A randomized comparison of automated intermittent mandatory boluses with a basal infusion in combination with patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor and delivery

An Innovative Approach to Determine Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus Pump Settings for Labor Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Three settings are required on a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) pump for labor analgesia: the PIEB next bolus (PIEBnb), PIEB interval (PIEBi), and PIEB volume (PIEBv). The ideal settings for these parameters are still unknown. We hypothesized a mathematical modeling tool, response surface methodology (RSM), could estimate 3 PIEB pump parameters while balancing 3 clinically important patient outcomes simultaneously. The study objective was to use RSM to estimate PIEB settings (PIEBnb, PIEBi, and PIEBv) while maximizing maternal satisfaction, minimizing the need for clinician-administered boluses, and optimizing the ratio of delivered/requested patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) boluses simultaneously.

METHODS

With institutional ethics approval, a double-blind randomized trial was completed in a tertiary care labor and delivery center. Nulliparous, English-speaking American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II patients aged 18 to 45 years at full term, single gestation in vertex presentation, in spontaneous labor and ≤7 cm cervical dilation were included. Patients with comorbidities, contraindications to neuraxial analgesia, using chronic analgesics, <152 cm, or body mass index (BMI) >45 kg/m 2 were excluded. After informed consent, labor analgesia was initiated using 10 mL ropivacaine 0.2% with 10 µg/mL fentanyl solution and PCEA (volume 6 mL every 10 minutes). Patients were randomized to predetermined PIEB settings. RSM identified 3 pump settings that represented a stationary point that best maximized or minimized 3 outcomes simultaneously: PCEA ratio (a ratio closest to 1), clinician bolus (optimal is 0), and maternal satisfaction (visual analog scale, 0-100, ideal response is ≥90).

RESULTS

Of 287 potential participants, 192 did not meet inclusion criteria or declined to participate, and 26 were withdrawn, leaving 69 patients for study inclusion. Using RSM, the suggested PIEB settings for all the primary study outcomes were as follows: PIEBnb = 29.4 minutes, PIEBi = 59.8 minutes, and PIEBv = 6.2 mL. These PIEB settings corresponded to the following clinical outcomes: maternal satisfaction at 93.9%, PCEA ratio at 0.77, and need for clinician bolus at 0.29. The dermatome sensory score was between T10 and T5 in 89% of the patients. The median lowest Bromage score was 4.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel study used a mathematical model to estimate PIEB pump settings while simultaneously maximizing 3 clinical outcomes. Equally weighted clinical outcomes prevent maximal outcome optimization and may not reflect patient priorities. Future studies or quality improvement endeavors could use RSM methodology to estimate PIEB pump settings targeting optimal values for a single clinical outcome of determined importance to parturients.

Limitations of Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia Following Abdominoplasty

BACKGROUND

Effective postoperative pain management is essential for patient satisfaction and an uneventful postoperative course, particularly in body contouring procedures. Systemic analgesic regimens can be supported by regional procedures, such as the transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block, but these have a limited duration of action. In contrast, thoracic epidural analgesia offers the possibility of a longer-lasting, individualized regional anesthesia administered by a patient-controlled analgesia pump.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a patient-controlled epidural analgesia to better classify the clinical value of this procedure in abdominoplasties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This work reviewed the digital medical charts of patients who underwent selective abdominoplasty without combined surgical procedures between September 2018 and August 2022. Evaluated data comprise the postoperative analgesia regimen, including on-demand medication, mobilization time, inpatient length of stay, and clinical outcome. The patients were grouped by the presence of a thoracic epidural catheter. This catheter was placed before anesthetic induction and a saturation dose was preoperatively applied. Postoperative PCEA patients received a basal rate and could independently administer boluses. Basal rate was individually adjusted during daily additional pain visits.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 112 patients. Significant differences in the demand for supportive nonepidural opiate medication were shown between the patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) group (n = 57) and the non-PCEA group (n = 55), depending on the time after surgery. PCEA patients demanded less medication during the early postoperative days (POD 0: PCEA 0.13 (±0.99) mg vs non-PCEA 2.59 (±4.55) mg, P = 0.001; POD 1: PCEA 0.79 mg (±3.06) vs non-PCEA 2.73 (±3.98) mg, P = 0.005), but they required more during the later postoperative phase (POD 3: PCEA 2.76 (±5.60) mg vs non-PCEA 0.61 (±2.01) mg, P = 0.008; POD 4: PCEA 1.64 (±3.82) mg vs non-PCEA 0.07 (±2.01) mg, P = 0.003). In addition, PCEA patients achieved full mobilization later (PCEA 2.67 (±0.82) days vs non-PCEA 1.78 (±1.09) days, P = 0.001) and were discharged later (PCEA 4.84 (±1.23) days vs non-PCEA 4.31 (±1.37) days, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Because the postoperative benefits of PCEA are limited to potent analgesia immediately after abdominoplasty, less cumbersome, time-limited regional anesthesia procedures (such as TAP block) appear not only adequate but also more effective.

90% effective volume of 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 0.4 µg/ml sufentanil for epidural labour analgesia with push pump at a rate of 400 mL/hr and a bolus interval of 30 min: a double-blind sequential dose-finding study

BACKGROUND

It was reported that either shorter programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) intervals or high-speed bolus can produce more extensive epidural spread. We hypothesized that a combination of shortened time interval and increased speed of epidural bolus might further improve analgesic effect and therefore reduce the hourly volume for epidural labour analgesia.

METHODS

This double-blind dose-finding study used a biased coin up-and-down sequential allocation method to determine the 90% effective bolus volume of ropivacaine combined with sufentanil while using the push pump at a rate of 400 mL/hr and interval of 30 min to provide effective analgesia without breakthrough pain. We used 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.4 µg/mL sufentanil, with bolus volumes ranging from 3 to 6 mL. The first patient was assigned a volume of 3 mL, and the remaining volumes were assigned according to the biased coin-up-and-down method.

RESULTS

The estimated 90% effective volume (EV90) of ropivacaine combined with sufentanil for epidural labour analgesia at a time interval of 30 min was 4.88 mL (95% confidence interval 4.83-5.38).

CONCLUSIONS

The optimum bolus volume of ropivacaine with sufentanil while using push pump at a time interval of 30 min is approximately 5 mL. It could probably further reduce the hourly bolus volume for epidural labour analgesia.

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).

Influence of different volumes and frequency of programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In labor, programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) can be defined as the bolus administration of epidural solution at scheduled time intervals. Compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) with or without patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), PIEB has been associated with decreased pain scores and need for rescue analgesia and increased maternal satisfaction. The optimal volume and dosing interval of PIEB, however, has still not been determined.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022362708).

SETTINGS

Labor.

PATIENTS

Pregnant patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Central, CINAHL, Global Health, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials that examined pregnant patients in labor who received CEI or PIEB with or without a PCEA component. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, facilitating the indirect comparison of PIEB with different volumes and dosing intervals through the common comparator of CEI and substituting or supplementing direct comparisons with these indirect ones. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 30 trials were included. For the first primary endpoint, need for rescue analgesia, PIEB delivered at a volume of 4 ml and frequency of 45 min (4/45) was inferior to PIEB 8/45 (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.12-11.33), PIEB 10/60 was superior to PIEB 2.5/15 (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16-0.82), PIEB 4/45 (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.71) and PIEB 5/60 (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.08-0.70), and PIEB 5/30 was not inferior to PIEB 10/60 (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.31-1.19). For the second primary endpoint, maternal satisfaction, no differences were present between the various PIEB regimens. The quality of evidence for these multiple primary endpoints was low owing to the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Importantly, PIEB 5/30 decreased the pain score at 4 h compared to PIEB 2.5/15 (MD 2.45; 95% CI 0.13-4.76), PIEB 5/60 (MD -2.28; 95% CI -4.18--0.38) and PIEB 10/60 (MD 1.73; 95% CI 0.31-3.16). Mean ranking of interventions demonstrated PIEB 10/60 followed by PIEB 5/30 to be best placed to reduce the cumulative dose of local anesthetic, and this resulted in an improved incidence of lower limb motor blockade for PIEB 10/60 in comparison to CEI (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.67). No differences in neonatal outcomes were found. Some concerns were present for the risk of bias in two thirds of trials and the risk of bias was shown to be high in the remaining one third of trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should focus on PIEB 5/30 and PIEB 10/60 and how the method of analgesia initiation, nature and concentration of local anesthetic, design of epidural catheter and rate of administration might influence outcomes related to the mother and neonate.

