Satisfaction, control and pain relief: short- and long-term assessments in a randomised controlled trial of low-dose and traditional epidurals and a non-epidural comparison group

Are labor pain and birth experience associated with persistent pain and postpartum depression? A prospective cohort study

Background and aims A considerable research-literature focuses on pain during labor and associations with postpartum persistent pain and depression, with findings pointing in various directions. The aim of this study was to examine the role of labor pain and overall birth experience in the development of pain and depression 8 weeks after delivery. Methods The study sample was drawn from the Akershus Birth Cohort. Data from multiple sources were used, including the hospital's birth record (n = 4,391), questionnaire data from gestational week 17 of pregnancy (n = 3,752), 8 weeks postpartum (n = 2,217), and two questions about pain and birth experience asked within 48 h after delivery (n = 1,221). The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was used to measure postpartum depression, a single question was used to measure persistent pain 8 weeks postpartum, while pain and birth experience were measured by numeric rating scales. A history of pre-pregnant depression and chronic pain were measured through self-report questions in gestational week 17. A total of 645 women had complete data from all sources. We applied multiple imputation techniques to handle missing responses on the two questions about pain and birth experience. Results The results showed that neither labor pain nor birth experience were associated with persistent pain 8 weeks postpartum, whereas pain before pregnancy (OR 3.70; 95% CI 2.71-5.04) and a history of depression (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.85-2.88) were statistically significant predictors of persistent pain. A negative birth experience was significantly (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.04-1.29) associated with postpartum depression, whereas labor pain intensity was not. A history of depression (OR 3.95; 95% CI 2.92-5.34) and pre-pregnancy pain (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.37-3.01) were important predictors of postpartum depression 8 weeks after delivery. Conclusions and implications Whilst the relationship between labor pain intensity and postpartum pain and depression remain unclear, our results do imply the need to screen for previous depression and chronic pain conditions in pregnant women, as well as consider preventive measures in those who screen positive.

[Normal childbirth: physiologic labor support and medical procedures. Guidelines of the French National Authority for Health (HAS) with the collaboration of the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) and the French College of Midwives (CNSF) - Mother's wellbeing and regional or systemic analgesia for labor]

INTRODUCTION

These guidelines deal with the parturient wellbeing in terms of hydration and regional and systemic pain management during labour.

METHOD

Guidelines were established based on literature analysis and experts consensus.

RESULTS

Clear liquids consumption is permitted all along labor and postpartum, without volume limitation, in patients at low risk of general anesthesia (grade B). The consumption of solid foods is not recommended during the active stage of labor (consensus agreement). It is recommended to promote on regional analgesia to prevent inhalation (grade A). Pain relief using regional analgesia is a part of normal childbirth. It is recommended to provide regional analgesia to parturient who wish these technics. Regional analgesia is the safest and most effective analgesic method for the mother (grade A) and the child (grade B). It is recommended to inform women on the analgesic technics, to respect their choice and consider the right for a parturient to change her strategy in obstetrical circumstances or in cases of untractable pain (consensus agreement). It is recommended to perform a "low-dose" regional analgesia that respects the experience of childbirth (grade A) and maintain it with a patient controlled epidural analgesia technics (grade A). There is no minimum cervical dilation to allow epidural analgesia (grade A). In cases of rapid labor or after delivery for revision, spinal or combined spinal epidural can be used (grade C). Epidural has not to be ended before birth (consensus agreement). Blood pressure and fetal heart rate must be monitored every 3minutes after induction and/or each 10mL bolus then hourly (consensus agreement). Systematic and preventive fluid loading is not needed if only due to regional analgesia (grade B). Deambulation or postures are allowed in the absence of motor block and must be traced and do not alter the distribution of the regional analgesia (grade C). The postures of childbirth do not alter regional analgesia spread (NP2). There is no effect low dose regional analgesia on the duration of obstetric labor, nor the rate of instrumental births or caesarean section (NP1). Systematic use of oxytocin due to epidural analgesia is neither useful nor recommended (AE). Regional analgesia has no side effect on the fetus or newborn (NP1). If regional analgesia is contraindicated or during the waiting time, alternatives analgesic drugs (entonox, nalbuphine and tramadol or pudendal block) can be used but their analgesic efficiency remains mediocre to moderate and they are associated with adverse maternal and especially neonatal side effects (NP2). Remifentanil, ketamine and volatile anesthetics are excluded from these recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The present guidelines were established to update wellbeing of normal parturient during normal labor: hydration is recommended and low dose patient-controlled regional (epidural and spinal) analgesia is the most effective and safest analgesic method.

