A randomised comparison of intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia with epidural ropivacaine/sufentanil during labour

Comparative efficacy of opioid and non-opioid analgesics in labor pain management: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Effective labor pain management is crucial for parturient well-being, as it can improve the delivery experience of pregnant women and reduce anxiety and tension. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of various analgesics, classified by drug category and individual treatment methods, for labor pain control.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. All searches commenced from the database's inception to the date of the literature search (May 31, 2023). The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool assessed study bias risk. Network meta-analyses using a random-effects model and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials evaluating analgesic interventions in ASA I or II parturients were included. Combination therapies (OR: 5.81; 95% CI, 3.76-7.84; probability: 60%) and non-opioid analgesics (OR: 5.61; 95% CI, 2.91-8.30; probability: 39.2%) were superior to placebo for labor pain relief. Specifically, dexmedetomidine/ropivacaine/sufentanil (OR: 7.32; 95% CI, 2.73-11.89; probability: 40.6%) and dexmedetomidine/ropivacaine (OR: 6.50; 95% CI, 2.51-10.33; probability: 11.9%) combinations, bupivacaine/fentanyl and ropivacaine/sufentanil combinations, and remifentanil monotherapy showed improved analgesic efficacy versus placebo. Dexmedetomidine/ropivacaine reduced parturient nausea and vomiting versus alternatives.

CONCLUSION

Non-opioids, opioids and combinations thereof effectively relieved labor pain. In addition, dexmedetomidine/ropivacaine combination demonstrated analgesic efficacy and lower nausea and vomiting incidence.

The impact of sufentanil versus remifentanil on surgical site wound healing in caesarean section primiparas undergoing epidural anaesthesia: A systematic meta-analysis

Caesarean section (C-section) is a prevalent obstetric surgical procedure, with the choice of analgesic agents playing a pivotal role in postoperative recovery. This systematic meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of sufentanil (ST) and remifentanil (RT) on postoperative wound healing in caesarean section primiparas undergoing epidural anaesthesia. A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, yielding eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for inclusion. The primary outcome was wound healing assessment using the REEDA (redness, edema, ecchymosis, discharge, approximation) scale on the third, fifth and tenth postoperative days. The meta-analysis encompassed 691 primiparas. A significant difference in wound healing was observed between ST and RT on the third (I2  = 99%; Random: SMD: 6.75, 95% CIs: 3.11-10.39, p < 0.01) and fifth days (I2  = 99%; Random: SMD: 3.63, 95% CIs: 1.56-5.70, p < 0.01) postcaesarean section. However, no significant difference was noted on the tenth day (I2  = 5%; Random: SMD: 0.00, 95% CIs: -0.45-0.45, p = 0.35). Sufentanil and remifentanil exhibit differential effects on early postoperative wound healing in caesarean section primiparas undergoing epidural anaesthesia. While both opioids are effective analgesics, sufentanil demonstrates a more pronounced impact on wound healing during the immediate postoperative days. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting an opioid for pain management in this patient population.

Intrapartum Cesarean Section and Perinatal Outcomes after Epidural Analgesia or Remifentanil-PCA in Breech and Twin Deliveries

Comparative data on the potential impact of various forms of labor analgesia on the mode of delivery and neonatal complications in vaginal deliveries of singleton breech and twin fetuses are lacking. The present study aimed to determine the associations between type of labor analgesia (epidural analgesia (EA) vs. remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA)) and intrapartum cesarean sections (CS), and maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in breech and twin vaginal births. A retrospective analysis of planned vaginal breech and twin deliveries at the Department of Perinatology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, was performed for the period 2013-2021, using data obtained from the Slovenian National Perinatal Information System. The pre-specified outcomes studied were the rates of CS in labor, postpartum hemorrhage, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI), an Apgar score of <7 at 5 min after birth, birth asphyxia, and neonatal intensive care admission. A total of 371 deliveries were analyzed, including 127 term breech and 244 twin births. There were no statistically significant nor clinically relevant differences between the EA and remifentanil-PCA groups in any of the outcomes studied. Our findings suggest that both EA and remifentanil-PCA are safe and comparable in terms of labor outcomes in singleton breech and twin deliveries.

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.