Automated mandatory bolus versus basal infusion for maintenance of epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting in sensory blockade of the abdomen, pelvis, and perineum. Epidural opioids are often co-administered to improve analgesia. Administration of epidural medications can be accomplished by basal infusion (BI) or automated mandatory bolus (AMB). With BI, medications are administered continuously, while AMB involves injecting medications at set time intervals. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on top of AMB or BI enables patients to initiate additional boluses of epidural medications.  The superior method of delivering epidural medications would result in lower incidence of pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention (breakthrough pain). Also, it should be associated with lower incidence of epidural-related adverse effects including caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery (use of forceps or vacuum devices), prolonged duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, clear evidence of the superiority of one technique over the other is lacking. Also, differences in the initiation of epidural analgesia such as combined spinal-epidural (CSE) (medications given into the intrathecal space in addition to the epidural space) compared to epidural only, and medications used (types and doses of LA or opioids) may not have been accounted for in previous reviews.  Our prior systematic review suggested that AMB reduces the incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI with no significant difference in the incidence of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, several studies comparing AMB and BI have been performed since then, and inclusion of their data may improve the precision of our effect estimates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of AMB versus BI for maintaining labour epidural analgesia in women at term.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Wiley Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, (National Library of Medicine), Embase(Elseiver), Web of Science (Clarivate), the WHO-ICTRP (World Health Organization) and ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine) on 31 December 2022. Additionally, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews for eligible citations, and we contacted authors of included studies to identify unpublished research and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled studies that compared bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI during epidural analgesia. We excluded studies of women in preterm labour, with multiple pregnancies, with fetal malposition, intrathecal catheters, those that did not use automated delivery of medications, and those where AMB and BI were combined.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis described by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included: incidence of breakthrough pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention; incidence of caesarean delivery; and incidence of instrumental delivery. Secondly, we assessed the duration of labour; hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents, maternal satisfaction after fetal delivery, and neonatal Apgar scores.  The following subgroup analyses were chosen a priori: epidural alone versus CSE technique; regimens that used PCEA versus those that did not; and nulliparous versus combination of nulli- and multi-parous women. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence associated with our outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 studies of 4590 women, of which 13 enrolled healthy nulliparous women and five included healthy nulli- and multiparous women. All studies excluded women with preterm or complicated pregnancies. Techniques used to initiate epidural analgesia differed between the studies: seven used combined spinal epidural, 10 used epidural, and one used dural puncture epidural (DPE). There was also variation in analgesics used. Eight studies utilised ropivacaine with fentanyl, three used ropivacaine with sufentanil, two utilised levobupivacaine with sufentanil, one used levobupivacaine with fentanyl, and four utilised bupivacaine with fentanyl. Most of the studies were assessed to have low risk of randomisation, blinding, attrition, and reporting biases, except for allocation concealment where eight studies were assessed to have uncertain risk and three with high risk. Our results showed that AMB was associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.91; I2 = 57%) (16 studies, 1528 participants), and lower hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents (mean difference (MD) -0.84 mg/h; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.38, I2 = 87%) (16 studies, 1642 participants), both with moderate certainty. AMB was associated with an estimated reduction in breakthrough pain incidence of 29.1% (incidence 202 per 1000, 95% CI 157 to 259), and was therefore considered clinically significant. The incidence of caesarean delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; I2 = 0%) (16 studies, 1735 participants) and instrumental delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; I2 = 0%) (17 studies, 4550 participants) were not significantly, both with moderate certainty. There was no significant difference in duration of labour analgesia (MD -8.81 min; 95% CI -19.38 to 1.77; I2 = 50%) (17 studies, 4544 participants) with moderate certainty. Due to differences in the methods and timing of outcome measurements, we did not pool data for maternal satisfaction and Apgar scores. Results reported narratively suggest AMB may be associated with increased maternal satisfaction (eight studies reported increased satisfaction and six reported no difference), and all studies showed no difference in Apgar scores. WIth the exception of epidural alone versus CSE which found significant subgroup differences in LA consumption between AMB and BI, no significant differences were detected in the remaining subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, AMB is associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain, reduced LA consumption, and may improve maternal satisfaction. There were no significant differences between AMB and BI in the incidence of caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and Apgar scores. Larger studies assessing the incidence of caesarean and instrumental delivery are required.

Combined Programmed Intermittent Bolus and Patient-Controlled Bolus Is a More Favorable Setting for Epidural Pain Relief Than Continuous Infusion

Epidural analgesia is a suitable and effective treatment for labor pain. However, the preferable modality setting for delivery remains debatable. This study adopted a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) setting in conjunction with a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) setting to improve the quality of labor analgesia and reduce the number of medical staff. We conducted a prospective observational analysis of primigravida parturients scheduled for spontaneous labor, which required epidural analgesia for painless labor. A total of 483 healthy primigravida parturients with singleton pregnancies were included in this cohort; 135 nulliparous patients were assigned to the continuous infusion setting (CEI) group and 348 to the PIEB + PCEA group. Compared to the CEI setting, the PIEB + PCEA setting significantly reduced the manual rescue by the clinician, extended the time required for the first manual rescue dose, and acclaimed good maternal satisfaction. The use of the CEI mode increased for poor performance requiring more than two rescues with an odds ratio of 2.635 by a binary logistic regression analysis. Using the PIEB + PCEA setting as the maintenance infusion had a longer duration for the first requested manual rescue, fewer manual rescue boluses, excellent satisfaction, and no significant increase in adverse events compared to the CEI setting.

Comparison of different delivery modalities of epidural analgesia and intravenous analgesia in labour: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In labour, neuraxial analgesia is the standard in the provision of pain relief. However, the optimal mode of delivering epidural solution has not been determined, and some parturients may need an alternative to epidural analgesia. We sought to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare continuous epidural infusion (CEI), programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), computer-integrated CEI, computer-integrated PIEB, patient-controlled epidural bolus (PCEA), fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and remifentanil PCA, either alone or in combination.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials that included nulliparous and/or multiparous parturients in spontaneous or induced labour. The maintenance epidural solution had to include a low concentration local anesthetic and an opioid. Specific subgroups in the obstetric population such as preeclampsia were excluded. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, and continuous and dichotomous outcomes are presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Overall, 73 trials were included. For the first coprimary outcome, the need for rescue analgesia, CEI was inferior to PIEB and PIEB + PCEA was superior to PCEA alone, with a low certainty of evidence given the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. The second coprimary outcome, the maternal satisfaction, was improved by PIEB + PCEA compared with CEI + PCEA and PCEA alone, with a low quality of evidence in view of the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Fentanyl PCA increased the requirement for rescue analgesia and decreased maternal satisfaction relative to many methods of delivering epidural solution. In terms of secondary outcomes, PIEB increased analgesic efficacy compared with CEI, and PCEA reduced local anesthetic consumption at the expense of inferior analgesia relative to CEI and PIEB. PIEB + PCEA was superior to CEI + PCEA in regard to the pain score at 2 h and 4 h, consumption of local anesthetic, incidence of lower lower limb motor blockade and the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. Fentanyl and remifentanil PCA did not provide the same level of analgesia as all epidural methods, resulted in increasing analgesic ineffectiveness with time spent in labour, and predisposed to a higher incidence of side effects such as nausea and/or vomiting and sedation. Remifentanil PCA was superior to fentanyl PCA for analgesia at an early time point, and it increased the incidence of oxygen desaturation relative to other strategies of delivering epidural solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid PCA did not provide the same level of analgesia as epidural methods with a higher incidence of side effects. We interpret the findings of our systematic review and network meta-analysis as suggesting PIEB + PCEA to be the optimal delivery mode of epidural solution. Nevertheless, the potential differing importance of the various maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes in determining which is optimal has not, to our knowledge, been elucidated yet.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021254978); registered 27 May 2021.

Interventions for the prevention or treatment of epidural-related maternal fever: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Epidural-related maternal fever in women in labour has consequences for the mother and neonate. There has been no systematic review of preventive strategies.