Delivery mode and maternal and neonatal outcomes of combined spinal-epidural analgesia compared with no analgesia in spontaneous labor: A single-center observational study in Japan

AIM

We aimed to assess the outcomes of combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia compared with no analgesia in spontaneous labor.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of deliveries between 2008 and 2014 comparing two groups based on the use of CSE analgesia in both nulliparous and multiparous women. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among 5247 (3334 nulliparous, 1913 multiparous) singleton deliveries, 3041 (2045, 996, respectively) patients received CSE analgesia and 2206 (1289, 917, respectively) had no analgesia. CSE analgesia was associated with increased risk of oxytocin augmentation (P < 0.01), prolonged duration of labor (P < 0.01), instrumental delivery (aOR, 3.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.69-4.19 for nulliparous and aOR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.32-3.53 for multiparous women), blood loss volume during vaginal delivery (P < 0.01), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51 and aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.93) and Apgar score less than 7 at 1 min (aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.28-2.74 and aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.35-5.61) in both nulliparous and multiparous women, respectively, and umbilical arterial blood gas pH less than 7.15 (aOR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.35-5.75) and umbilical arterial blood gas pH less than 7.10 (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.11-16.69) in multiparous women. There was no significant difference in incidence of cesarean delivery or Apgar score less than 7 at 5 min.

CONCLUSION

We observed several increased risks in obstetric and neonatal outcomes among pregnant women who received CSE analgesia during labor. Preparations for these risks are needed when administering CSE analgesia during labor.

Paradox of the institution: findings from a hospital labour ward ethnography

BACKGROUND

Interest in the influence of culture on birth practices is on the rise, and with it comes a sense of urgency to implement practices that aid the normalisation and humanisation of birth. This groundswell is occurring despite a broader cultural milieu of escalating technology-use and medicalisation of birth across the globe. Against this background, rates of epidural analgesia use by women in labour are increasing, despite the risk of side effects. Socio-cultural norms and beliefs are likely to influence pain relief choices but there is currently scant research on this topic.

METHODS

This study was undertaken to gain insight into the personal, social, cultural and institutional influences on women in deciding whether or not to use epidural analgesia in labour. The study had an ethnographic approach within a theoretical framework of Critical Medical Anthropology (CMA), Foucauldian and feminist theory. Given the nature of ethnographic research, it was assumed that using the subject of epidural analgesia to gain insight into Western birth practices could illuminate broader cultural ideals and that the epidural itself may not remain the focus of the research.

RESULTS

Findings from the study showed how institutional surveillance, symbolised by the Journey Board led to an institutional momentum that in its attempt to keep women safe actually introduced new areas of risk, a situation which we named the Paradox of the institution.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings, showing a risk/safety paradox at the centre of institutionalised birth, add a qualitative dimension to the growing number of quantitative studies asserting that acute medical settings can be detrimental to normal birth practices and outcomes.

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.

Documenting risk: A comparison of policy and information pamphlets for using epidural or water in labour

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% of Australian women use epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour, and its use is increasing. While epidural analgesia is considered a safe option from an anaesthetic point of view, its use transfers a labouring woman out of the category of 'normal' labour and increases her risk of intervention. Judicious use of epidural may be beneficial in particular situations, but its current common use needs to be assessed more closely. This has not yet been explored in the Australian context.

AIM

To examine personal, social, institutional and cultural influences on women in their decision to use epidural analgesia in labour. Examining this one event in depth illuminates other birth practices, which can also be analysed according to how they fit within prevailing cultural beliefs about birth.

METHODS

Ethnography, underpinned by a critical medical anthropology methodology.