Delivery mode and neonatal morbidity after remifentanil-PCA or epidural analgesia using the Ten Groups Classification System: A 5-year single-centre analysis of more than 10 000 deliveries

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the potential association between remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) or epidural analgesia (EA), and caesarean section (CS) rate, operative vaginal delivery rate (OVD), operative delivery (OD) rate (CS or OVD) with pathological cardiotocography (CTG) tracing, Apgar score < 7 at 5 min after birth, incidence of perinatal asphyxia and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission within four groups of the Ten Groups Classification System (TGCS) labour types; group 1: nulliparous, singleton cephalic, ≥37 weeks, spontaneous onset of labour; group 2a: nulliparous, singleton cephalic, ≥37 weeks, induction of labour; group 3: multiparous, singleton cephalic, ≥37 weeks, spontaneous onset of labour; group 4a: multipara, singleton cephalic, ≥37 weeks, induction of labour). We hypothesized that labour and delivery outcomes between RPCA and EA would differ within the different TGCS labour types.

STUDY DESIGN

10,561 deliveries (4876 with RPCA, 5685 with EA) at the University Clinical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia, from 2015 through 2019 were analysed using the Slovenian National Perinatal Information System data.

RESULTS

Compared to EA, RPCA was associated with lower CS and OVD rates in nulliparous women with spontaneous onset of labour (group 1) (CS: 9.9 % vs14.3 %; P < 0.001) (OVD: 5.1 % vs 8.4 %; P < 0.001), in nulliparous women with induced labour (group 2a) (CS: 14.8 % vs 24.2 %; P < 0.001) (OVD: 6.5 % vs 8.9 %; P = 0.036) and in multiparous women with spontaneous onset of labour (group 3) (CS: 1.1 % vs 2.4 %; P = 0.021) (OVD: 0.1 % vs 0.8 %; P = 0.007), respectively. RPCA was associated with a lower incidence of OD with pathologic CTG in all four studied groups (groups 1, 2a, 3, 4a). No differences in APGAR < 7 at 5 min, neonatal asphyxia, and NICU admission were recorded between the two analgesic techniques within any of the TGCS groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to EA, RPCA was not associated with worse delivery and neonatal outcomes within any of the four studied TGCS groups. RPCA could be used for labour analgesia routinely if strict adherence to protocols is ensured and regular staff training is provided.

Effect and Safety of Remifentanil Patient-Controlled Analgesia Compared with Epidural Analgesia in Labor: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The study was aimed to systematically assess the effect and safety of remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (rPCA) versus epidural analgesia (EA) during labor.

METHODS

Eligible trials were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library before April 2020. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with pain relief and average visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores during labor; the secondary outcomes were rate of spontaneous delivery, oxygen desaturation, maternal hyperthermia, and neonatal Apgar scores <7 at 1 and 5 min.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 3,039 parturients were included. We found that parturients receiving rPCA were similarly satisfied with pain relief compared to those receiving EA (standardized mean difference: -0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.57, 0.18), though had significantly higher VAS pain scores during labor (weighted mean difference: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.32, 2.50). The rate of spontaneous delivery was comparable. rPCA increased the risk of maternal oxygen desaturation (risk ratio [RR]:3.23, 95% CI: 1.98, 5.30). There was no statistical significance regarding hyperthermia (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24, 1.01). No significant difference was found for neonatal Apgar scores <7 at 1 and 5 min.

CONCLUSION

rPCA could be an optional alternative for pain relief to EA without worsening maternal satisfaction with pain relief, delivery modes, or neonatal morbidity. However, rPCA was associated with higher pain intensity during labor and higher incidence of maternal oxygen desaturation. The routine use of rPCA in labor must be armed with close respiratory monitoring. Continued well-designed studies are required to provide more robust evidence.

Remifentanil for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Central Venous Catheter Insertion: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Central venous catheter (CVC) insertion is a common practice for anesthetists, but this invasive procedure generates anxiety and pain in patients that are often underestimated. We compared target-controlled infusion of remifentanil and local lidocaine infiltration with placebo and local lidocaine infiltration to decrease pain scores during CVC placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included conscious, adult patients without contraindication to remifentanil or lidocaine. We excluded pregnant women, emergency situations, and opioid abuse. Patients requiring CVC were randomly assigned, using computer-generated allocation numbers stored in sealed envelopes, to receive target-controlled infusion of remifentanil or placebo-all patients received local anesthesia with lidocaine. All patients were hospitalized in a recovery room or intensive care unit, monitored, and received 4 L/min of oxygen.The primary outcome was global pain (Verbal Numeric Rating Pain Scale) during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were pain perceived at every stage of the procedure, anxiety, patient satisfaction, operational ease, and side effects.

RESULTS

In this double-blind study, we included 90 patients (split into 2 groups of 45 patients). Global pain was significantly reduced in the remifentanil group: 20 of 100 (95% confidence interval, 16-40) versus 50 of 100 (95% confidence interval, 40-60) in the placebo group; P=0.0009. No major adverse events were observed during this study, and there were no significant differences between both groups regarding side effects.