Methods

RCTs evaluating methods of preventing or treating epidural-related maternal fever in women in active labour were eligible. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources were searched from inception to April 2021. Two review authors independently undertook study selection. Data extraction and quality assessment was performed by a single author and checked by a second. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used. Meta-analyses for the primary outcome, incidence of intrapartum fever, were performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model to produce summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

Results

Forty-two records, representing 34 studies, were included. Methods of reduced dose epidural reduced the incidence of intrapartum fever, but this was not statistically significant when six trials at high risk of bias were removed (seven trials; 857 participants; RR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.41–1.67). Alternative methods of analgesia and high-dose prophylactic systemic steroids reduced the risk of intrapartum fever compared with epidural analgesia. Prophylactic paracetamol was not effective.

Conclusions

There is no clear evidence to support the use of any individual preventative or therapeutic intervention for epidural-related maternal fever. Further research should focus on understanding the mechanism of fever development to enable RCTs of potential interventions to reduce the incidence of intrapartum fever development and the subsequent disease burden felt by the neonate.

Clinical trial registration

CRD42021246929.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus in parturients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) in parturients.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2021) were searched for identification of randomized placebo-controlled trials in which PIEB was applied in parturients. The outcomes were the effect of analgesia, satisfaction score, mode of delivery, duration of labor, neonatal condition, and adverse events. The pooled odds ratios (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

PIEB was found to be associated with decreased total consumption of ropivacaine (WMD = -15.83, 95% CI: -19.06 to -12.60, P < .00001; I2 = 61%; P for heterogeneity = .04), total consumption of sufentanil (WMD = -4.93, 95% CI: -6.87 to 2.98, P < .00001; I2 = 68%; P for heterogeneity = .05), numbers of patients who require patient-controlled epidural analgesia bolus (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.51, P < .0001; I2 = 65%; P for heterogeneity = .01), the number of attempts (WMD = -4.12, 95% CI: -7.21 to -1.04, P = .009; I2 = 100%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), rate of breakthrough pain (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.80, P = .005; I2 = 47%; P for heterogeneity = .09). Eight studies focus on the duration of analgesia. After by meta-analysis, we found that the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 30 minutes, 2 hours, 4 hours, and 5 hours in PIEB group was significantly lower when compared with control group, (WMD = -0.15, 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.04, P = .006; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .64), (WMD = -0.79, 95% CI: -1.32 to 0.25, P = .004; I2 = 97%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), (WMD = -1.00, 95% CI: -1.08 to -0.91, P < .00001; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .67), (WMD = -1.81, 95% CI: -3.23 to -0.39, P = .01; I2 = 98%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), respectively. Nineteen studies discussed the mode of delivery between 2 groups. The results suggest that the rate of normal delivery is significantly higher in PIEB group compared with control group (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.08-1.75, P = .01). The time of first and second stage of labor are significantly shorter in PIEB group compared with control group, the result is (WMD = -10.52, 95% CI: -14.74 to 4.76, P < .00001; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .86), (WMD = -1.48, 95% CI: -2.26 to -0.69, P = .0002; I2 = 35%; P for heterogeneity = .10), respectively. Thirteen studies concerned the satisfaction score of patients. The satisfaction score of patients in the PIEB group was significantly higher when compared with control group (WMD = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.42-1.39, P = .0003; I2 = 98%; P for heterogeneity < .00001). The Apgar score at 1, 5 minutes in PIEB group are significantly higher (WMD = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13 P = .007; I2 = 55%; P for heterogeneity = .04), (WMD = -0.08, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.05, P < .00001; I2 = 21%; P for heterogeneity = .27), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PIEB is a good alternative for labor analgesia with better analgesic effect, maternal and infant outcome.

Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Although recent evidence shows that the programmed intermittent epidural bolus can provide improved analgesia compared to continuous epidural infusion during labor, its usefulness in major upper abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion on the consumption of postoperative rescue opioids, pain intensity, and consumption of local anesthetic by retrospective analysis of data of patients who underwent major upper abdominal surgery under ultrasound-assisted thoracic epidural analgesia between July 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was total opioid consumption up to 72 h after surgery. The data of postoperative pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and adverse events from 193 patients were analyzed (continuous epidural infusion: n = 124, programmed intermittent epidural bolus: n = 69). There was no significant difference in the rescue opioid consumption in the 72 h postoperative period between the groups (33.3 mg [20.0–43.3] vs. 28.3 mg [18.3–43.3], p = 0.375). There were also no significant differences in the pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and incidence of adverse events. Our findings suggest that the quality of postoperative analgesia and safety following major upper abdominal surgery were comparable between the groups. However, the use of programmed intermittent epidural bolus requires further evaluation.

Benefits and risks of intermittent bolus erector spinae plane block through a catheter for patients after cardiac surgery through a lateral mini-thoracotomy: A propensity score matched retrospective cohort study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

A lateral mini-thoracotomy approach to cardiac surgery causes severe and complicated postoperative pain compared to the sternotomy approach. In this study we assessed the benefits and risks of intermittent bolus erector spinae plane block (ESPB) via a catheter for patients who underwent cardiac surgery through a lateral mini-thoracotomy.

DESIGN

A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

452 consecutive patients that underwent cardiac surgery through a lateral mini-thoracotomy from 2018 to 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients who received intermittent bolus ESPB through a catheter for 3 days (ESPB group, n = 93) were compared with patients who did not receive any regional anesthesia (Control group, n = 174) after propensity score matching.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was postoperative in-hospital cumulative opioid consumption (calculated as oral morphine milligram equivalents, MME). The secondary outcomes were intraoperative sufentanil doses, therapeutic use of antiemetic, pulmonary infection (assessed using a modified clinical pulmonary infection score, CPIS), durations of ICU and hospital stays, and ESPB related/unrelated complications.

MAIN RESULTS

There is a lower oral MME in the ESPB group, 266 ± 126 mg in the ESPB group vs. 346 ± 105 mg in the control group (95% CI -113 to -46; P < 0.01). Fewer patients received therapeutic antiemetic agents in the ESPB group (30% vs. 42%, odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99; P = 0.04). The modified CPIS in the ESPB group is lower: 1.4 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.0 (95% CI -0.9 to -0.3; P < 0.01) on postoperative day 1; 1.6 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 0.9 (95% CI -0.7 to -0.2; P < 0.01) on postoperative day 2. The observed complications associated with ESPB include pneumothorax (1%), staxis around stomas (5%), hypotension (1%), catheter displacement (3%), and catheter obstruction (2%). None of the patients had any adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Intermittent bolus ESPB is relatively safe and correlated with a reduction in the use of opioids and antiemetics for cardiac surgery through a lateral mini-thoracotomy.

Effect of Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Combined With Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus on Labor Analgesia Onset and Maintenance: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is associated with faster onset than the conventional epidural (EP) technique for labor analgesia. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) mode for maintaining labor analgesia allows for lower anesthetic drug consumption than the continuous epidural infusion (CEI) mode. Whether DPE technique with PIEB mode offers additional benefits for analgesia onset, local anesthetic drug consumption, and side effects versus EP or DPE techniques with CEI mode remains unclear.

METHODS

Nulliparous women with a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score >50 mm and cervical dilation <5 cm were randomly assigned to receive EP + CEI, DPE + CEI, or DPE + PIEB for labor analgesia. A 25-gauge needle was used for dural puncture. Analgesia was initiated with 10 mL of 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.3 µg/mL of sufentanil and maintained with the same solution at 8 mL/h in all groups. A 5-mL patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) bolus was programmed with a 20-minute lockout. Breakthrough pain not amendable by PCEA was treated with provider boluses of 5 mL of 0.125% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was "time to adequate analgesia," defined as a VAS pain score ≤30 mm during 2 consecutive contractions, and was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and a Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary outcomes included the VAS scores, ropivacaine consumption, sensory block level to ice, PCEA and provider boluses intervention, mode of delivery, duration of labor, Bromage scores, Apgar scores, occurrence of side effects, and maternal satisfaction with the anesthesia.

