Remifentanil for labour analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

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.

Determination of remifentanil in neonatal dried blood spots by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

Remifentanil is an ultra-short-acting synthetic opioid-class analgesic which might be increasingly used "off-label" as pain management during labour. Side effects in parturients during labour, and in the infant at birth are of particular concern, especially respiratory depression which is concentration-dependent, and can occur at levels as low as 3-5 ng mL-1. The safety of such use, particularly in newborns due to remifentanil placental transfer, has not been fully demonstrated yet, partly due to the lack of a suitable non-invasive analytical method. The aim of our work was to develop a sensitive method to monitor the levels of remifentanil in neonates by a non-invasive sampling of umbi lical cord blood to support efficacy and safety trials. The presented LC-MS method is sensitive enough to reliably quantify remifentanil in just 20 µL of blood at only 0.3 ng mL-1. The dried blood spot sample preparation included solvent extraction with subsequent solid-phase extraction. The method was validated in terms of accuracy, precision, recovery, matrix effect, and stability, and was successfully applied to a small pilot study. The estimated arterial blood concentrations at the time of delivery ranged from 0.2 to 0.3, and up to 0.9 ng mL-1 in neonatal, and maternal samples, respectively.

Remifentanil at a Relatively Elevated Dose in Active Phase is Safe and More Suitable Than Fixed Lower Dose for Intravenous Labor Analgesia

Background

Intravenous labor analgesia is recommended as an alternative for parturients who have contraindications to epidural analgesia. There are several opioid analgesics and different administering regimens used in the clinic. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of two intravenous remifentanil dosage regimens in the first labor stage.

Patients and Methods

One hundred and fifteen parturients with a contraindication to epidural analgesia but were willing to receive systemic labor analgesia were randomized into group A received a fixed dose of remifentanil throughout the first stage of labor, and group B received an elevated dose of remifentanil during the active phase of the first stage both by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Maternal numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score and oxygen desaturation, sedation efficacy, satisfaction, as well as maternal and fetal adverse reactions were recorded and compared.

Results

The mean NRS pain scores before analgesia and in the latent phase showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, during the active phase, group B demonstrated significantly lower mean NRS pain scores and lowest pain score compared to group A (P < 0.05). Furthermore, group B exhibited higher overall sedation scores and satisfaction scores in comparison to group A (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups was similar (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Relatively elevated intravenous dosage of remifentanil with PCA during the active phase in the first stage of labor is safe and more effective than a fixed-dosage regimen for labor analgesia.

Trial Registration

This study was registered with ChiCTR on 24/08/2021 with trial identification number: ChiCTR2100050247. First participant was recruited on 31/08/2021. The last patient was recruited on 12/08/2022.

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.

Beyond the epidural: Alternatives to neuraxial labor analgesia

Labor creates an intense pain experienced by women across the world. Although neuraxial analgesia is the most effective treatment of labor pain, in many cases, it may not be undesired, not available, or have contraindications. In addition, satisfaction with labor analgesia is not only determined by the efficacy of analgesia but a woman's sense of agency and involvement in the childbirth experience are also key contributors. Providing safe choices for labor analgesia and support is central to creating a tailored, safe, and effective analgesic treatment plan with high maternal satisfaction. Healthcare provider knowledge of various nonneuraxial analgesic options, including efficacy, contraindications, safe clinical implementation, and side effects of various techniques is needed for optimal patient care and satisfaction. Future rigorous scientific studies addressing all of these labor analgesia options are needed to improve our understanding. This review summarizes the current published literature for commonly available non-neuraxial labor analgesic options.

Case Report of Remifentanil Labor Analgesia for a Pregnant Patient With Congenital Methemoglobinemia Type 1

Congenital methemoglobinemia is a rare disease characterized by cyanosis and a left shifting of the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. The disease necessitates avoidance of certain medications commonly used in obstetrics, making labor analgesia and anesthesia challenging. We present a case report of peripartum anesthetic management of a pregnant patient with congenital methemoglobinemia type 1 who received remifentanil labor analgesia and continuous methemoglobin monitoring. Continuous real-time monitoring of methemoglobin concentrations may prove to be a useful monitor in future care settings. A review of literature encompassing various perioperative and obstetric anesthesia and analgesia management considerations is presented.