RESULTS

These findings describe the influence of risk culture on labour ward practice; specifically, the policies and practices surrounding the use of epidural analgesia are contrasted with those on the use of water. Engaging with current risk theory, we identify the role of power in conceptualisations of risk, which are commonly perpetuated by authority rather than evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

As we move towards a risk-driven society, it is vital to identify both the conception and the consequences of promulgations of risk. The construction of waterbirth as a 'risky' practice had the effect of limiting midwifery practice and women's choices, despite evidence that points to the epidural as the more 'dangerous' option.

Analgesia for childbirth: modern insights into an age-old challenge and the quest for an ideal approach

SUMMARY It is widely recognized that childbirth may be the most painful experience in a woman’s lifetime and that women have a right to relief. There are many options, but the efficacy of only a few is supported by robust evidence. Many influences determine which method of pain relief is chosen, including social and cultural factors, availability, cost and personal preference. Due to human diversity and the differing perspectives of consumers, obstetric care providers and health administrators, there is no such thing as ‘an ideal approach’. In resource-rich societies, major advances in parturient safety and outcome flow from technique development and better monitoring. Greater awareness of the negative impact of untreated pain and of the relevance of genetic, cultural and social factors motivates research into better predictive models, novel therapies and optimization of existing methods.

Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour

BACKGROUND

It is more common for women in both high- and low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour, and in some women reduce placental blood flow.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of encouraging women to assume different upright positions (including walking, sitting, standing and kneeling) versus recumbent positions (supine, semi-recumbent and lateral) for women in the first stage of labour on duration of labour, type of birth and other important outcomes for mothers and babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing women randomised to upright versus recumbent positions in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data for each study. We sought additional information from trial authors as required. We used random-effects analysis for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present. We reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 25 included trials (5218 women) was variable.For Comparison 1: Upright and ambulant positions versus recumbent positions and bed care, the first stage of labour was approximately one hour and 22 minutes shorter for women randomised to upright as opposed to recumbent positions (average MD -1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.22 to -0.51; 15 studies, 2503 women; random-effects, T(2) = 2.39, Chi(2) = 203.55, df = 14, (P < 0.00001), I(2) = 93%). Women who were upright were also less likely to have caesarean section (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; 14 studies, 2682 women) and less likely to have an epidural (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, nine studies, 2107 women; random-effects, T(2) = 0.02, I(2) = 61%). Babies of mothers who were upright were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, however this was based on one trial (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89, one study, 200 women). There were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.For Comparison 2: Upright and ambulant positions versus recumbent positions and bed care (with epidural: all women), there were no significant differences between groups for outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is clear and important evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduces the duration of labour, the risk of caesarean birth, the need for epidural, and does not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' well being. Given the great heterogeneity and high performance bias of study situations, better quality trials are still required to confirm with any confidence the true risks and benefits of upright and mobile positions compared with recumbent positions for all women. Based on the current findings, we recommend that women in low-risk labour should be informed of the benefits of upright positions, and encouraged and assisted to assume whatever positions they choose.

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.

Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour

BACKGROUND

It is more common for women in both high- and low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour, and in some women reduce placental blood flow.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of encouraging women to assume different upright positions (including walking, sitting, standing and kneeling) versus recumbent positions (supine, semi-recumbent and lateral) for women in the first stage of labour on duration of labour, type of birth and other important outcomes for mothers and babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing women randomised to upright versus recumbent positions in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data for each study. We sought additional information from trial authors as required. We used random-effects analysis for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present. We reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 25 included trials (5218 women) was variable.For Comparison 1: Upright and recumbent positions versus recumbent positions and bed care, the first stage of labour was approximately one hour and 22 minutes shorter for women randomised to upright as opposed to recumbent positions (average MD -1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.22 to -0.51; 15 studies, 2503 women; random-effects, T(2) = 2.39, Chi(2) = 203.55, df = 14, (P < 0.00001), I(2) = 93%). Women who were upright were also less likely to have caesarean section (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; 14 studies, 2682 women) and less likely to have an epidural (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, nine studies, 2107 women; random-effects, T(2) = 0.02, I(2) = 61%). Babies of mothers who were upright were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, however this was based on one trial (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89, one study, 200 women). There were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.For Comparison 2: Upright and recumbent positions versus recumbent positions and bed care (with epidural: all women), there were no significant differences between groups for outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is clear and important evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduces the duration of labour, the risk of caesarean birth, the need for epidural, and does not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' well being. Given the great heterogeneity and high performance bias of study situations, better quality trials are still required to confirm with any confidence the true risks and benefits of upright and mobile positions compared with recumbent positions for all women. Based on the current findings, we recommend that women in low-risk labour should be informed of the benefits of upright positions, and encouraged and assisted to assume whatever positions they choose.