RESULTS

A total of 116 women were included (38 in the EP + CEI group, 40 in the DPE + CEI group, and 38 in the DPE + PIEB group). Adequate anesthesia was achieved faster in the DPE + CEI and DPE + PIEB groups than in the EP + CEI group (hazard ratio = 1.705; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.039-2.800; P = .015; and hazard ratio = 1.774; 95% CI, 1.070-2.941; P = .012, respectively). DPE technique with PIEB mode was associated with the fewest PCEA boluses and the lowest hourly ropivacaine consumption (both P < .001). There were no differences in the duration of labor, mode of delivery, Bromage scores, newborn Apgar scores, incidence of side effects, and maternal satisfaction scores among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DPE technique for neuraxial analgesia was associated with faster onset than the use of the EP technique. DPE technique with PIEB mode achieved the greatest drug-sparing effect without increasing maternal or neonatal side effects.

Single and Repeated Intrapleural Ropivacaine Administration: A Plasma Concentration and Pharmacodynamics Study

Background

Intrapleural analgesia has been increasingly recommended for postoperative analgesia after thoracic surgery. However, the analgesic effect provided by a single intrapleural administration is time limited. This study reports the efficacy and safety of repeated intrapleural 0.75% ropivacaine administration after thoracoscopic surgery.

Methods

Twenty patients were randomly divided into two groups: a single administration group receiving a single intrapleural injection of 0.75% ropivacaine 15 mL (single administration group, SA group), and a repeated administration group with an intrapleural injection of 0.75% ropivacaine 15 mL every 4h for 4 doses (repeated administration group, RA group). The primary outcomes of this study were the peak plasma concentration of ropivacaine and 24h morphine consumption. The secondary outcomes were pain score, patient satisfaction, extubation time, hospital length of stay, and adverse reactions.

Results

In SA group, the highest plasma concentration after intrapleural administration of 0.75% ropivacaine 15 mL was 1345±364 μg/L. The highest plasma concentration in RA group after the fourth administration was 1864±492 μg/L. The 24h morphine consumption in RA group was significantly less than that in SA group (9.0±5.66 vs 15.9±3.48 mg, P=0.004). The NRS scores at rest and while coughing of patients in RA group were significantly lower than those in SA group at 5, 9, 13, 17 and 24h after operation. The patients in RA group had higher satisfaction than those in SA group. There was no significant difference in postoperative adverse events, drainage tube placement days and hospital length of stay between the two groups.

Conclusion

Repeated intrapleural administration with 0.75% ropivacaine, 15 mL every 4h for 4 doses after video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomies, can provide a more durable and more effective analgesic effect than single intrapleural administration. Repeated intrapleural administration of ropivacaine is an effective postoperative method of analgesia resulting in higher patient satisfaction. Moreover, it was also able to keep the plasma concentration of ropivacaine within a possible safe range.

Clinical Trial Registration Number

ChiCTR-IOR-17010560.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labour analgesia during first stage of labour: a sequential allocation trial to determine the effective interval time between boluses of a fixed volume of 2.5 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% plus fentanyl 8 µg·mL-1

PURPOSE

We studied the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) time interval between boluses of 2.5 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% with fentanyl 8 µg·mL^-1 to produce effective analgesia in 90% of women (EI90) during the first stage of labour.

METHODS

In a double-blind sequential allocation trial using a biased coin up-and-down design to determine the EI90, the PIEB boluses of 2.5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 8 µg·mL^-1 were delivered at varying intervals-60, 50, 40, and 30 min. The primary outcome was the adequate response of the patient to the PIEB regimen, defined as no use of supplemental analgesia for six hours or until the first stage of labour was completed, whichever came first. The secondary outcomes were the upper sensory block level to ice, motor block and hypotension. The isotonic regression with extrapolation approach was used to estimate the EI90.

RESULTS

In the 20 women studied, the estimated EI90 was 20 (95% CI, 5.9 to 28.8) min. For the secondary outcomes, we classified women into those assigned to 30 min (16 women) and those assigned to more than 30 min (four women). The median upper sensory block for women in the 30-min group and more than 30 min were T6 (or T5) and T7, respectively. No participants experienced motor block. Hypotension occurred in one patient in the 30-min group.

CONCLUSION

The estimated EI90 for boluses of 2.5 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% with fentanyl 8 µg·mL^-1 was 20 (95% CI, 5.9 to 28.8) min. These results suggest that there is no advantage in using this regimen compared with those reported in the literature using the same dose of bupivacaine in concentrations of 0.0625% and 0.125%.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03735771); registered 7 November 2018.

Labor outcomes with epidural analgesia: an observational before-and-after cohort study comparing continuous infusion versus programmed intermittent bolus plus patient-controlled analgesia

BACKGROUND

Scientific evidence shows that programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) for labor analgesia achieves good obstetric outcomes. After implementing our institutional standard for epidural analgesia, we compared PIEB + patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) versus continuous epidural infusion (CEI).

METHODS

In an observational cohort study, we compared CEI with 0.2% ropivacaine + 100-μg fentanyl initial bolus versus PIEB+PCEA with 0.1% ropivacaine + 2 μg mL^-1 fentanyl in primiparous women. The primary outcome was mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes were duration of the second stage of labor and total ropivacaine and fentanyl doses. Other outcomes, in the PIEB+PCEA group only, were motor block, use of PCEA and rescue bolus, maternal mobility and maternal satisfaction. Univariate statistical analysis was performed using the χ² Test, analysis of variance or nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis Test. Multivariate analysis was performed using multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The study included 221 patients (CEI 116; PIEB+PCEA 105). Multiple logistic regression showed that the PIEB+PCEA group had significantly fewer caesarean sections (CEI [14%] vs. PIEB+PCEA [5%], P=0.015) and instrumental deliveries, after correcting for confounders (OR=0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.89). The second stage of labor did not significantly differ between groups. Total ropivacaine dose was significantly lower with PIEB+PCEA. There was no relationship between mild motor block and increased use of PCEA in the PIEB+PCEA group. Mode of delivery and duration of the second stage of labor were not influenced by motor block either. Maternal satisfaction was high.

CONCLUSIONS

PIEB+PCEA offers obstetric and analgesic advantages over CEI in daily clinical practice.

Programmed intermittent boluses vs continuous epidural infusion in labor using an adrenaline containing solution: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, epidural analgesia has been maintained using a continuous infusion (CEI) with the addition of patient-controlled boluses (PCEA). In recent years, programmed intermittent boluses (PIEB) has emerged as an alternative showing better efficacy in randomized studies. In this study, the aim was to test PIEB + PCEA vs CEI + PCEA using an epidural solution containing adrenaline.

METHODS

In total, 150 nulliparous and multiparous laboring women were randomized to maintain epidural analgesia with either PIEB + PCEA (5 ml bolus every hour, 5 ml PCEA bolus lockout 20 minutes) or CEI + PCEA (5 ml/h, 5 ml PCEA bolus, lockout 20 minutes) using a solution of bupivacaine 1mg/ml, fentanyl 2 mcg/ml and adrenaline 2 mcg/ml. The primary outcome was total hourly consumption of the epidural solution. Secondary outcomes included hourly pain scores, motor block at 60 minutes and 10 cm cervical dilation, maternal satisfaction, and the need for anesthetist intervention and time to this intervention.

RESULTS

We found no differences in hourly drug consumption between the groups (mean 9.0 ml/h (SD 3.7) (CEI group) vs. 8.1 ml/h (SD 2.0) (PIEB group), P = .08). We found a significant difference in number of successfully administered PCEA boluses (mean no. 3.9 (SD 4.1) (CEI group) vs. 1.9 (SD 2.0) (PIEB group), P < .001). We found no significant differences in pain score, motor block, maternal satisfaction and the need for anesthetist intervention.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we found no clinically relevant differences using PIEB + PCEA compared to CEI + PCEA when using an epidural solution containing adrenaline.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

For labor epidural analgesia infusions, to optimize the analgesic effect, additional programmed intermittent boluses can be used as an alternative to patient-controlled boluses only. In this clinical trial, no differences in drug consumption or analgesic effect was observed when comparing these two different epidural bolus controls programs.