Anesthesia efficacy of bupivacaine in pregnant participants with breech presentation receiving external cephalic version: A protocol of systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to appraise the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine in pregnant participants with breech presentation (BP) receiving external cephalic version (ECV).

METHODS

The following electronic databases will be searched from the origin to the January 31, 2020: PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ACMD, PsycINFO, Scopus, OpenGrey, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. No language and publication time limitations will be applied to all of them. Randomized controlled trials comparing bupivacaine to other interventions for pain relief in pregnant participants with BP undergoing ECV will be included in this study. Two authors will employ the selection of searched records, extraction of essential data from included RCTs, and risk of bias assessment for each eligible trail independently and respectively. Any doubts between 2 authors will be figured out by a third author through discussion. The risk of bias assessment will be judged using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The data pooling and analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This study will summarize the up-to-date high-quality evidence and will synthesis the outcome data from that evidence to explore the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine for pain relief in pregnant participants with BP undergoing ECV.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study may present important guidance for patients, clinical practice, as well as health-policy makers regarding the utilization of bupivacaine for pain relief in pregnant participants with BP receiving ECV.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020164409.

Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals

Background

A crucial element in the systematic review (SR) methodology is the appraisal of included primary studies, using tools for assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias (RoB). SR authors can conduct sensitivity analyses to explore whether their results are sensitive to exclusion of low quality studies or a high RoB. However, it is unknown which tools do SR authors use for assessing quality/RoB, and how they set threshold for quality/RoB in sensitivity analyses. The aim of this study was to assess quality/RoB assessment tools, the types of sensitivity analyses and quality/RoB thresholds for sensitivity analyses used within SRs published in high-impact pain/anesthesiology journals.

Methods

This was a methodological study. We analyzed SRs published from January 2005 to June 2018 in the 25% highest-ranking journals within the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) “Anesthesiology” category. We retrieved the SRs from PubMed. Two authors independently screened records, full texts, and extracted data on quality/RoB tools and sensitivity analyses. We extracted data about quality/RoB tools, types of sensitivity analyses and the thresholds for quality/RoB used in them.

Results

Out of 678 analyzed SRs, 513 (76%) reported the use of quality/RoB assessments. The most commonly reported tools for assessing quality/RoB in the studies were the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment (N = 251; 37%) and Jadad scale (N = 99; 15%). Meta-analysis was conducted in 451 (66%) of SRs and sensitivity analysis in 219/451 (49%). Most commonly, sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the influence of study quality/RoB (90/219; 41%) on the results. Quality/RoB thresholds used for sensitivity analysis for those studies were clearly reported in 47 (52%) articles that used them. The quality/RoB thresholds used for sensitivity analyses were highly heterogeneous and inconsistent, even when the same tool was used.

Conclusions

A quarter of SRs reported using quality/RoB assessments, and some of them cited tools that are not meant for assessing quality/RoB. Authors who use quality/RoB to explore the robustness of their results in meta-analyses use highly heterogeneous quality/RoB thresholds in sensitivity analyses. Better methodological consistency for quality/RoB sensitivity analyses is needed.

Qualitative exploration of women's experiences of intramuscular pethidine or remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia for labour pain

OBJECTIVES

To explore women's experiences of remifentanil or pethidine for labour pain and infant feeding behaviours at 6weeks post partum.

DESIGN

Qualitative postnatal sub-study to the randomised controlled trial of remifentanil intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) versus intramuscular pethidine for pain relief in labour (RESPITE). Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted at 6 weeks post partum, and thematic analysis was undertaken.

SETTING

Women recruited to the RESPITE trial from seven UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty women consented and 49 (30 remifentanil group and 19 pethidine group) completed the interview.