DISCUSSION

Target-controlled infusion of remifentanil is an effective drug to reduce pain during CVC insertion in association with lidocaine-based local anesthesia, in conscious patients.

Mixed-methods systematic review: Childbearing women's views, experiences, and decision-making related to epidural analgesia in labour

AIMS

To investigate childbearing women's views, experiences and decision-making related to epidural analgesia in labour.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was implemented across Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE from 2000 to September 2018. The literature search was undertaken in January 2018 and updated in September 2018. Thirty papers were selected.

RESULTS

Four overarching synthesized findings were identified: (a) choice; (b) pain management experience; (c) lack of information; and (d) information provision and consent.

REVIEW METHODS

Quality appraisal was conducted using JBI levels of evidence and other established tools. NVivo was used to independently dual code and thematically synthesize qualitative data. A narrative synthesis of the quantitative findings from the included studies was undertaken. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess confidence in the review findings based on the qualitative data. A set of integrated mixed-methods synthesized findings was produced.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for practice based on the systematic review findings are that midwives should dedicate time to discuss epidural with women and birth partners, ideally during the second or third trimester of pregnancy, asking women what coping strategies or pain relief they have been considering, if any. The factors which may influence the woman's choice of epidural, including pain threshold, ability to cope with pain, timing of epidural and length of labour should be continuously evaluated during labour. The midwife should remain with women after an epidural has been sited, demonstrating understanding of the woman's choice and providing an opportunity for discussion of plans for the remaining labour and birth.

IMPACT

The findings of this systematic review can inform both healthcare professionals and service users on various aspects of the decision-making process about the use of epidural analgesia in labour. Data can be transferable to similar settings in high-income countries.

Duration of labor, delivery mode and maternal and neonatal morbidity after remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia compared with epidural analgesia

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare duration of active labor, delivery mode, maternal and neonatal morbidity and women's satisfaction with delivery after intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or standard epidural analgesia (EDA). Based on clinical observations, we hypothesized that women with PCA would have shorter labor.

STUDY DESIGN

An observational study at a university hospital in Sweden 2009-16. Maternal and neonatal outcomes with PCA (n = 69) and EDA (n = 138) were compared.

RESULTS

Women with PCA had shorter active labor 5.6 ± 3.3 compared to 8.5 ± 4.4 h (p < 0.001) with EDA, and a higher rate of spontaneous delivery 94% (65/69) compared to 65% (n = 90/138) with EDA (p < 0.001). Intrapartum temperature >38 °C (p = 0.001) and signs of fetal asphyxia (p < 0.001) were less common with PCA. No maternal or neonatal sedation was observed. The rates of transient oxygen desaturation <95%, bleeding > 1000 mL and women's satisfaction with delivery did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

PCA had several advantages over EDA, as it was associated with shorter active labor and a higher rate of spontaneous delivery without worsening maternal or neonatal morbidity or women's satisfaction with delivery. Therefore, we suggest an increased availability of PCA for labor analgesia. We recommend continuous one-to-one care and oxygen saturation monitoring for all women during active labor.

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil vs. alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour: a Cochrane systematic review

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil used as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the pain of labour. We performed a systematic literature search in December 2015 (updated in December 2016). We included randomised, controlled and cluster-randomised trials of women in labour with planned vaginal delivery receiving patient-controlled remifentanil compared principally with other parenteral and patient-controlled opioids, epidural analgesia and continuous remifentanil infusion or placebo. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with pain relief and the occurrence of adverse events for mothers and newborns. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and applied the GRADE approach for the quality of evidence. We included total zero event trials, using a constant continuity correction of 0.01 and a random-effect meta-analysis. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis; within these, 3713 participants were randomised and 3569 analysed. Most of our pre-specified outcomes were not studied in the included trials. However, we found evidence that women using patient-controlled remifentanil were more satisfied with pain relief than women receiving parenteral opioids (four trials, 216 patients, very low quality evidence) with a standardised mean difference ([SMD] 95%CI) of 2.11 (0.72-3.49), but were less satisfied than women receiving epidural analgesia (seven trials, 2135 patients, very low quality evidence), -0.22 (-0.40 to -0.04). Data on adverse events were sparse. However, the relative risk (95%CI) for maternal respiratory depression for patient-controlled remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia (three trials, 687 patients, low-quality evidence) was 0.91 (0.51-1.62). Compared with continuous intravenous infusion of remifentanil (two trials, 135 patients, low-quality evidence) no conclusion could be reached as all study arms showed zero events. The relative risk (95%CI) of Apgar scores less than 7 at 5 min after birth compared with epidural analgesia (five trials, 1322 participants, low-quality evidence) was 1.26 (0.62-2.57).

