Efficacy of patient-controlled epidural analgesia after initiation with epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia

[Recent standards in management of obstetric anesthesia]

The following article contains information not only for the clinical working anaesthesiologist, but also for other specialists involved in obstetric affairs. Besides a synopsis of a German translation of the current "Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anaesthesia 2016" [1], written by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the authors provide personal information regarding major topics of obstetric anaesthesia including pre-anaesthesia patient evaluation, equipment and staff at the delivery room, use of general anaesthesia, peridural analgesia, spinal anaesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia, single shot spinal anaesthesia, and programmed intermittent epidural bolus.

Epidural Analgesia for Labor: Continuous Infusion Versus Programmed Intermittent Bolus

Despite the traditional practice to maintain labor analgesia with a combination of continuous epidural infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia using an automated epidural pump; compelling data now shows that bolus injection through the epidural catheter may result in better distribution of anesthetic solution in the epidural space. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique is proposed as a better maintenance mode and may represent a more effective mode of maintaining epidural analgesia for labor, especially prolonged labor. Additional prospective and adequately powered studies are needed to confirm findings and determine the optimal combination of volume, rate, time, and drug concentration.

A retrospective comparison of programmed intermittent epidural bolus with continuous epidural infusion for maintenance of labor analgesia

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether maintenance of labor epidural analgesia using programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) is associated with reduced local anesthetic (LA) consumption, patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) use, and rescue analgesia requirements compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study at an academic university medical center. Women receiving epidural labor analgesia from March to July of 2015 were identified and categorized into three groups: 1) CEI 5 mL/hr, 2) PIEB 5 mL/60 minutes, 3) PIEB 3 mL/30 minutes. The LA consisted of bupivacaine 0.125 mg/mL and fentanyl 2 μg/mL. All patients had similar PCEA settings. Data were collected on pattern of LA usage, obstetric outcomes and Bromage scores.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was total volume of LA consumed per hour. Secondary outcomes included need for clinician boluses, pattern of PCEA use, degree of motor blockade and delivery mode.

RESULTS

We included 528 patients (262 had CEI, 162 had PIEB 5 mL/60 minutes, and 104 had PIEB 3 mL/30 minutes). Median LA consumed was 10.3, 9.5, and 9.7 mL/hr, respectively (p = 0.10). There were no differences in PCEA attempts or rescue clinician boluses, but PCEA volume (p = 0.03) and ratio of PCEA attempts/given (p < 0.01) were significantly different among the groups. Patients receiving PIEB 3 mL/30 minutes used lower PCEA volume than patients receiving CEI (p = 0.04). Patients with PIEB 5 mL/60 minutes and PIEB 3 mL/30 minutes had a higher ratio of PCEA attempts/given than CEI patients (p = 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). There were no differences in Bromage scores (p = 0.14) or delivery mode (p = 0.55) among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The epidural maintenance regimen used (CEI vs. PIEB) was not associated with differences in LA consumption, motor blockade or delivery mode. Main limitations of the study include its single center retrospective design and the fact that patients were not randomized to treatment groups.

Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anesthesia

The American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters and the Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology present an updated report of the Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anesthesia.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

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.

Update on best available options in obstetrics anaesthesia: perinatal outcomes, side effects and maternal satisfaction. Fifteen years systematic literature review

PURPOSE

In modern obstetrics, different pharmacological and non-pharmacological options allow to obtain pain relief during labour, one of the most important goals in women satisfaction about medical care. The aim of this review is to compare all the analgesia administration schemes in terms of effectiveness in pain relief, length of labour, mode of delivery, side effects and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases in the interval time between January 1999 and March 2013. Key search terms included: “labour analgesia”, “epidural anaesthesia during labour” (excluding anaesthesia for Caesarean section), “epidural analgesia and labour outcome” and “intra-thecal analgesia”.

RESULTS

10,331 patients were analysed: 5,578 patients underwent Epidural-Analgesia, 259 patients spinal analgesia, 2,724 combined spinal epidural analgesia, 322 continuous epidural infusion (CEI), 168 intermittent epidural bolus, 684 patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia and 152 intra-venous patient-controlled epidural analgesia. We also considered 341 women who underwent patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia in association with CEI and 103 patients who underwent patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia in association with automatic mandatory bolus.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences occurred among all the available administration schemes of neuraxial analgesia. In absence of obstetrical contraindication, neuraxial analgesia has to be considered as the gold standard in obtaining maternal pain relief during labour. The options available in the administration of analgesia should be known and evaluated together by both gynaecologists and anaesthesiologists to choose the best personalized scheme and obtain the best women satisfaction. Since it is difficult to identify comparable circumstances during labour, it is complicate to standardize drugs schemes and their combinations.

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia for labor and delivery

The rapid onset of analgesia and improved mobility with combined spinal-epidural (CSE) techniques has been associated with a higher degree of maternal satisfaction compared with conventional epidural analgesia. However, controversy exists in that initiation of labor analgesia with a CSE may be associated with an increased risk for nonreassuring fetal status (ie, fetal bradycardia) and a subsequent need for emergent cesarean delivery. Overall, both epidural and CSE techniques possess unique risk/benefit profiles, and the decision to use one technique rather than the other should be determined based on individual patient and clinical circumstances.

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.

A double-blind randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with or without a background infusion following initial spinal analgesia for labor pain

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) combined with spinal analgesia is an option for pain relief in labor. However, the effect of a CBI on the analgesic requirements of laboring women is still debated. This double-blind study investigated the effect of CBI with PCEA following spinal analgesia on the local anesthetic requirements of parturients during labor.

METHODS

Sixty-six nulliparous women were randomly assigned to a standard PCEA protocol (5-mL demand bolus, 10-min lockout) with or without a CBI of 6 mL/h. The epidural solution consisted of 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg/mL. Labor analgesia was initiated in both groups with intrathecal bupivacaine 2.5 mg plus fentanyl 25 microg. The number of demands per hour and the hourly dose of ropivacaine were calculated for both groups.

RESULTS

The median [range] number of analgesic boluses per hour in the PCEA group that were demanded: 2.4 [0.8-12.2] and delivered: 1.6 [0.8-2.6], were significantly greater than those in the PCEA+CBI group: 0.7 [0.4-4.2] and 0.6 [0.2-1.3] (P 0.05). However, the hourly ropivacaine dose in the PCEA group (7.9 [3.9-13.2] mg/h) was not significantly different from that in the PCEA+CBI group (8.4 [6.0-12.5] mg/h).

CONCLUSION

In laboring nulliparous patients provided initial labor analgesia with spinal anesthesia, the use of a continuous background infusion decreases PCEA demand dosing, but not the total hourly amount of ropivacaine and fentanyl used.