RESULTS

Eight themes emerged which encompassed women's antenatal plans for pain management (Birth Expectations) through to their future preferences for pain relief (Reflections for Future Choices). Many women who used remifentanil felt it provided effective pain relief (Effectiveness of Pain Relief), whereas women in the pethidine group expressed more mixed views. Both groups described side effects, with women using pethidine frequently reporting nausea (Negative Physiological Responses) and women using remifentanil describing more cognitive effects (Cognitive Effects). Some women who used remifentanil reported restricted movements due to technical aspects of drug administration and fear of analgesia running out (Issues with Drug Administration). Women described how remifentanil enabled them to maintain their ability to stay focused during the birth (Enabling a Sense of Control). There was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and continuation between pethidine and remifentanil groups (Impact on Infant Behaviour and Breastfeeding).

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative insights from a follow-up study to a trial which explored experiences of intravenous remifentanil PCA with intramuscular pethidine injection found that remifentanil appeared to provide effective pain relief while allowing women to remain alert and focused during labour, although as with pethidine, some side effects were noted. Overall, there was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and duration between the two groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN29654603.

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).

Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia versus intramuscular pethidine for pain relief in labour (RESPITE): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

About a third of women receiving pethidine for labour pain subsequently require an epidural, which provides effective pain relief but increases the risk of instrumental vaginal delivery. Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in labour is an alternative to pethidine, but is not widely used. We aimed to evaluate epidural analgesia progression among women using remifentanil PCA compared with pethidine.

METHODS

We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in 14 UK maternity units. We included women aged 16 years or older, beyond 37 weeks' gestation, in labour with a singleton cephalic presentation, and who requested opioid pain relief. We randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to either the intravenous remifentanil PCA group (40 μg bolus on demand with a 2 min lockout) or the intramuscular pethidine group (100 mg every 4 h, up to 400 mg in 24 h), using a web-based or telephone randomisation service with a minimisation algorithm for parity, maternal age, ethnicity, and mode of labour onset. Because of the differences in routes of drug administration, study participants and health-care providers were not masked to the group allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of women who received epidural analgesia after enrolment for pain relief in labour. Primary analyses were unadjusted and analysed by the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN29654603.

FINDINGS

Between May 13, 2014, and Sept 2, 2016, 201 women were randomly assigned to the remifentanil PCA group and 200 to the pethidine group. One participant in the pethidine group withdrew consent, leaving 199 for analyses. The proportions of epidural conversion were 19% (39 of 201) in the remifentanil PCA group and 41% (81 of 199) in the pethidine group (risk ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·34-0·66; p<0·0001). There were no serious adverse events or drug reactions directly attributable to either analgesic during the study.

INTERPRETATION

Intravenous remifentanil PCA halved the proportion of epidural conversions compared with intramuscular pethidine. This finding challenges routine pethidine use as standard of care in labour.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Award.

Non-Neuraxial Labor Analgesia: Options

Although it is the most effective method to treat labor pain, neuraxial analgesia may be undesired, contraindicated, unsuccessful, or unavailable. Providing safe choices for labor pain relief is a central goal of health care providers alike. Consequently, knowledge of the efficacy, clinical implementation, and side effects of various non-neuraxial strategies is needed to provide appropriate options for laboring patients. In addition to nonpharmacologic alternatives, inhaled nitrous oxide and systemic opioids represent two broad classes of non-neuraxial pharmacologic labor analgesia most commonly available. This review summarizes the current published literature for these non-neuraxial labor analgesic options.

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.

A case series of vital signs-controlled, patient-assisted intravenous analgesia (VPIA) using remifentanil for labour and delivery

Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia can be used during labour as an alternative to epidural analgesia. Adverse effects of opioids, including hypoxia and bradycardia, may lead to maternal morbidity and mortality. We devised an interactive feedback system based on a clinical proportional algorithm, to continuously monitor for adverse effects to enhance safety and better titrate analgesia. This vital signs-controlled, patient-assisted intravenous analgesia with remifentanil used a prototype delivery system linked to a pulse oximeter that evaluated maternal oxygen saturation and heart rate continuously. With this system, we detected oxygen saturation < 95% for more than 60 s in 15 of 29 subjects (52%); and heart rate < 60 min^-1 for more than 60 s in 7 of 29 subjects (24%) during use. The system automatically responded appropriately by reducing the dosages and temporarily halting remifentanil administration, thus averting further hypoxia and bradycardia.

