Intrathecal sufentanil and epidural bupivacaine for labor analgesia: dose-response of individual agents and in combination

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 September 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search on 30 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Quasi RCTs and cross-over trials were not considered for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials involving 3274 women met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed.Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses five outcomes showed a significant difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to speed of onset of analgesia from time of injection (mean difference (MD) -2.87 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -0.67; two trials, 129 women); the need for rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70; one trial, 42 women); urinary retention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; one trial, 704 women); and rate of instrumental delivery (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; six trials, 1015 women). Traditional epidural was more favourable in relation to umbilical venous pH (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.00; one trial, 55 women). There were no data on maternal satisfaction, blood patch for post dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, umbilical cord pH, rare neurological complications, analgesia for caesarean section after analgesic intervention or any economic/use of resources outcomes for this comparison. No differences between CSE and traditional epidural were identified for mobilisation in labour, the need for labour augmentation, the rate of caesarean birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache, maternal hypotension, neonatal Apgar scores or umbilical arterial pH.For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, three outcomes were statistically significant. Two of these reflected a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection with CSE and the third was of more pruritus with CSE compared to low-dose epidural (average RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.65; 11 trials, 959 women; random-effects, T² = 0.26, I² = 84%). There was no significant difference in maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; seven trials, 520 women; random-effects, T² = 0.00, I² = 45%). There were no data on respiratory depression, maternal sedation or the need for labour augmentation. No differences between CSE and low-dose epidural were identified for need for rescue analgesia, mobilisation in labour, incidence of post dural puncture headache, known dural tap, blood patch for post dural headache, urinary retention, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, headache, the need for labour augmentation, mode of delivery, umbilical pH, Apgar score or admissions to the neonatal unit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

Role of epidural ketamine for postoperative analgesia after upper abdominal surgery

Ketamine, a N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist inhibits central sensitization due to peripheral nociception thus potentiating the analgesic effect of morphine. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effect of adding small-dose ketamine in a multimodal regimen of postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). One hundred patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II, undergoing major upper abdominal surgery were randomly allocated to two groups. Group I received PCEA device containing bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.0625% and morphine sulphate (preservative free) 0.05mg/ml. Group II received PCEA device containing bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.0625%, morphine sulphate (preservative free) 0.05 mg/ml and ketamine hydrochloride (preservative free) 0.2 mg/ml. The mean morphine consumption in group I after 1^stand 2^ndpostoperative day was 8.38±2.85 and 7.64±1.95 mg, respectively, compared to 6.81±1.35 and 6.25±1.22 mg (P<0.05) in group II. Although group II consumed significantly less morphine, pain relief at rest and at movement after 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours, postoperatively was significantly better in group II (P<0.05) than in group I. These findings suggest that adding small-dose ketamine to a multimodal PCEA regimen provides better postoperative analgesia and reduces morphine consumption.

Combined spinal-epidural analgesia for labor in a patient with Marfan’s syndrome

We report the management of a patient with Marfan's syndrome for labor analgesia and vaginal delivery using a combined spinal-epidural technique. The rapid onset of analgesia for the first stage of labor provided by the intrathecal opioid, combined with the slow and controlled onset of sensory anesthesia and sympathetic block provided by the dilute epidural local anesthetic, may make this technique particularly useful for labor and delivery in patients with Marfan's syndrome.

Epidural Analgesia for Postoperative Pain

Epidural analgesia provides superior analgesia compared with other postoperative analgesic techniques. Additionally, perioperative epidural analgesia confers physiologic benefits, which may potentially decrease perioperative complications and improve postoperative outcome. However, there are many variables (eg, choice of analgesics, catheter-incision congruency, and duration of analgesia) that may influence the efficacy of epidural analgesia. In addition, the use of epidural analgesia should be evaluated on an individual basis because there are risks associated with this technique.