An economic analysis of patient controlled remifentanil and epidural analgesia as pain relief in labour (RAVEL trial); a randomised controlled trial

Objective

To compare the costs of a strategy of patient controlled remifentanil versus epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour.

Design

We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, the RAVEL trial. Costs were analysed from a health care perspective alongside the RAVEL trial.

Population

Pregnant women of intermediate to high risk beyond 32 weeks gestation who planned vaginal delivery.

Methods

Women were randomised before the onset of labour, to receive either patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia when pain relief was requested during labour.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome for effectiveness was satisfaction with pain relief, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC). A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Here, we present an economic analysis from a health care perspective including costs from the start of labour to ten days postpartum. Health-care utilization was documented in the Case Report Forms and by administering an additional questionnaire.

Results

The costs in the patient controlled remifentanil group (n = 687) and in the epidural group (n = 671) were €2900 versus €3185 respectively (mean difference of -€282 (95% CI -€611 to €47)). The (non-significant) higher costs in the epidural analgesia group could be mainly attributed to higher costs of neonatal admission.

Conclusion

From an economic perspective, there is no preferential pain treatment in labouring intermediate to high risk women. Since patient controlled remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to AUC for satisfaction with pain relief we recommend epidural analgesia as the method of choice. However, if appropriately counselled on effect and side effects there is, from an economic perspective, no reason to deny women patient controlled remifentanil.

Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I2 = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I2 = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I2 = 73%; Tau2 = 1.89; Chi2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.

Continuous Epidural Analgesia Using an Ester-Linked Local Anesthetic Agent, 2-Chloroprocaine, During Labor: A Case Report

We report the use of the ester-linked local anesthetic, 2-chloroprocaine, for continuous epidural analgesia in a patient in labor with a history of allergic reaction to amide local anesthetics. The patient gave a reliable history of pruritus, hives, erythema, and swelling on her lower extremity after having received a preservative-free amide local anesthetic. This allergy had been confirmed by a dermatologist by her reports. The patient requested an epidural for labor analgesia that was placed successfully. After an initial bolus, a continuous infusion of 1.5% of 2-chloroprocaine was initiated to achieve satisfactory pain relief throughout an uneventful vaginal delivery.

Rupture of the posterior cul-de-sac during trial of labour after caesarean section

Rupture of the vaginal wall in unobstructed labour is a rare entity in the developed world. This case report describes rupture of the posterior cul-de-sac in a healthy 34-year-old multiparous woman attempting trial of labour after caesarean section. The woman presented to the labour ward at term with spontaneous onset of contractions. In the second stage of labour, the woman experienced sudden severe abdominal pain, different in character from the contraction pain. Therefore, the baby was delivered by ventouse extraction. As the woman continued to experience severe immobilising abdominal pain during the hospital stay, a CT scan was performed which revealed a haematoma and free fluid at the right side of the uterus. A laparotomy was performed 3 days postdelivery, during which a rupture of the posterior cul-de-sac was found and closed with a continuous suture. The woman was discharged 3 days after laparotomy in good clinical condition.

A Survey of Intravenous Remifentanil Use for Labor Analgesia at Academic Medical Centers in the United States

Remifentanil is most commonly offered when neuraxial labor analgesia is contraindicated. There is no consensus regarding the optimal administration, dosing strategy, or requirements for maternal monitoring, which may pose a patient safety issue. This exploratory survey evaluated the current practices regarding remifentanil use for labor analgesia at academic centers in the United States. Of 126 obstetric anesthesia directors surveyed, 84 (67%) responded. In 2014 to 2015, an estimated 36% (95% confidence interval: 25.7-46.3) of centers used remifentanil, most of which did so less than 5 times. Some serious maternal and neonatal respiratory complications occurred, emphasizing that clinical protocols and adequate monitoring are key to ensure maternal and neonatal safety.