Obstetric analgesia - update 2016

Neuraxial labor analgesia can be initiated via combined spinal-epidural (CSE) or stand-alone epidural. Pros and cons of these techniques are outlined in this review. In recent years computer-integrated patient-controlled epidural analgesia (CI-PCEA) and programed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) have been developed, adding to continuous infusion and PCEA for the maintenance of neuraxial analgesia. Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) and fever can occur secondary to labor epidural that both have clinical relevance for the care givers. Insights into the mechanism of epidural fever and treatment strategies for PDPH are outlined. Due to the increase in obesity the specific considerations for this patient group are discussed. New data have been presented for remifentanil, an ultra-shortly acting opioid, that is used in obstetric analgesia. Without breaking new data, the use of nitrous oxide especially by midwives has a kind of renaissance, and this will be discussed, too.

Remifentanil analgesia during external cephalic version for breech presentation in nulliparous women at term: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil for pain relief during external cephalic version (ECV) for breech presentation in nulliparous women at term.

METHODS

A total of 144 nulliparous women with singleton breech presentation were randomly divided into the intervention group and the placebo group, with 72 subjects in each group. The subjects in the intervention group received remifentanil (infused at 0.1 μg kg min with demand boluses of 0.1 μg/kg), whereas those in the placebo group were given saline placebo. This study was conducted from May 2013 to April 2016. The outcomes measures include pain (measured with the visual analog scale, VAS), success rate of ECV, maternal satisfaction for ECV, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 137 participants completed the study. The intervention with remifentanil showed greater efficacy than did placebo in decreasing the VAS score immediately after ECV (intervention group 4.3 ± 2.2 vs placebo group 6.4 ± 2.5, P < 0.01). A significant difference in the ECV success rate was also found between the 2 groups (intervention group 56.9% vs placebo group 38.9%, P = 0.03). In addition, a significant difference in the satisfaction score was also detected (intervention group 9.3 ± 0.9 vs placebo group 6.7 ± 1.2, P < 0.01). The observed adverse events were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that remifentanil could decrease pain, improve the ECV success rate, and improve satisfaction in nulliparous women at term during the period of ECV. Furthermore, it is also well tolerated with few adverse events.

A randomized trial of remifentanil for analgesia in external cephalic version for breech presentation

BACKGROUND

Although external cephalic version (ECV) can be effective for correcting the fetus in a cephalic presentation, it may be painful for the mother. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remifentanil for pain relief during ECV in China.

METHODS

In all, 152 Chinese parturients with singleton breech presentation were randomly divided into 2 groups, each with 76 patients. All 152 patients were assigned to receive either remifentanil (infused at 0.1 μg/kg/min and demand boluses of 0.1 μg/kg) or saline placebo. The study was performed between January 2012 and December 2015. Outcome measurements included the Numerical Rating Pain Scale score (0-10) after ECV, success rate for ECV, and maternal satisfaction after ECV. Adverse events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The study was completed by 146 patients. Remifentanil showed greater efficacy than placebo in decreasing the pain score immediately after ECV (remifentanil 4.6 ± 2.6 vs placebo 6.5 ± 2.7; P < 0.001). The success rate for ECV showed a significant difference between the 2 groups (remifentanil 56.5% vs placebo 39.5%; P = 0.04). Maternal satisfaction also showed a significant difference between the 2 groups (remifentanil 9.6 ± 1.4 vs placebo 6.4 ± 3.7; P < 0.001). However, the adverse events profiles were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that remifentanil is an effective intervention for reducing pain, achieving successful ECV, and increasing maternal satisfaction during ECV, and is generally well-tolerated without additional adverse effects.

Outcomes of induced versus spontaneous labor

PURPOSE

Induced labor is associated with a higher request for analgesia than spontaneous labor. This study compared duration of labor, mode of delivery, quantity of blood loss, type of perineal outcome and neonatal outcomes between women in induced labor and women in spontaneous labor, both on epidural analgesia (administered at cervical dilation  ≤ 4 cm).