Identification of maternal characteristics associated with the use of epidural analgesia

The present survey aims to identify predictors associated with the use of epidural analgesia (EA). Therefore, from October 2007 to June 2008, a survey was conducted in 193 pregnant women (mean age 31.7 years (SD 4.9); 64.8% primipara) attending a German general hospital with a specialisation in integrative medicine. Questionnaires, including Antonovsky's sense of coherence (SOC) were delivered antepartum. Delivery data were recorded within the hospital quality management programme. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for EA use was significantly greater than one for women who had previously used EA (adjusted OR =4.1; CI: 1.03-16.31) and for the desire for a delivery without pain (adjusted OR =3.05; CI: 1.36-6.83). The likelihood of EA use decreased in multipara (adjusted OR =0.05; CI: 0.01-0.22). SOC was not found to be an independent predictor for EA use. However, women with high SOC more often preferred a delivery without EA (p for trend =0.037). In conclusion, first time labour, the desire for a delivery without pain and previous use of EA are independent predictors for the use of EA in labour. Further studies should clarify the predictive role of SOC in pregnancy.

[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.

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.

Control in childbirth: a concept analysis and synthesis

AIM

To report a concept analysis of control in childbirth.

BACKGROUND

Control has a variety of definitions from a wide range of disciplines. In childbirth, however, the concept is more tenuous and depends on the context. It can be viewed in relationship to a woman's body and labour progression, pain, environment and the ability to request her method of birth.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were searched between 1970-2011 using the keywords, 'control', 'childbirth', 'labour' and 'delivery'.

REVIEW METHODS

Walker and Avant's method of concept analysis was used for this review. In addition, cases were placed before defining attributes as recommended by Risjord.

RESULTS

Four attributes of control were identified: decision-making, access to information, personal security and physical functioning. Antecedents include pregnancy and expectations of the birth. Consequences include childbirth satisfaction, childbirth experience, emotional well-being, fulfilment and the transition into motherhood. A model case, contrary case and borderline case are described.

CONCLUSION

Clarifying the definition of control in childbirth and defining its attributes can help inform women and maternity providers throughout the world. This analysis provides clarity to a previously tenuous concept and allows practitioners to better understand the critical relationship between control in childbirth and satisfaction with the childbirth experience. It also has the potential to affect perinatal outcomes and subsequently healthcare costs.

Requests and usage of epidural analgesia in grand-grand multiparous and similar-aged women with lesser parity: prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia in older and multiparous women has been associated with risks. The aim of this study was to compare epidural analgesia use for labor/delivery in grand-grand multiparous women (GGMP; ≥10 births) relative to that in similar-aged women with lesser parity.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of advanced age gravida. All laboring women in a six-month period admitted to a tertiary Israeli center were included if they were advanced age (≥36 years old) with one to two previous births (Low parity; n=128) or four to five previous births (Medium parity; n=181), and all GGMP (any age; n=187). Primary outcome was comparison of requests for and use of epidural analgesia for labor/delivery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences across parity groups in percent of gravida requesting or receiving epidural analgesia (46.5-59.4%). Time from admission to epidural administration (range mean times: 168-187 min) and from advent of epidural to delivery (range mean times: 155-160 min) were comparable across parity groups. Use of other analgesia (5.8-8%) was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Requests for and use of epidural analgesia was comparable in older gravida and was not correlated with parity. Mean times from presentation to epidural administration, mean cervical dilatation at epidural initiation, and mean time from performing of epidural to delivery were comparable across groups.