number of 2062 participants were included in this analysis whereby 1054 participants were assigned to ropivacaine and 1008 participants were assigned to levobupivacaine. The main results of this analysis showed that epidural ropivacaine was not associated with significantly higher risk of hypotension (RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.43 - 1.17; P = 0.18) and pruritus (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.89 - 1.42; P = 0.34) when compared to levobupivacaine for labor analgesia. However, the risk of nausea and vomiting was significantly higher with ropivacaine (RR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.05 - 2.44; P = 0.03). Spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.89 - 1.42; P = 0.83), instrumental vaginal delivery (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 - 1.45; P = 0.32) and the risk for cesarean section (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.42 - 1.37; P = 0.35) were not significantly different. When fetal outcomes were assessed, Apgar score < 7 at 1 min (RR: 1.01: 95% CI: 0.57 - 1.80; P = 0.97), abnormality of fetal heart rate (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.55 - 3.79; P = 0.45) and neonatal asphyxia (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.10 - 1.18; P = 0.09) were also similarly manifested.

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, our analysis showed both epidural ropivacaine and levobupivacaine to be equally effective for labor analgesia in terms of maternal and fetal outcomes. No major adverse maternal and fetal outcome was observed in this analysis. However, considering the several limitations of this analysis, further larger studies should be able to solve and clarify this issue.

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).

Maternal outcomes using delayed pushing versus immediate pushing in the second stage of labour: An umbrella review

INTRODUCTION

Different systematic reviews have been developed in the last decades about maternal risks of immediate pushing and delayed pushing, depending on the duration of the second stage of labour, but they do not provide conclusive evidence.

AIM

The main aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to assess the maternal outcomes using delayed pushing and immediate pushing in the second stage of labour in women receiving epidural analgesia.

METHODS

We searched systematically in PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus (October 26th, 2023). Methodological quality was analysed using AMSTAR and ROBIS scales, and the strength of evidence was established according to the guidelines advisory committee grading criteria. The outcome measures were the duration of the second stage of labour, duration of active pushing, caesarean section, instrumental vaginal birth, spontaneous vaginal birth, fatigue score, perineal lacerations, postpartum haemorrhage, and rate of episiotomy. Seven systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis were included.

RESULTS

Results showed that delayed pushing increases the total time of the second stage of labour, although delayed pushing decreases the duration of active pushing with moderate quality of evidence. Mixed results were found with respect to the variables instrumental vaginal birth, spontaneous vaginal birth, and fatigue score although the results favour delayed pushing or show no statistically significant differences with respect to immediate pushing. No favourable results were ever found for immediate pushing with respect to delayed pushing, with a limited quality of evidence. Even so, delayed pushing seems to be associated with a significant increase in spontaneous vaginal birth rates. The results found no significant differences between the immediate pushing and delayed pushing groups in the caesarean section rates, perineal lacerations, postpartum haemorrhage, and episiotomy ratio, with a limited quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that delayed pushing during the second stage of labour produces at least the same maternal outcomes as immediate pushing, although we note that delayed pushing produces an increase of the duration of the second stage of labour, a shorter duration of the active pushing and a tendency to increase spontaneous vaginal birth and to reduce the instrumental vaginal birth rates and fatigue scores. This should be considered clinically. This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42023397616).

Optimizing the length of the second stage and management of pushing

Although the optimal length of the second stage of labor to minimize maternal and neonatal morbidities and optimize spontaneous vaginal delivery is not known, available evidence suggests that increasing length of the second stage is associated with increasing maternal and neonatal morbidity. Thus, evidence-based strategies to safely shorten the second stage, such as initiating pushing when complete dilation is reached among those with neuraxial anesthesia, is prudent. Many aspects of optimal management of the second stage of labor require future study to continue to guide clinical second-stage management.