METHODS

In a two-year longitudinal cohort study, data were gathered from nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy of at least 37 weeks attending the labor and delivery ward in Policlinico San Matteo Fundation-Pavia. Data were compared for women with early labor analgesia in (1) spontaneous labor (Robson group 1) and (2) induced labor (dinoprostone - vaginal insert or gel, Robson group 2a).

RESULTS

Of the 1104 women who underwent epidural analgesia in the study period, 531 were included: 326 in spontaneous labor and 205 in induced labor. The only significant difference found was duration of the first stage, which lasted 305 (200-390) min in spontaneous labor compared to 205 min (120-345) in induced labor (p  <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In women on early epidural analgesia, induction is associated with a shorter duration of the first stage of labor and does not affect other outcomes.

Continuous assessment of labour pain using handgrip force

Pain is most frequently assessed in the clinical setting using scales such as numerical rating scales or visual analogue scales. However, these methods are not suitable for situations in which the experience of pain is dynamic and fluctuates widely – such as during parturition – because each rating requires an interaction with a health care worker. There are benefits to measuring the pain levels during these fluctuations – for example, the pattern of pain during contractions may be used to predict future contractions and optimize the use of patient-controlled analgesia. This study investigated the use of measurement of handgrip force using a dynamometer to represent patients’ pain levels during childbirth.

BACKGROUND:

Assessment of dynamic changes in painful experiences, such as labour, using conventional rating scales (eg, numerical rating scale [NRS]) has limitations. An alternative for continuous pain evaluation could be a signal generated by voluntary action of the parturient. Remifentanil administration for obstetric analgesia could be improved by these dynamic measures of labour pain. In the present study, handgrip force was measured by a dynamometer to signal labour pain.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate: whether continuous monitoring of labour pain using handgrip force allows for determination of pain measurement during contractions; and the correlation between handgrip force and pain intensity on NRS.

METHODS:

The present observational, single-centre study included 43 parturients. After calibration of the dynamometer for individual hand muscle strength, pain was recorded during early and late labour using a dynamometer and an NRS. The primary end point was the correlation coefficient between NRS ratings and peak intensity recorded by the dynamometer.

RESULTS:

All dynamometer-registered readings were also registered by the external tocogram. All contractions recorded by external tocogram were also registered by the dynamometer. Handgrip force was moderately correlated with pain scores on the NRS. Mean handgrip force during contractions had the highest correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r=0.67) compared with peak handgrip force (r=0.56) and area under the curve of handgrip force (r=0.55).

CONCLUSIONS:

Pain intensity and duration can be assessed continuously using handgrip force measured via a dynamometer. The feedback of intensity and duration of pain could optimize patient-controlled remifentantil application for obstetric analgesia and other situations of highly variable pain intensity.

Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia remifentanil for labor analgesia: time to stop, think and reconsider

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Remifentanil is a relatively new but commonly used opioid alternative in the management of labor pain relief. The present article evaluates efficacy and safety of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with remifentanil in the management of labor pain relief.

RECENT FINDINGS

Remifentanil PCIA provides analgesia that is superior to nitrous oxide or other opioids such as meperidine, but is less effective when compared with epidural analgesia. Recent evidence suggests it produces significant respiratory depression making routine use as first line analgesia strategy virtually impossible.

SUMMARY

Remifentanil PCIA is a valuable analgesic strategy whenever regional analgesia is contraindicated. Using it as first line strategy seems to be contraindicated because of significant respiratory side-effects to the mother. Whenever used advanced and continuous monitoring using capnography, saturation monitoring and one-to-one midwifery care are mandatory!

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.

The incidence of coagulopathy in pregnant patients with intrahepatic cholestasis: should we delay or avoid neuraxial analgesia?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence of coagulopathy in patients with intrahepatic cholestasis inhepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort investigation.

SETTING

University medical center.