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Multiple analgesic strategies for pain relief during labour are available. Recently remifentanil, a short-acting opioid, has recently been used as an alternative analgesic due to its unique pharmacological properties.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the effectiveness of remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for labour pain, along with any potential harms to the mother and the newborn.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 December 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), handsearched congress abstracts (November 2015), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials comparing remifentanil (PCA) with another opioid (intravenous (IV)/intramuscular (IM)), or with another opioid (PCA), or with epidural analgesia, or with remifentanil (continuous IV), or with remifentanil (PCA, different regimen), or with inhalational analgesia, or with placebo/no treatment in all women in labour including high-risk groups with planned vaginal delivery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and appraised study quality.We contacted study authors for additional information other than incomplete outcome data. We performed random-effects meta-analysis.To reduce the risk of random error in meta-analysis we performed trial sequential analysis. We included total zero event trials and used a constant continuity correction of 0.01 (ccc 0.01) for meta-analysis. We applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty RCTs with 3569 women were included. Of those, 10 trials (2983 participants) compared remifentanil (PCA) to an epidural, four trials (216 participants) to another opioid (IV/IM), three trials (215 participants) to another opioid (PCA), two trials (135 participants) to remifentanil (continuous IV), and one trial (20 participants) to remifentanil (PCA, different regimen). No trials were identified for the remaining comparisons.Methodological quality of studies was moderate to poor. We assessed risk of bias as high for blinding issues and incomplete outcome data in 65% and 45% of the included studies, respectively.There is evidence of effect that women in the remifentanil (PCA) group were more satisfied with pain relief than women in the other opioids (IV/IM) group (standardised mean difference (SMD) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 3.49, four trials, very low-quality evidence), and that women were less satisfied compared to women in the epidural group (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.04, seven trials, very low-quality evidence).There is evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) provided stronger pain relief at one hour than other opioids administered IV/IM (SMD -1.58, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.48, three trials, very low-quality evidence) or via PCA (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.00, three trials, very low-quality evidence). Pain intensity was higher in the remifentanil (PCA) group compared to the epidural group (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84, six trials, low-quality evidence).Data were limited on safety aspects for both the women and the newborns. Only one study analysed maternal apnoea in a comparison of remifentanil (PCA) versus epidural and reported that half of the women in the remifentanil and none in the epidural group had an apnoea (very low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with an increased risk for maternal respiratory depression when compared to epidural analgesia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62, ccc 0.01, three trials, low-quality evidence) and no reliable conclusion might be reached compared to remifentanil (continuous IV) (all study arms included zero events, two trials, low-quality evidence). In one trial of remifentanil (PCA) versus another opioid (IM) three out of 18 women in the remifentanil and none out of 18 in the control group had a respiratory depression (very low-quality evidence).There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with an increased risk for newborns with Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes compared to epidural analgesia (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.57, ccc 0.01, five trials, low-quality evidence) and no reliable conclusion might be reached compared to another opioid (IV) and compared to remifentanil (PCA, different regimen) both with zero events in all study arms (one trial, very-low quality evidence). In one trial of remifentanil (PCA) versus another opioid (PCA) none out of nine newborns in the remifentanil and three out of eight in the opioid (PCA) group had Apgar scores less than seven (very-low quality evidence).There is evidence that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with a lower risk for the requirement of additional analgesia when compared to other opioids (IV/IM) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.81, three trials, moderate-quality evidence) and that it was associated with a higher risk compared to epidural analgesia (RR 9.27, 95% CI 3.73 to 23.03, ccc 0.01, six trials, moderate-quality evidence). There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) reduced the requirement for additional analgesia compared to other opioids (PCA) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.28, three trials, low-quality evidence).There is evidence that there was no difference in the risk for caesarean delivery between remifentanil (PCA) and other opioids (IV/IM) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.32, ccc 0.01, four trials, low-quality evidence) and epidural analgesia (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22, ccc 0.01, nine trials, moderate-quality evidence), respectively. Pooled meta-analysis revealed an increased risk for caesarean section under remifentanil (PCA) compared to other opioids (PCA) (RR 2.78, 95% CI 0.99 to 7.82, two trials, very low-quality evidence). However, a wide range of clinically relevant and non-relevant treatment effects is compatible with this result.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current systematic review, there is mostly low-quality evidence to inform practice and future research may significantly alter the current situation. The quality of evidence is mainly limited by poor quality of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision. More research is needed on maternal and neonatal safety outcomes (maternal apnoea and respiratory depression, Apgar score) and on the optimal mode and regimen of remifentanil administration to provide highest efficacy with reasonable adverse effects for mothers and their newborns.