A Meta-Analysis of Comparing Intermittent Epidural Boluses and Continuous Epidural Infusion for Labor Analgesia

With the development of medical equipment and techniques in labor anesthesia, it is a major issue to investigate the risks and treatment effects among techniques such as continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and intermittent epidural bolus (IEB). However, there is a controversial result regarding two techniques. This study was conducted through meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for labor analgesia between the CEI and IEB techniques. The pooled results were presented as weighted mean differences (WMDs) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and odds ratios (ORs) together with 95% CIs, respectively. Eleven RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Four hundred sixty-five parturients accepted CEI, whereas 473 parturients accepted IEB labor analgesia. Elven identified low- risk bias studies were recruited for meta-analysis. The results presented no statistical difference in cesarean delivery rate between IEB and CEI (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.37) and duration of second stage of labor (WMD, -3.82 min; 95% CI, -8.28 to 0.64). IEB had statistically significant lessened risk of instrumental delivery (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90) and for the use in local anesthetic (WMD, -1.71 mg bupivacaine equivalents per hour; 95% CI, -1.88 and -1.55). Accepted IEB had a higher score of maternal satisfaction (WMD, -6.95 mm; 95% CI, -7.77 to -6.13). Based on evidence, IEB showed a greater benefit for slightly reducing the use in local anesthetic, reduced risk of instrumental delivery, and improved maternal satisfaction for the requirement of labor epidural analgesia for healthy women. In the future, more studies need to be conducted to practice the IEB regimen and explore its influence on labor analgesia.

Comparative analgesic efficacy and safety of intermittent local anaesthetic epidural bolus for labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Continuous epidural infusion (CEI) is commonly used for labour analgesia, but concerns over potential motor block, second-stage labour complications, and ineffective analgesia in late labour have prompted examining intermittent epidural bolus (IEB) as an alternative. However, evidence comparing these modalities is conflicting. The meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic efficacy of CEI vs IEB.

METHODS

Databases were searched for trials comparing CEI to IEB for labour analgesia. The two co-primary outcomes were risk of breakthrough pain and difference in area under the curve (AUC) for pain scores during the first 4 h post-epidural initiation. Local anaesthetic consumption, maternal outcomes (i.e. delivery mode, labour duration, and maternal satisfaction), and side-effects of epidural analgesia were also evaluated. Results were pooled using random-effects modelling. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to evaluate evidence reliability.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (3133 patients) were analysed. Compared with CEI, IEB decreased risk of breakthrough pain by 38% (risk ratio [95% confidence interval {CI}] of 0.62 [0.48, 0.81]; P=0.0004; I²=47%; 1164 patients) and reduced AUC of pain during the 4 h interval by 32.9% (mean difference [95% CI] of -16.7 mm h^-1 [-18.9, -14.4]; P<0.0001; 1638 patients). Intermittent epidural bolus enhanced maternal satisfaction, shortened labour duration, decreased motor block, and reduced local anaesthetic consumption. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant for epidural side-effects or mode of delivery. The TSA indicated adequate power for reliable inferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent epidural bolus provides improved labour pain control during the first 4 h after epidural initiation with less breakthrough pain. Moderate- to high-quality evidence of intermittent epidural bolus superiority support its use as a safe and effective continuous epidural infusion alternative for labour analgesia.

Intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusions for labor analgesia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

There are inconsistent results regarding the efficacy and safety of intermittent epidural bolus (IPB) versus continuous epidural infusions (CPI) for labor analgesia. This study used a meta-analytic approach to assess the safety and treatment efficacy of IPB versus CPI for labor analgesia based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four electronic databases were used to identify eligible RCTs. Pooled effect estimates at 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Twenty-two RCTs with 2,573 parturients were selected for final analysis. The findings revealed no significant differences between IPB and CPI for the incidences of cesarean and instrumental delivery. IPB was shown to be associated with shorter total duration of labor [weighted mean difference (WMD): −21.46; 95% CI: −25.07 to −17.85; P < 0.001], duration of the first of stage of labor (WMD: −13.41; 95% CI: −21.01 to −5.81; P = 0.001), and duration of the second stage of labor (WMD: −4.98; 95% CI: −9.32 to −0.63; P = 0.025). Furthermore, IPB significantly reduced the incidences of required anesthetic interventions compared with CPI [relative risk (RR): 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39–0.95; P = 0.030], whereas there was no significant difference between IPB and CPI for the time required in the first anesthetic intervention (WMD: 7.73; 95% CI: −33.68–49.15; P = 0.714). The local anesthetic IPB (bupivacaine equivalents) was associated with lower milligrams per hour of local anesthetic (WMD: −0.89; 95% CI: −1.41 to −0.36; P = 0.001) and better maternal satisfaction (WMD: 8.76; 95% CI: 4.18–13.35; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between IPB and CPI for the risk of adverse events. This study found that parturients with IPB have short total duration of labor and duration of the first and second stage of labor, reduced requirements for additional anesthetic interventions, and improved maternal satisfaction.

Comparison of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses With Continuous Epidural Infusion for the Maintenance of Labor Analgesia: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND

Programmed intermittent epidural boluses may improve the spread of local anesthetics compared to continuous epidural infusion, improving labor analgesia and obstetric outcomes. However, there are limited data from studies using commercially available pumps capable of coadministering programmed intermittent epidural boluses or continuous epidural infusion with patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Therefore, we performed this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the impact of programmed intermittent epidural boluses versus continuous epidural infusion on labor analgesia and maternal/neonatal outcomes. We hypothesized that programmed intermittent epidural boluses will result in lower patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption compared to that with continuous epidural infusion.

METHODS

Following standardized initiation of epidural labor analgesia, women were randomized to receive 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 µg/mL fentanyl as 6-mL programmed intermittent epidural boluses every 45 minutes or continuous epidural infusion at 8 mL/h in a double-blind fashion with similar patient-controlled epidural analgesia settings in both groups. The primary outcome was patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption per hour. Secondary outcomes included a need for physician interventions, patterns of patient-controlled epidural analgesia use, motor blockade, number of patients who developed hypotension, pain scores, duration of second stage of labor, mode of delivery, and maternal satisfaction.

RESULTS

We included 120 patients (61 in programmed intermittent epidural boluses group and 59 in continuous epidural infusion group) in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia volume consumed per hour was not significantly different between the groups: 4.5 mL/h (3.0-8.6 mL/h) for the continuous epidural infusion group and 4.0 mL/h (2.2-7.1 mL/h) for the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group (P = .17). The Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate of the difference (95% CI) from the continuous epidural infusion to the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group is 0.9 mL/h (-0.4 to 2.2 mL/h). There were also no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes except for higher median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia attempts per given ratio per hour in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group (0.17 [0.10-0.30] vs 0.12 [0.08-0.18]; P = .03) and more motor block in the continuous epidural infusion group (those with Bromage score <5, 27.5% vs 50.0%; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Under the conditions of our study, we did not find improved outcomes with programmed intermittent epidural boluses compared to continuous epidural infusion except for less motor block with programmed intermittent epidural boluses. Future studies should assess whether smaller but clinically important differences exist and evaluate different parameters of programmed intermittent epidural boluses to optimize analgesia and outcomes with this mode of analgesia.

Comparative study of different epidural infusion sets at maximum speeds for labor analgesia

INTRODUCTION

The higher injection pressure obtained with epidural boluses give greater anaesthetic spread, and therefore better sensory block. Therefore, it stands to reason that anaesthetic administered at greater injection pressure and a higher flow rate would spread to a higher sensory level.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare the sensory level reached with the high flow. and standard flow set at maximum rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included 73 primiparous women who requested epidural analgesia for labour using programmed intermittent epidural boluses of 0.1% ropivacaine at a flow rate of 10ml/h and 2 ug/ml fentanyl plus patient-controlled epidural analgesia. The boluses were administered with a standard (250ml/h) or high-flow (500ml/h) infusion set, according to the usual clinical practice of each anaesthesiologist. The primary objective was to evaluate the sensory level reached. Secondary objectives were pain on a visual analogue scale, motor block measured on the modified Bromage scale, and anaesthesia consumption in terms of rescue analgesia (patient-controlled epidural analgesia) and anaesthesiologist-administered boluses.

RESULTS

The median maximum sensory level reached was T9 in the high flow group and T7 in the standard flow group; this difference was statistically significant (p=.0002). There were no significant differences in visual analogue scale, Bromage or rescue analgesia between groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the high flow set does not offer benefits. The use of such sets need to be evaluated due to their higher cost.