MEASUREMENTS

The records of 319 parturients who met study inclusion criteria were reviewed for various laboratory values. The primary outcome was the incidence of abnormal hemostasis, defined as prothrombin time (PT) greater than 14.5 seconds (INR>1.2). The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage was evaluated as a secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The incidence (95% CI) of abnormal PT was 0% (0 to 1.8). Other coagulation tests [partial thromboplastin time (PTT) and platelet count] were also normal, even in study subjects with significant (>5 times) elevation of liver enzymes. The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal delivery was 2.4% (4 of 208 pts) and 6.3% (7 of 111 pts) after Cesarean delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Coagulation abnormalities are rare in pregnant patients with ICP, even when a strict criterion is utilized (INR<1.2). The use of neuraxial anesthesia and/or analgesia may not necessarily be delayed in parturients with isolated ICP.

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.

Prospective longitudinal cohort questionnaire assessment of labouring women's preference both pre- and post-delivery for either reduced pain intensity for a longer duration or greater pain intensity for a shorter duration

BACKGROUND

Assessments of labour pain focus on pain intensity, not on duration. We aimed to assess the importance labouring women apply to pain intensity and duration before labour and post-delivery.

METHODS

Forty healthy women scheduled for labour induction were enrolled in this institutional review board-approved, prospective cohort study. Participants completed a pain preference questionnaire before active labour and within 24-h of delivery. The questionnaire consisted of seven stem questions that evaluated preference for pain intensity or duration. The pain preference ratio was determined by dividing the percentage of women who preferred reduced pain intensity for longer duration by that of those who preferred greater pain intensity for shorter duration (estimate of the odds). The overall hypothetical pain burden was determined by multiplying intensity by time. All questions presented the same overall hypothetical pain burden.

RESULTS

Pain preference questionnaire scores demonstrated preference for low intensity pain for a longer duration rather than higher intensity for a shorter duration, both pre-labour (P<0.001) and post-delivery (P<0.001): the null median imputed as 3 of 6 (i.e. no preference for pain intensity over pain duration). This preference for pain duration over intensity was greater post-delivery compared with before labour (P=0.03). There was a significant correlation (r=0.83; P=0.04) between the pain preference ratio vs overall hypothetical pain burden before labour but not after delivery (r=0.28; P=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary labour assessment, women preferred lower pain intensity at the cost of longer pain duration. This suggests that pain intensity is the primary driver of hypothetical pain burden-a preference reinforced post-delivery.

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.

Patient-Controlled Remifentanil Analgesia as Alternative for Pethidine with Midazolam During Oocyte Retrieval in IVF/ICSI Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Pethidine with midazolam-induced conscious sedation for pain relief during transvaginal oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures is associated with residual pain and oversedation. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with remifentanil may serve as an alternative for pethidine. We investigated whether PCA remifentanil with diclofenac was associated with improved periprocedural pain relief than pethidine analgesia during IVF/ICSI procedures, with sedation scores, safety profiles, and patient satisfaction as secondary endpoints.

METHODS

Seventy-six women were randomized to receive pethidine (2 mg/kg i.m.) and midazolam (7.5 mg)-induced conscious sedation (n = 40) or PCA with remifentanil and diclofenac (50 mg; n = 36). The Numeric Rating Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Ramsey Sedation Scale, and a 5-day pain-and-discomfort diary were used to evaluate pain and sedation levels.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline characteristics and reproductive outcomes between both groups. Periprocedural pain scores were comparable for remifentanil and pethidine groups (4 [3 to 7] vs. 6 [4 to 8]; P = 0.13). Pain scores in the pethidine group were significantly lower at 30 minutes after the procedure (1 [0 to 3] vs. 2 [1 to 5]; P = 0.016), but at cost of higher sedation levels when compared to remifentanil (4 [2 to 4] vs. 2 [2 to 2]; P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was higher, and MPQ scores were lower in the remifentanil group. There were no differences in safety profiles between both analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil showed a similar reduction in pain scores than pethidine with midazolam during oocyte retrieval, while pethidine induced the highest pain relief after the procedure. However, PCA remifentanil was associated with less sedation and a better patient satisfaction profile than pethidine.

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

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

Comparison of remifentanil: Entonox with Entonox alone in labor analgesia

Background:

We designed a study to evaluate the effectiveness of continuous low dose infusion of remifentanil adding to self-administration of entonox administered for pain relief during the active phase of first stage of labor.