Effects of Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia and Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia on Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Spinal Fusion Surgery

We compared the outcomes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in analgesia after spinal fusion surgery. A total of 120 patients who underwent spinal fusion surgeries between April 2013 and April 2015 at Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital were selected for this study based on defined inclusion criteria. All patients were randomly divided into 2 groups before surgery: PCEA group (n = 65) and PCIA group (n = 55). Visual analog scales (VAS) were used to evaluate the degree of pain. Besides, the active and passive activities of patients during 1- to 3-day recovery period after surgery were recorded. Verbal rating scales were used to measure pain levels after surgery and after surgery. Adverse effects of PCEA and PCIA were monitored, which included nausea, vomiting, pruritus, drowsiness, respiratory depression, and headache. Our results showed no statistically significant differences between PCEA and PCIA in sex ratio, age, height, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists level, surgery time, number of fusion section, surgery methods, and duration of anesthesia (all P > 0.05). The PCEA group was associated with significantly lower VAS scores, compared with the PCIA group, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48-hour postsurgery (all P < 0.05) when surgery-associated pain is expected to be intense. Also, compared with the PCIA group, the PCEA group showed higher frequency of recovery activities on first and second day postsurgery (all P < 0.05). The overall patient satisfaction level of analgesia in the PCEA group was significantly higher than in the PCIA group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of hypopiesia and skin itching in the PCIA group was higher than in the PCEA group (all P < 0.05). Finally, drowsiness and headache were markedly lower in the PCIA group after surgery, compared with the PCEA group, and this difference was statistically significant (all P < 0.05). Our results provide strong evidence that PCEA exhibits significantly greater efficacy than PCIA for pain management after spinal fusion surgery, with lower VAS scores, higher frequency of recovery activities, and overall higher satisfaction level.

The RESPITE trial: remifentanil intravenously administered patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus pethidine intramuscular injection for pain relief in labour: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The commonest opioid used for pain relief in labour is pethidine (meperidine); however, its effectiveness has long been challenged and the drug has known side effects including maternal sedation, nausea and potential transfer across the placenta to the foetus. Over a third of women receiving pethidine require an epidural due to inadequate pain relief. Epidural analgesia increases the risk of an instrumental vaginal delivery and its associated effects. Therefore, there is a clear need for a safe, effective, alternative analgesic to pethidine. Evidence suggests that remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) reduces epidural conversion rates compared to pethidine; however, no trial has yet investigated this as a primary endpoint. We are, therefore, comparing pethidine intramuscular injection to remifentanil PCA in a randomised controlled trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

Women in established labour, requesting systemic opioid pain relief, will be randomised to either intravenously administered remifentanil PCA (intervention) or pethidine intramuscular injection (control) in an unblinded, 1:1 individual randomised trial. Following informed consent, 400 women in established labour, who request systemic opioid pain relief, from NHS Trusts across England will undergo a minimised randomisation by a computer or automated telephone system to either pethidine or remifentanil. In order to balance the groups this minimisation is based on four parameters; parity (nulliparous versus multiparous), maternal age (<20, 20 < 30, 30 < 40, 40+ years), ethnicity (South Asian (Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi) versus Other) and induced versus spontaneous labour. The effectiveness of pain relief provided by each technique will be recorded every 30 min after time zero, until epidural placement, delivery or transfer to theatre, quantified by Visual Analogue Scale. Incidence of maternal side effects including sedation, delivery mode, foetal distress requiring delivery, neonatal status at delivery and rate of initiation of breastfeeding within the first hour of birth will also be recorded. Maternal satisfaction with her childbirth experience will be determined by a postpartum questionnaire prior to discharge from the delivery ward.

DISCUSSION

The RESPITE trial's primary outcome is the proportion of women who have an epidural placed for pain relief in labour in each arm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials registration number: ISRCTN29654603 . Registered on 23 July 2013.

Comparison of pain relief between patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgeries

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative analgesic effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgeries.

METHOD

Relevant articles were identified using computerized and manual search strategies. Statistical analyses were undertaken by the CMA 2.0 statistical software.

RESULTS

Nine cohort studies with a total of 436 patients undergoing spinal fusion surgeries were incorporated in the present meta-analysis. There were significant differences between the PCEA and PCIA groups in the visual analogue scale score of patients undergoing spinal fusion [standardized mean difference = 0.27, 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) = 0.070-0.470, P = 0.008]. However, no obvious difference was observed in the rate of side effects between the PCIA and PCEA groups (side effects: odds ratio = 0.957, 95 % CI = 0.536-1.708, P = 0.882).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggested that PCEA may be more effective in relieving pain than PCIA for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgeries.

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour.

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial.

SETTING

15 hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data.