Do Epidural Catheter Size and Flow Rate Affect Bolus Injection Pressure in Different Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus Regimens? An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

The optimal programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen for labor analgesia remains unknown. Some studies indicate that better drug spread in the epidural space results from greater injection pressure; however, there is a lack of data regarding the maximum pressure generated by epidural bolus injection using different catheters and flow rates.

METHODS

We evaluated the flow and pressure characteristics of 11 commonly used epidural catheters combined with 3 different infusion pumps that deliver epidural infusions according to the programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen. Pressure changes were measured over time at flow rates of 100, 250, and 400 mL·hour and with a bolus volume of 10 mL. To account for repeated measures, linear mixed models were used. Features were selected with a backward stepwise procedure continued until only statistically significant variables were left in the model.

RESULTS

We performed 660 measurements. The mean maximal pressure generated during bolus injection ranged from 86 to 863 mm Hg for different flow rates and catheter designs. The interaction between flow rate and catheter gauge resulted in 1.31, 1.65, and 2.00 mm Hg of pressure increase for 18G, 19G, and 20G catheters, respectively, per 1 mL·hour of increased flow rate (P< .001). Analyses including wire-reinforced catheters revealed a 1.16, 1.76, and 2.36 mm Hg pressure increase for 18G, 19G, and 20G catheters, respectively, per 1 mL·hour of increased flow rate (P< .001). In some cases, it triggered the occlusion pump alarm.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences were observed in the in vitro maximum pressure value among the various catheter and flow rate combinations with a higher pressure value for wire-reinforced catheters used in the study. The optimal flow rate and epidural catheter combination may allow for delivery of the bolus with high flow rate without triggering the occlusion alarm.

Is breakthrough pain better managed by adding programmed intermittent epidural bolus to a background infusion during labor epidural analgesia? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough pain (BTP) is a common problem during labor analgesia. Programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) has demonstrated superior to background epidural infusion (BEI) concerning BTP, but the effect of combining both modes remains unknown. We hypothesized that this combination could reduce BTP incidence.

METHODS

Nulliparous parturients with early cervical dilation were randomized to receive 5 mL/h BEI of levobupivacaine 0.125% plus fentanyl 1.45 µg/mL (standard group) or 5 mL/h BEI + 10 mL/h PIEB (PIEB group). In case of BTP, patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) boluses of 10 mL (20-min lockout interval) were administered. If PCEA was insufficient, a 10-mL clinician bolus was delivered. The primary endpoint was the percentage of parturients who required supplementary epidural boluses.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty women were recruited. Eighty-nine percent of parturients required supplementary boluses in standard group versus 30% in PIEB group (RR=3.07; 95% CI: 1.99-4.76; P<0.001). Adding PIEB prevented BTP in 70% of cases. Duration of effective analgesia was longer in PIEB than in standard group (P=0.003). Supplementary boluses were decreased (P<0.001), while local anesthetic consumption increased (P<0.001) by PIEB addition. Sensory-motor block, mode of delivery, maternal satisfaction and neonatal outcomes were equally distributed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding PIEB to BEI+PCEA improved labor analgesia by significantly reducing the needs of rescue analgesia and prolonging the duration of effective analgesia. This combination provoked a higher consumption of local anesthetic with no detected clinical consequences.

Neuraxial labor analgesia: a literature review

The use of analgesia techniques for labor has become increasingly frequent, with neuraxial techniques being the most commonly used and most effective. Labor pain entails a number of physiological consequences that may be negative for the mother and fetus, and therefore must be treated. This literature review was performed through a search in the PubMed database, from July to November 2016, and included articles in English or Portuguese, published between 2011 and 2016 or anteriorly, if relevant to the topic. The techniques were divided into the following topics: induction (epidural, combined epidural-spinal, continuous spinal, and epidural with dural puncture) and maintenance of analgesia (continuous epidural infusion, patient-controlled epidural analgesia, and intermittent epidural bolus). Epidural analgesia does not alter the incidence of cesarean sections or fetal prognosis, and maternal request is a sufficient indication for its initiation. The combined technique has the advantage of a faster onset of analgesia; however, patients are subject to a higher incidence of pruritus resulting from the intrathecal administration of opioids. Patient-controlled analgesia seems to be an excellent technique, reducing the consumption of local anesthetics, the number of anesthesiologist interventions, and increasing maternal satisfaction.

Generalisability of randomised trials of the programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique for maintenance of labour analgesia: a prospective single centre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several randomised controlled trials show that maintenance of labour epidural analgesia with programmed intermittent epidural bolus reduces the maternal motor block compared with maintenance with a continuous infusion. However, these trials were usually restricted to healthy nulliparous parturients. To assess the generalisability of these randomised controlled trials to 'real-world' conditions, we compared maternal motor function (modified Bromage score) over time between healthy nulliparous and parous women using routinely collected quality-control data.

METHODS

After ethical approval, all parturients receiving programmed intermittent epidural bolus labour analgesia between June 2013 and October 2014 were included in this prospective cohort study. Bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 μg ml^-1 was used allowing for patient-controlled bolus every 20 min. The maternal motor function (primary outcome) was regularly assessed from insertion of the epidural catheter until delivery.

RESULTS

Of the 839 parturients included, 553 (66%) were nulliparous and 286 (34%) were parous. The parous women had a shorter median duration of epidural analgesia (3 h 59 min vs 5 h 45 min) and a higher incidence of spontaneous delivery (66% vs 37%). The probability of being in a certain Bromage category at birth was similar in nulliparous and parous women in a general additive model adjusting for duration of epidural analgesia, number of rescue top-ups, and number of catheter manipulations (cumulative odds ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.41). Parous women required a higher time-weighted number and volume of rescue top-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the randomised controlled trials on a reduced motor block with programmed intermittent epidural bolus seem generalisable to parturients typically not included in these trials.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Programmed Intermittent Bolus and Continuous Infusion as the Background Infusion for Parturient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia

The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique offers multiple benefits over continuous epidural infusion (CEI), but controversy still exists when it is used in conjunction with a parturient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) regimen. A systematic review and meta-analysis was thus conducted using the Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases with the aim of identifying those randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that performed a comparison between PIEB and CEI in healthy parturients using a PCEA regimen with regard to the duration of labor, labor pain, anesthesia interventions, maternal satisfaction and main side effects. The data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Eleven eligible trials were included, in which 717 participants were allocated to the PIEB + PCEA group and 650 patients were allocated to the CEI + PCEA group. The rate of instrumental delivery, incidence of breakthrough pain, PCEA usage rates and local anesthetic usage were significantly reduced, the labor duration was statistically shorter, and the maternal satisfaction score was significantly improved in the PIEB + PCEA group compared with that in the CEI + PCEA group. There were no differences in the side effects between the two groups. The results of the present study suggest that the PIEB technique in conjunction with the PCEA regimen was more advantageous than CEI + PCEA, but additional studies should be conducted to consistently demonstrate an improvement in the maternal and fetal obstetric outcomes.

[Neuraxial labor analgesia: a literature review]

The use of analgesia techniques for labor has become increasingly frequent, with neuraxial techniques being the most commonly used and most effective. Labor pain entails a number of physiological consequences that may be negative for the mother and fetus, and therefore must be treated. This literature review was performed through a search in the PubMed database, from July to November 2016, and included articles in English or Portuguese, published between 2011 and 2016 or anteriorly, if relevant to the topic. The techniques were divided into the following topics: induction (epidural, combined epidural-spinal, continuous spinal, and epidural with dural puncture) and maintenance of analgesia (continuous epidural infusion, patient-controlled epidural analgesia, and intermittent epidural bolus). Epidural analgesia does not alter the incidence of cesarean sections or fetal prognosis, and maternal request is a sufficient indication for its initiation. The combined technique has the advantage of a faster onset of analgesia; however, patients are subject to a higher incidence of pruritus resulting from the intrathecal administration of opioids. Patient-controlled analgesia seems to be an excellent technique, reducing the consumption of local anesthetics, the number of anesthesiologist interventions, and increasing maternal satisfaction.