Materials and Methods:

Thirty healthy term pregnant women recruited in our randomized double-blind, cross over study. They received the study medicines during two 30-min periods with a 15-min wash-out sequence after each period. Fifteen parturient used remifentanil as a single bolus dose followed by constant low dose infusion and self-administration of entonox (group R) during the first period and entonox and saline (group P) during the second period, while the remainder of the parturient used the drugs in a reverse order. Pain and Ramsay score, maternal and fetal hemodynamic, and ventilation were assessed during each intervention.

Results:

In this study, mean pain severity scores were 8 ± 0.9 before and 5.4 ± 1.7 after intervention in group P, and 7.8 ± 0.1, 3.5 ± 1.3 in group R, respectively. Mean pain severity difference was 2.6 ± 1.5 in group P, while 4.3 ± 1.5 in group R; so, use of entonox and remifentanil can decrease labor pain two times more in comparison with entonox/placebo (normal saline). However, hemodynamic and ventilation parameter in remifentanil/entonox period were same as in entonox/placebo period. No statistical differences were seen in mean Ramsay score between group R and P. There was no episode of maternal bradycardia, hypotension, or hypoxemia.

Conclusion:

Not only adding low dose infusion of remifentanil to self-administration of entonox was notable in labor pain reduction, it did n’t make more parturient and neonatal side-effects.

[New aspects of obstetric anesthesia]

BACKGROUND

The risk profile of patients in obstetric anesthesia has substantially changed. Even more so than other disciplines, obstetric anesthesia is therefore in the true sense of the word dependent on the close coordination of all concerned and a good interdisciplinary cooperation.

AIM

This article explains the important anesthesiological risks connected with parturition and presents the corresponding concepts for prevention, diagnosis and management of peripartum complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The increase in the number of high risk pregnancies, which are mostly due to an increase in obesity, require clearly defined guidelines and interdisciplinary concepts which are described and discussed in this article. The neuraxial block is still the most effective procedure for treatment of birth pain and offers a promising new method with the programmed intermittent epidural boluses presented in this article. Finally, the German speaking countries Germany, Austria and Switzerland have developed a treatment algorithm for the management of postpartum hemorrhage which is presented here.

RESULTS

The anesthesiological components of a risk pregnancy must be recognized early and include obesity, preeclampsia and drug-induced coagulopathy. Epidural analgesia is the most effective analgesic procedure in obstetrics. Patient-controlled remifentanil analgesia currently represents the best alternative in cases of contraindications for a neuraxial procedure.

CONCLUSION

In risk situations, such as pre(eclempsia), emergency cesarean section, massive blood loss or other peripartum emergency situations, optimal interdisciplinary cooperation between midwives, obstetricians and anesthetists is required. However, not only emergency situations require a good interdisciplinary cooperation. Just as important is the cooperation to recognize risk pregnancies and a timely joint planning of the approaching birth.

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.

Remifentanil target-controlled infusion during second stage labour in high-risk parturients: a case series

BACKGROUND

Providing adequate analgesia and appropriate sedation to high-risk parturients during late second stage labour without compromising foetal safety remains a major challenge, especially in situations when neuraxial block is not applicable. Remifentanil emerged as an option for labour analgesia during the last decade but may be suitable for the facilitation of complicated vaginal deliveries as well.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of nine labouring women with significant medical and/or obstetrical risk factors was conducted. According to the assessment of an experienced obstetrician, vaginal delivery could only be achieved with profound analgesia, and neuraxial block was not possible because of contraindications, technical failure, or shortage of time. Mode of delivery, need for neonatal resuscitation, maternal and neonatal vital parameters, drug consumption, and personnel resource expenses were recorded.

RESULTS

Remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI) facilitated vaginal delivery in eight out of nine women. No serious adverse events were observed, but three newborns needed initial respiratory support for a few minutes. The total cost of remifentanil TCI administration to facilitate vaginal delivery compared with the estimated additional cost of an emergency caesarean section was negligible.