Intrathecal opioids for combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labour

In <25 years, intrathecal administration of opioids (i.e. spinal analgesia) has evolved from an experimental model into an important therapy for obstetric analgesia and anaesthesia. A small dose of opioid delivered into the CSF provides almost immediate relief from labour pain with minimal risks to the mother and fetus. Careful attention, and prompt treatment when needed, can ameliorate the adverse effects of fetal bradycardia, respiratory depression and pruritus. The major limitation of intrathecal opioids for labour analgesia is the short duration of effect: 90-180 minutes under ideal circumstances. To address this problem, and to increase flexibility for anaesthesia as well as analgesia, the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique was developed. The CSE technique involves injection of drugs into the CSF and placement of an epidural catheter. An intrathecally administered opioid provides a rapid onset of labour analgesia without motor block or significant haemodynamic perturbation. The epidural catheter allows ongoing administration of medications to maintain labour analgesia and provides a means of delivering anaesthesia for operative delivery. This review will focus on intrathecally administered opioids as used as part of CSE analgesia. Considerable research has focused on the optimum dose of opioids when delivered intrathecally, with or without adjuncts, in the CSE technique. Fentanyl and sufentanil, two of the lipophilic synthetic opioids, have emerged as the most useful. Bupivacaine, a long-acting local anaesthetic, is often added to prolong the duration of analgesia, although this tends to increase the likelihood of motor blockade of the lower extremities. Comparisons of the CSE technique with standard epidural practices have shown that both are effective means of providing analgesia during labour. Controversy revolves around the incidence of fetal bradycardia following CSE and whether this phenomenon increases the rate of operative deliveries. The rapid onset of analgesia with intrathecally administered opioids must be balanced against the added risks of dural puncture and considered in the context of the whole duration of labour. Ultimately, the decision to choose a CSE technique depends on the experience of the anaesthesia provider and the local availability of drugs, equipment and monitoring capabilities.

Single-shot intrathecal sufentanil with bupivacaine in late labour--analgesic quality and obstetric outcome

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the analgesic effect and obstetric outcome after single-shot intrathecal sufentanil with bupivacaine in late labour.

STUDY DESIGN

Forty multiparous women in advanced labour were given a spinal injection of sufentanil 7.5 microg and bupivacaine 2 mg. Pain intensity was recorded by the parturient on a visual analogue scale. The quality of pain relief was also rated with a verbal score directly after delivery. Side effects, such as hypotension, pruritus, sedation, nausea and motor block were noted. Obstetric parameters were followed and recorded. Apgar score and umbilical artery pH were noted.

RESULTS

Median visual analogue scores after 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150 min were 1.5, 0.5, 0, 1, 1.5, 2 and 3, respectively. Seventy-seven percent of the parturients scored the analgesic quality as excellent. Six parturients had hypotension. Motor block, sedation and nausea were rare. Pruritus was seen in 85% of the cases. No ceasarean section was performed. Vacuum extraction was done in six (15%) cases. Oxytocin augmentation was needed in 26 (65%) of the parturients. Fetal heart rate disturbances following the spinal block were seen in four cases. Apgar scores were high. No neonate had Apgar < 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrathecal block with sufentanil 7.5 microg in combination with bupivacaine 2 mg is a very effective pain relief in late labour. Due to its limited duration it is important to select women in rapid progress of labour, and active obstetric management is necessary. It is also very important that the obstetrician is aware of the risk of non-reassuring fetal heart rate changes after intrathecal block.

Combined spinal-epidural analgesia for labor: breakthrough or unjustified invasion?

The combined spina-epidural (CSE) technique has become increasingly popular for labor analgesia. The advantages of the CSE include more rapid onset of analgesia, reduced total drug dosage, minimal or no motor blockade, and increased patient satisfaction. CSE has also been associated with more rapid cervical dilation when compared to epidural analgesia in nulliparous women in early labor. Despite these potential advantages, the indications for CSE versus epidural analgesia remain unclear and controversial. This review should allow better understanding of the benefits and risks of this technique, and bearing in mind that no ultimate neuraxial analgesic exists, it would seem that CSE should be considered a major breakthrough in the management of labor analgesia.