Parturient recall of neuraxial analgesia risks: Impact of labor pain vs no labor pain

Parturients feel capable of giving informed consent for epidural analgesia: A qualitative and quantitative analysis

INTRODUCTION

The patient's right to autonomy confirmed by informed consent is a cornerstone in modern medicine. Epidural analgesia is increasingly popular in obstetric analgesia, but physicians disagree whether labour pain impairs parturient decision-making. We investigated the fraction of parturients feeling capable of giving informed consent including their knowledge of risks.

METHODS

Bedside survey postpartum women at the Herlev Hospital, Denmark. The inclusion criteria were recipient of epidural analgesia during labour. A power calculation based on the recognition of genuine and false side effects required the inclusion of 50 participants.

RESULTS

Forty out of fifty (80%) of the participants felt they could make a judicious consent during labour and 46 out of 50 (92%) felt they knew enough about epidural analgesia to give consent to the procedure again if necessary. Participants spontaneously reported a median of two risks associated with epidural analgesia. Additionally, when prompted with a cued list of true and false risks from epidural analgesia, the participants reported on average 5.1 genuine risks compared with 0.4 made-up risks. The difference (4.7) suggests the included women could discern genuine risks from made-up risks.

DISCUSSION

The majority of participants reported the capacity to give informed consent. Our quantitative results show the participants could clearly distinguish genuine risks of epidural labour analgesia from made-up risks. Our qualitative data likewise suggest that participants understood the information and consequently their informed consent was genuine. Accordingly, parturients are able to give informed consent. This is supported by parturients' ability to identify risks from epidural labour analgesia.

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.

A comparison of the effects of ENTONOX inhalation and spinal anesthesia on labor pain reduction and apgar score in vaginal delivery: a clinical trial study

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effect of ENTONOX inhalation and spinal injection on the reduction of labor pain, the Apgar score of the neonates, and their side effects on new-born children and pregnant women.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present clinical trial study is conducted among the pregnant women in the maternity ward of a child delivery hospital in Iran. All Participants were divided in two groups ENTONOX Inhalation and Spinal Anesthesia. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was implemented to measure the pain level experienced by the participants during the procedure. Moreover, the Apgar scale was used to measure the general physical health of the neonates in both groups. In addition, the participants receiving ENTONOX were asked to report the side effects they underwent during gas inhalation. However, the participants in the spinal anesthesia were checked three times. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.

RESULTS

The findings showed that the spinal anesthesia technique was significantly more effective than gas inhalation in that it reduced as much as 3 points more than did the inhalation (P-value: 0.001). Moreover, the comparison of the mean Apgar scores showed that the mean Apgar score of the neonates of spinal anesthesia mothers was 0.36 point lower than that of the neonates in the gas inhalation group. However, this difference was not statistically significant at P- value = 0.06.

CONCLUSIONS

the result of the present study indicated that spinal anesthesia was more effective than ENTONOX inhalation in reducing the labor pain.