CONCLUSION

This case series suggests that remifentanil TCI may be used to facilitate vaginal delivery in high-risk parturients when other forms of analgesia are limited. However, the small number of patients studied does not allow generalisation of the results; neither can safety concerns be dispelled yet.

[Anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany: telephone-based survey]

INTRODUCTION

The last survey of anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted in 1999. Since then new organisational as well as therapeutic aspects have developed. Amongst others the operation and procedures key (OPS) figure 8-919 complex acute pain therapy has been introduced in the German medical billing system, with the restriction that it cannot currently be redeemed. There is an ongoing debate on the role of epidural analgesia in acute pain therapy and new oral medication concepts have been established. Therefore a survey of the present state of acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted.

METHODS

Based on a list of all 1,356 hospitals in Germany a randomized list of 412 hospitals was generated. Out of these 412 hospitals those with anesthesiology departments (378 hospitals) were contacted via telephone and asked to participate in the survey. Out of the 378 hospitals 285 (75.4 %) agreed to take part. The survey consisted of a questionnaire containing closed and open questions regarding organisational and therapeutic aspects of acute pain therapy. The ethics committee of the University of Regensburg rated the survey as not being subject to approval due to the lack of personal patient data.

RESULTS

Of the participating hospitals 183 (64.2 %) had an acute pain service (APS) and of these 107 (58.5 %) met the quality criteria of the OPS 8-919. This figure however, was only consistently documented by 40 (37 %) APSs. Epidural analgesia (EA) was offered by 275 (96.5 %) hospitals and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) by 255 (89.5 %). Likewise, 255 (89.5 %) hospitals used controlled-released opioids in acute pain therapy. Concerning EA, the medications most used were sufentanil as an opioid and ropivacaine as a local anesthetic in255 (92.7 %) of the hospitals with EA for sufentanil and 253 (92 %] for ropivacaine. An EA was offered on regular wards in 240 (87.3 %) hospitals. Uncertainty existed about concrete limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter. The opioid most utilized in PCA was piritramide with some hospitals using morphine or oxycodone (92.2 %, 9.4 % and 9.4 %, respectively). Other opioids, such as hydromorphone and tramadol were rarely used and remifentanil was not used at all. Oral medication was widely used with metamizole being the non-opioid analgesic and oxycodone/naloxone the controlled-release opioid being prescribed the most. New antiepileptic drugs, such as gabapentin or pregabalin were rarely employed in acute pain therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 1999 the number of hospitals that have implemented an APS has risen from 36.1 % to 64.2 %. The lack of consistent documentation of the OPS 8-919 will probably not increase the likelihood that it will become redeemable in the near future. Certain therapy methods, such as EA and PCA were still well established with oral therapy gaining in significance. The uncertainty regarding limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter could perhaps be reduced by a statement from the German Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care.

Labor pain management other than neuraxial: what do we know and where do we go next?

Analgesia and coping with labor pain can prevent suffering during childbirth. Nonpharmacologic methods help women manage labor pain. Strong evidence is available for the efficacy of continuous one-to-one support from a woman trained to provide nonmedical care during labor, immersion in warm water during first-stage labor, and sterile water injected intracutaneously or subcutaneously at locations near a woman's lumbosacral spine to reduce back-labor pain. Sterile water injections also reduce the incidence of cesarean deliveries. Nitrous oxide labor analgesia is not potent, but helps women relax, gives them a sense of control, and reduces and distracts their perception of pain. It is inexpensive; can be administered and discontinued safely, simply, and quickly; has no adverse effects on the normal physiology and progress of labor; and does not require intensive monitoring or co-interventions. Parenteral opioids provide mild-to-moderate labor pain relief, but cause side effects. Although observational studies have found associations between maternal use of opioids and neonatal complications, little higher level evidence is available except that meperidine is associated with low Apgar scores. Patient-controlled intravenous administration of remifentanil provides better analgesia and satisfaction than other opioids, but can cause severe side effects; continuous monitoring of arterial oxygen saturation, anesthesia supervision, one-to-one nursing, and availability of oxygen are recommended. The demand for inexpensive, simple, safe but effective labor pain management for women will undoubtedly increase in places that lack wide access to it now.