INTERVENTION

Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Intravenous remifentanil versus epidural ropivacaine with sufentanil for labour analgesia: a retrospective study

Remifentanil with appropriate pharmacological properties seems to be an ideal alternative to epidural analgesia during labour. A retrospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) compared with epidural analgesia. Medical records of 370 primiparas who received remifentanil IVPCA or epidural analgesia were reviewed. Pain and sedation scores, overall satisfaction, the extent of pain control, maternal side effects and neonatal outcome as primary observational indicators were collected. There was a significant decline of pain scores in both groups. Pain reduction was greater in the epidural group throughout the whole study period (0∼180 min) (P<0.0001), and pain scores in the remifentanil group showed an increasing trend one hour later. The remifentanil group had a lower SpO₂ (P<0.0001) and a higher sedation score (P<0.0001) within 30 min after treatment. The epidural group had a higher overall satisfaction score (3.8±0.4 vs. 3.7±0.6, P = 0.007) and pain relief score (2.9±0.3 vs. 2.8±0.4, P<0.0001) compared with the remifentanil group. There was no significant difference on side effects between the two groups, except that a higher rate of dizziness (1% vs. 21.8%, P<0.0001) was observed during remifentanil analgesia. And logistic regression analysis demonstrated that nausea, vomiting were associated with oxytocin usage and instrumental delivery, and dizziness was associated to the type and duration of analgesia. Neonatal outcomes such as Apgar scores and umbilical-cord blood gas analysis were within the normal range, but umbilical pH and base excess of neonatus in the remifentanil group were significantly lower. Remifentanil IVPCA provides poorer efficacy on labor analgesia than epidural analgesia, with more sedation on parturients and a trend of newborn acidosis. Despite these adverse effects, remifentanil IVPCA can still be an alternative option for labor analgesia under the condition of one-to-one bedside care, continuous monitoring, oxygen supply and preparation for neonatal resuscitation.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The effects of epidural/spinal opioids in labour analgesia on neonatal outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Epidural/spinal opioids are increasingly used to relieve parturients' pain in labour. Some studies indicate that opioids can induce side effects in neonates, such as respiratory depression and neurobehavioural changes. This meta-analysis aimed to clarify the effects of opioids in labour analgesia on neonates.

SOURCE

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE™ were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The neonatal data of Apgar scores, Neurological and Adaptive Capacity Scores (NACS), and umbilical cord pH values were extracted. Statistical analyses were carried out using Review Manager 5.2 and Stata(®) 10.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Twenty-one trials with 2,859 participants were included in our meta-analysis. No difference in the incidence of Apgar scores < 7 was shown between the opioid and control groups at one minute (risk difference [RD] 0.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.0 to 2.0, P = 0.78; I (2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0 to 50) and at five minutes (RD -1.0%, 95% CI: -2.0 to 1.0, P = 0.31; I(2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0 to 50). No significant differences were found in the NACS at two hours (mean difference [MD] -0.35, 95% CI: -1.70 to 1.01, P = 0.62; I(2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0 to 79) and at 24 hr (MD -0.45, 95% CI: -1.36 to 0.46, P = 0.33; I(2) = 3%, 95% CI: 0 to 26). Also, no significant differences were found in umbilical cord artery pH (MD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.03, P = 0.48; I(2) = 80%, 95% CI: 46 to 92) and vein pH (MD -0.03, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.00, P = 0.08; I(2) = 77%, 95% CI: 36 to 91). No significant publication bias was found.

CONCLUSION

The common doses of fentanyl and sufentanil used with an epidural/spinal technique in labour analgesia are safe for neonates up to 24 hr after delivery. In future studies, more attention should be paid to the long-term side effects in neonates.

A comparison of remifentanil parturient-controlled intravenous analgesia with epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia is generally accepted as the most effective form of pain relief during labor. Remifentanil patient-controlled IV analgesia (PCIA), which is less invasive than epidural analgesia, may be an attractive alternative. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of the 2 analgesic techniques for labor pain.

METHODS

Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched independently by 2 reviewers to retrieve eligible randomized controlled clinical trials. The primary end points were pain scores at 1 and 2 hours, and the secondary end points were nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and umbilical artery pH values. Mean difference (MD) or risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each end point. GRADE profiler was applied to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Five eligible trials were retrieved and analyzed. We found that parturients with remifentanil PCIA had higher visual analog scale (10-cm scale) pain scores than those who received epidural analgesia at 1 hour (MD = 1.9 cm; 95% CI, 0.5-3.3; I = 94%) and 2 hours (MD = 3.0 cm; 95% CI, 0.7-5.2; I = 89%) after initiation of analgesia. There was no statistical difference between epidural analgesia and remifentanil PCIA in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, pruritus, or umbilical artery pH values. However, the CIs are quite wide and contain clinically significant differences. According to GRADE profiler, most end points had moderate quality except that pain scores at 1 hour were of low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that remifentanil PCIA is not superior to epidural analgesia in analgesic efficacy during labor. Given the wide CIs of the pooled results for secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes, definite conclusions cannot be drawn for those outcomes. Further studies are still warranted to validate these conclusions.