Comparison of programmed intermittent bolus infusion and continuous infusion for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia with thoracic paravertebral block catheter: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Background and objectives

In this randomized, double-blind, controlled study, we hypothesized that programmed intermittent bolus infusion (PIBI) of local anesthetic for continuous paravertebral block (PVB), combined with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), provided better pain control, better patient satisfaction, and decreased in local anesthetic consumption when compared with a continuous infusion (CI) combined with PCA, after video-assisted thoracoscopic unilateral lung resection surgery.

Methods

Preoperatively, patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic unilateral lung resection surgery received ipsilateral paravertebral catheters inserted at the level of thoracic vertebrae 4 and 5. All the subjects received an initial bolus of 15 mL 0.375% ropivacaine via the catheters. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.2 % ropivacaine 8 mL/h as either PIBI (n=17) or CI (n=17) combined with a PCA pump. The pain scores, frequency of PCA, local anesthetic consumption, patient satisfaction, and the need for rescue analgesia with tramadol were recorded until 48 hours postoperative.

Results

The numeric rating scale scores in the PIBI group were significantly lower than the CI group at 4, 8, 12 hours and 4, 8, 12, 24 hours postoperatively, at rest, and during coughing, respectively. PCA local anesthetic consumption (30 mg (20–60 mg) vs 120 mg (70–155 mg), p=0.000) and frequency of PCA use over 48 hours (3 (2–6) vs 12 (7–15.5), p=0.000) was lower in the PIBI group as compared with the CI group. Additionally, the PIBI group showed greater patient satisfaction. The need for tramadol rescue was similar in the two groups.

Conclusions

In PVBs, local anesthetic administered as a PIBI in conjunction with PCA provided superior postoperative analgesia to a CI combined with PCA in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic unilateral lung resection surgery.

Clinical trial registration

ChiCTR-IOR-17011253.

Patient intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) plus very low continuous epidural infusion (CEI) versus patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) plus continuous epidural infusion (CEI) in primiparous labour: a randomized trial

Epidural maintenance technique for labour analgesia updates constantly. Thanks to infusion pumps, the recently developed programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) may reduce the use of anesthetic drugs and minimize unintended consequences such as cardio or neurotoxicity. Nevertheless, it is not yet a general practice. So far, there are no comparative studies in the literature that address levobupivacaine-based CEI + PCEA versus CEI + PIEB + PCEA. A randomized double-blind trial was carried out to evaluate if PIEB could reduce local anesthetic use compare to PCEA. Primiparous pregnant patients were divided into two groups: PIEB group (continuous infusion plus intermittent automatic doses) and PCEA group (continuous infusion plus PCEA). The primary objective was to analyze the differences between both groups regarding levobupivacaine total dose. The secondary objectives were to find out the differences concerning pain control, motor blockage, satisfaction score, labour time and delivery outcomes. Statistical analyses were done by protocol. The study recruited 200 patients (103 PIEB, 97 PCEA). The total dose administered was significantly higher in PIEB group: PCEA group 52.97 mg, IC 95% 45.65-60.28 mg and PIEB group 62.04 mg, IC 95% 55.46-68.61 mg (p = 0.021). PIEB group required fewer top up boluses (median value1; range 0-2) than CEI + PCEA group (median value 6; range 3-9) p < 0.05. Satisfaction scores were higher in PIEB group (p = 0.039, CI 95% 1.23-1.42). CEI + PIEB was found to be a good alternative to CEI + PCEA with very high rates of satisfaction in both groups although it was higher in PIEB group. PIEB group required fewer PCEA boluses. Further studies are needed to determine the best approach for epidural pain management.Clinical Trial Number and Registry URL: NCT03133091 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03133091?term=MB+Rodriguez&rank=1) .

Neuraxial techniques of labour analgesia

In recent years, many neuraxial techniques have been introduced to initiate and maintain labour analgesia, with low-dose mixtures of local anaesthetics and opioids, which have improved the quality of analgesia and made it safer for both mother and neonate. An independent search of the databases of PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane controlled trial data was conducted by two researchers, and randomized controlled trials that compared different methods of neuraxial analgesia and the different techniques of maintaining labor analgesia were retrieved and analyzed. The advantages, disadvantages, and indications of each technique along with the doses of intrathecal and epidural drugs are discussed. The myths and controversies involving neuraxial labor analgesia and the current consensus on their effect on the maternal and foetal outcomes are also outlined.

Automated mandatory bolus versus basal infusion for maintenance of epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

Childbirth may cause the most severe pain some women experience in their lifetime. Epidural analgesia is an effective form of pain relief during labour and is considered to be the reference standard. Traditionally epidural analgesia has been delivered as a continuous infusion via a catheter in the epidural space, with or without the ability for the patient to supplement the analgesia received by activating a programmable pump to deliver additional top-up doses, known as patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). There has been interest in delivering maintenance analgesic medication via bolus dosing (automated mandatory bolus - AMB) instead of the traditional continuous basal infusion (BI); recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the AMB technique leads to improved analgesia and maternal satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of automated mandatory bolus versus basal infusion for maintaining epidural analgesia in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinial Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 January 2018. We screened the reference lists of all eligible trials and reviews. We also contacted authors of included studies in this field in order to identify unpublished research and trials still underway, and we screened the reference lists of the included articles for potentially relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all RCTs that compared the use of bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI for providing pain relief during epidural analgesia for labour in women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: risk of breakthrough pain with the need for anaesthetic intervention; risk of caesarean delivery; risk of instrumental delivery. Secondary outcomes included: duration of labour; local anaesthetic consumption. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies with a total of 1121 women. Ten studies enrolled healthy nulliparous women only and two studies enrolled healthy parous women at term as well. All studies excluded women with complicated pregnancies. There were variations in the technique of initiation of epidural analgesia. Seven studies utilized the combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique, and the other five studies only placed an epidural catheter without any intrathecal injection. Seven studies utilized ropivacaine: six with fentanyl and one with sufentanil. Two studies used levobupivacaine: one with sufentanil and one with fentanyl. Three used bupivacaine with or without fentanyl. The overall risk of bias of the studies was low.AMB probably reduces the risk of breakthrough pain compared with BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour (from 33% to 20%; risk ratio (RR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.92, 10 studies, 797 women, moderate-certainty evidence). AMB may make little or no difference to the risk of caesarean delivery compared to BI (15% and 16% respectively; RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.21, 11 studies, 1079 women, low-certainty evidence).AMB may make little or no difference in the risk of instrumental delivery compared to BI (12% and 9% respectively; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06, 11 studies, 1079 women, low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the mean duration of labour with AMB compared to BI (mean difference (MD) -10.38 min; 95% CI -26.73 to 5.96, 11 studies, 1079 women, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in the hourly consumption of local anaesthetic with AMB compared to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia during labour (MD -1.08 mg/h; 95% CI -1.78 to -0.38, 12 studies, 1121 women, moderate-certainty evidence). Five out of seven studies reported an increase in maternal satisfaction with AMB compared to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour; however, we did not pool these data due to their ordinal nature. Seven studies reported Apgar scores, though there was significant heterogeneity in reporting. None of the studies showed any significant difference between Apgar scores between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is predominantly moderate-certainty evidence that AMB is similar to BI for maintaining epidural analgesia for labour for all measured outcomes and may have the benefit of decreasing the risk of breakthrough pain and improving maternal satisfaction while decreasing the amount of local anaesthetic needed.

Continuous epidural infusion versus programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labor analgesia: optimal configuration of parameters to reduce physician-administered top-ups

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) is a delivery mode associated with decreased local analgesia dosing, motor block, and physician-administered top-ups (PATUs) during labor analgesia. We hypothesized that PIEB delivery at different settings will result in fewer PATUs for labor analgesia than the same hourly volume of a continuous epidural infusion (CEI).

METHODS

"Before and after" study design of combined spinal-epidural (CSE) for labor, with bupivacaine 0.0625%-fentanyl 2 mcg/ml and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA; 5 ml bolus with 10 min lock-out). The "before" group (N = 120) received a CEI at 10 ml/hour. PIEB groups received a programmed bolus of 10 ml: every 60 min (PIEB60, N = 120), every 45 min (PIEB45, N = 140), or every 45 min with high flow (500 ml/hour) (PIEB45HF, N = 25).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of women requesting a PATU, time intervals from CSE to PATU and to delivery, and obstetric outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the proportion of women requesting PATUs between the CEI and PIEB60 groups (45/120 versus 52/120, respectively; p > .05). The PATU rate was lower in the PIEB45 group compared with the PIEB60 and CEI groups (23/140 versus 52/120 and 45/120, p < .005 and p < .05, respectively), and in the PIEB45HF versus PIEB60 groups (5/25 versus 52/120, p < .05). No difference in other outcomes was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of women requesting a PATU was lowest with the PIEB45 and PIEB45HF settings. There were no differences in any other outcomes between groups. This study emphasizes the many variations in programming that need to be further tested to establish the benefits of PIEB delivery compared with traditional CEI with PCEA.

Determination of the optimal programmed intermittent epidural bolus volume of bupivacaine 0.0625% with fentanyl 2 μg.ml-1 at a fixed interval of forty minutes: a biased coin up-and-down sequential allocation trial

The optimum time interval for 10 ml boluses of bupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2 μg.ml^-1 as part of a programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen has been found to be 40 min. This regimen was shown to be effective without the use of supplementary patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses in 90% of women during the first stage of labour, although with a rate of sensory block to ice above T6 in 34% of women. We aimed to determine the optimum programmed intermittent epidural bolus volume at a 40 min interval to provide effective analgesia in 90% of women (EV₉₀ ) during the first stage of labour, without the use of patient-controlled epidural analgesia. We performed a prospective double-blind dose-finding study using the biased coin up-and-down sequential allocation method in 40 women. The estimated EV₉₀ was 11.0 (95%CI 10.0-11.7) ml with the isotonic regression method and 10.7 (95%CI 10.3-11.0) ml with the truncated Dixon and Mood method. Overall, 18 women had a sensory block above T6, and 37 women exhibited no motor block. No women required treatment for hypotension. In conclusion, it is not possible to reduce the programmed intermittent epidural bolus volume from 10 ml, used in our current regimen, without compromising the quality of analgesia. Using this regimen, a high proportion of women will develop a sensory block above T6.

Central neuraxial analgesia for labor: an update of the literature

Numerous techniques are in use to provide analgesia for labor, of which central neuraxial block is widely considered superior to non-neuraxial options. Central neuraxial techniques have evolved over many years to provide greater efficacy, safety and maternal satisfaction. This narrative review focuses on the literature relating to central neuraxial labor analgesia from the past 5 years, from November 2010 to October 2015. We discuss the evidence related to the various central neuraxial techniques used, the increasingly widespread use of ultrasound guidance and the evidence surrounding other novel methods of central neuraxial block insertion. The timing of institution of central neuraxial analgesia in labor is considered, as are the advances in maintenance regimens for labor analgesia.

Effect of programmed intermittent epidural boluses and continuous epidural infusion on labor analgesia and obstetric outcomes: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Continuous epidural infusion and programmed intermittent epidural boluses are analgesic techniques routinely used for pain relief in laboring women. We aimed to assess both techniques and compare them with respect to labor analgesia and obstetric outcomes.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval, 132 laboring women aged between 18 and 45 years were randomized to epidural analgesia of 10 mL of a mixture of 0.1% bupivacaine plus 2 µg/mL of fentanyl either by programmed intermittent boluses or continuous infusion (66 per group). Primary outcome was quality of analgesia. Secondary outcomes were duration of labor, total drug dose used, maternal satisfaction, sensory level, motor block level, presence of unilateral motor block, hemodynamics, side effects, mode of delivery, and newborn outcome.

RESULTS

Patients in the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group received statistically less drug dose than those with continuous epidural infusion (24.9 vs 34.4 mL bupivacaine; P = 0.01). There was no difference between groups regarding pain control, characteristics of block, hemodynamics, side effects, and Apgar scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study evidenced a lower anesthetic consumption in the programmed intermittent boluses group with similar labor analgesic control, and obstetric and newborn outcomes in both groups.

Implementation of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus for the Maintenance of Labor Analgesia

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) is an exciting new technology that has the potential to improve the maintenance of epidural labor analgesia. PIEB compared with a continuous epidural infusion (CEI) has the potential advantage of greater spread within the epidural space and therefore better sensory blockade. Studies have demonstrated a local anesthetic-sparing effect, fewer instrumental vaginal deliveries, less motor blockade, and improvements in maternal satisfaction with PIEB compared with CEI. However, the optimal PIEB regimen and pump settings remain unknown, and there are a number of logistical issues and practical considerations that should be considered when implementing PIEB. The PIEB bolus size and interval, PIEB start time delay period, and patient-controlled epidural analgesia bolus size and lockout time can influence the efficacy of PIEB used for epidural labor analgesia. Educating all members of the health care team is critical to the success of the technique. This review summarizes the role of PIEB for the maintenance of labor analgesia, outlines implementation strategies, suggests optimal settings, and presents potential limitations of the technique.

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.

Programmed intermittent epidural boluses for maintenance of labor analgesia: an impact study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this impact study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and side effect profile of programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB)+patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) to continuous epidural infusion (CEI)+PCEA for maintenance labor analgesia after the introduction of PIEB at our institution.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis after replacing the background CEI with PIEB for our labor PCEA. Pre-change pump settings were CEI 12mL/h with PCEA (12mL bolus, lockout 15min); PIEB settings were a 9mL bolus every 45min with PCEA (10mL bolus, lockout 10min). We compared medical records of all women receiving epidural or combined spinal-epidural labor analgesia for vaginal delivery for two months before PIEB implementation to a two-month period of PIEB utilization following a five-month introductory familiarization period. The primary outcome was the proportion of women requiring rescue clinician boluses.

RESULTS

Fewer patients in the PIEB group required rescue clinician boluses compared to the CEI group (12% vs. 19%, P=0.012). Time to first rescue bolus request and total bolus dose were not different. Peak (median [IQR]) pain scores were 2[0-5] with CEI and 0[0-4] with PIEB. There was no difference in instrumental delivery rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Using PIEB compared to CEI as the background maintenance epidural analgesia method in conjunction with PCEA reduced the number of women requiring clinician rescue boluses while providing comparable labor analgesia. The findings of this clinical care impact study confirm the results of randomized controlled studies and suggest PIEB may be a preferable technique to CEI for the maintenance of labor analgesia.

Ultrasound-guided continuous interscalene block: the influence of local anesthetic background delivery method on postoperative analgesia after shoulder surgery: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Automated bolus delivery has recently been shown to reduce local anesthetic consumption and improve analgesia, compared with continuous infusion, in continuous sciatic and epidural block. However, there are few data on the influence of local anesthetic delivery method on local anesthetic consumption following interscalene blockade. This randomized, double-blind trial was designed to determine whether hourly automated perineural boluses (4 mL) of local anesthesia delivered with patient-controlled pro re nata (PRN, on demand) boluses would result in a reduction in total local anesthesia consumption during continuous interscalene blockade after shoulder surgery compared with continuous perineural infusion (4 mL/h) plus patient-controlled PRN boluses.

METHODS

One hundred one patients undergoing major shoulder surgery under general anesthesia with ultrasound-guided continuous interscalene block were randomly assigned to receive 0.2% ropivacaine via interscalene end-hole catheter either by continuous infusion 4 mL/h (n = 50) or as automated bolus 4 mL/h (n = 51). Both delivery methods were combined with 5 mL PRN boluses of 0.2% ropivacaine with a lockout time of 30 minutes. Postoperative number of PRN boluses, 24- and 48-hour local anesthetic consumption, pain scores, rescue analgesia (morphine), and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in either the number of PRN ropivacaine boluses or total 48 hour local anesthetic consumption between the groups (18.5 [11-25.2] PRN boluses in the continuous infusion group vs 17 [8.5-29] PRN boluses in the automated bolus group). Postoperative pain was similar in both groups; on day 2, the median average pain score was 4 (2-6) in the continuous infusion group versus 3 (2-5) in the automated bolus group (P = 0.54). Nor were any statistically significant intergroup differences observed with respect to morphine rescue, incidence of adverse events, or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

In continuous interscalene blockade under ultrasound guidance after shoulder surgery, automated boluses of local anesthetic combined with PRN boluses did not provide any reduction in local anesthetic consumption or rescue analgesia, compared with continuous infusion combined with PRN boluses.