Must we press on until a young mother dies? Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in labour may not be suited as a "poor man's epidural"

BACKGROUND

The epidural route is still considered the gold standard for labour analgesia, although it is not without serious consequences when incorrect placement goes unrecognized, e.g. in case of intravascular, intrathecal and subdural placements. Until now there has not been a viable alternative to epidural analgesia especially in view of the neonatal outcome and the need for respiratory support when long-acting opioids are used via the parenteral route. Pethidine and meptazinol are far from ideal having been described as providing rather sedation than analgesia, affecting the cardiotocograph (CTG), causing fetal acidosis and having active metabolites with prolonged half-lives especially in the neonate. Despite these obvious shortcomings, intramuscular and intravenously administered pethidine and comparable substances are still frequently used in delivery units. Since the end of the 90 ths remifentanil administered in a patient-controlled mode (PCA) had been reported as a useful alternative for labour analgesia in those women who either don't want, can't have or don't need epidural analgesia.

DISCUSSION

In view of the need for conversion to central neuraxial blocks and the analgesic effect remifentanil has been demonstrated to be superior to pethidine. Despite being less effective in terms of the resulting pain scores, clinical studies suggest that the satisfaction with analgesia may be comparable to that obtained with epidural analgesia. Owing to this fact, remifentanil has gained a place in modern labour analgesia in many institutions. However, the fact that remifentanil may cause harm should not be forgotten when the use of this potent mu-agonist is considered for the use in labouring women. In the setting of one-to-one midwifery care, appropriate monitoring and providing that enough experience exists with this potent opioid and the treatment of potential complications, remifentanil PCA is a useful option in addition to epidural analgesia and other central neuraxial blocks. Already described serious consequences should remind us not refer to remifentanil PCA as a "poor man's epidural" and to safely administer remifentanil with an appropriate indication.

SUMMARY

Therefore, the authors conclude that economic considerations and potential cost-savings in conjunction with remifentanil PCA may not be appropriate main endpoints when studying this valuable method for labour analgesia.

Efficacy and safety of remifentanil as an alternative labor analgesic

The objective of this review was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil in the management of labor pain. Although neuraxial analgesia is the best option during labor, alternative analgesic options are needed for patients with contraindications. Using a systematic literature search, clinical outcomes of remifentanil for labor pain have been summarized. Also, comparisons of remifentanil to other options including meperidine, epidural analgesia, fentanyl, and nitrous oxide are provided. Based on the literature review, remifentanil is associated with high overall maternal satisfaction and favorable side-effect profile. However, due to the low reporting of adverse events, large, randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate maternal and neonatal safety adequately and determine the optimal dosing needed to provide effective analgesia. While remifentanil is a feasible alternative for patients who cannot or do not want to receive epidural analgesia, administration should be monitored closely for potential adverse effects.

Efficacy and side effects of intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia used in a stepwise approach for labour: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Remifentanil has a suitable pharmacological profile for labour analgesia. In this prospective, observational study, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil, using stepwise bolus doses without background infusion, was examined during the first and second stages of labour. Outcomes were pain reduction, maternal satisfaction, maternal and neonatal side effects and remifentanil metabolism in the neonate.

METHODS

Parturients with normal term singleton pregnancies were recruited. The initial remifentanil bolus dose was 0.15 μg/kg, increasing in steps of 0.15 μg/kg, with a 2-min lock-out. Pain scores using a 100 mm visual analogue scale, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, respiratory rate and maternal sedation were recorded every 15 min. Maternal oxygen saturation and heart rate were monitored continuously. Neonatal data included Apgar scores, clinical examination, naloxone use, resuscitation, umbilical cord blood gases and remifentanil concentrations.

RESULTS

Forty-one parturients were enrolled. Pain scores were significantly reduced in the first 3 h of patient-controlled analgesia use compared to baseline, and at the end of the first and second stages of labour (P<0.05). Maximal pain reduction was 60% (P<0.01). One patient had inadequate pain relief and converted to epidural analgesia. The mean highest dose of remifentanil was 0.7 μg/kg [range 0.3-1.05]. Ninety-three percent of patients were satisfied with their analgesia. The lowest oxygen saturation was 91% and the lowest respiratory rate was 9 breaths/min. Eleven parturients (27%) received supplemental oxygen due to oxygen saturations <92%. Maternal sedation was moderate, and neonatal data reassuring.

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia provides adequate pain relief and high maternal satisfaction during the first and second stages of labour. Maternal sedation and respiratory depression may occur, but no serious neonatal side effects were recorded. Careful monitoring is mandatory.