Continuous versus intermittent epidural analgesia. A randomised trial to observe obstetric outcome

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Analgesia following Thoracotomy: A Survey of Australian Practice

This survey examines pain management after thoracotomy in Australian hospitals. Questionnaires were sent to senior thoracic anaesthetists at 27 hospitals (16 public and 11 private) with thoracic surgical units. Twenty-six anaesthetists replied and 24 responses were included in the analyses. Seventy-two percent of respondents were from hospitals with acute pain services (APS), and in 94% of these hospitals patients are reportedly visited by the APS. The most frequently used analgesic modalities are epidural analgesia, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA), and nurse-controlled intravenous opioid infusions. Over half of the anaesthetists reported using local anaesthetic intercostal nerve block, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or paracetamol. Combinations of analgesic techniques were cited frequently. Respondents reported that cryoanalgesia, interpleural blockade, paravertebral blockade, subarachnoid infusions, ketamine, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are used infrequently. Anaesthetists from public hospitals reported using epidural analgesia, IVPCA and NSAIDs more frequently than those from private hospitals. When epidural analgesia is used, most respondents place the catheter in the mid-thoracic region (91%), use a regimen of opioids plus local anaesthetic (96%), use a constant infusion technique (100%), and continue analgesia for up to three days (83%). Over half of the respondents reported that post-thoracotomy patients are nursed in a high-dependency area. Seventy-nine percent of respondents selected epidural analgesia as the best available analgesia technique, whereas 21% consider IVPCA to be the best. Only 75% of respondents reported that the type of analgesia they consider best is also the type which they use most frequently ‡ .

Comparison of intermittent and continuous epidural analgesia on delivery and progression of labour

In this study, 205 nulliparous parturients were enrolled to receive either intermittent (n = 101) or continuous (n = 104) type of epidural analgesia in labour. The primary outcome was rate of caesarean deliveries, whereas secondary outcomes included rate of fundal pressure manoeuvres, duration of labour from application of analgesia, dose of anaesthetic and short-term maternal and neonatal outcome between two groups. Rate of caesarean deliveries was significantly increased in the continuous group (15/104 vs 5/101, p = 0.02), as well as rate of fundal pressure manoeuvres (24/104 vs 11/101, p = 0.02) and dose of fentanyl (100 [100-300] vs 187.5 [125-450] μg, p < 0.001 and levobupivacaine (40 [40-60] vs 75 [50-90] ml, p < 0.001). Duration of labour from analgesia to delivery was not significantly different between the two groups (414 ± 101 vs 432 ± 94 min, p = 0.12).

Modern neuraxial labor analgesia: options for initiation, maintenance and drug selection

In the present review we outline the state-of-the-art of neuraxial analgesia. As neuraxial analgesia remains the gold standar of analgesia during labor, we review the most recent literature on this topic. The neuraxial analgesia techniques, types of administration, drugs, adjuvants, and adverse effects are investigated from the references. Most authors would agree that central neuraxial analgesia is the best form to manage labor pain. When neuraxial analgesia is administered to the parturient in labor, different management choices must be made by the anesthetist: how will we initiate analgesia, how will analgesia be maintained, which local anesthetic will we use for neuraxial analgesia and which adjuvant drugs will we combine? The present manuscript tries to review the literature to answer these questions.

Continuous Compared With Intermittent Epidural Infusion on Progress of Labor and Patient Satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

To compare continuous with intermittent epidural infusion on the duration of labor and patients' satisfaction in nulliparous women.

METHODS

Nulliparous women who requested epidural analgesia during labor were randomly allocated to receive either a continuous infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine with 2 microg/mL fentanyl at a rate of 8 mL/h (group A) or intermittent bolus of 10 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine on demand (group B). Controls were nulliparous women who did not receive epidural analgesia (group C). Included were singleton term pregnancies with cervical dilatation between 2 cm and 5 cm. A comparison was made between the groups regarding the duration of the active phase and the second stage of labor and patients' satisfaction. Secondary outcomes investigated were the mode of delivery, analgesia-related complications, and intrapartum and postpartum complications. Cord pH and Apgar score measured neonatal outcome.

RESULTS

Sixty-three parturients were randomly assigned to receive continuous infusion, and 64 received intermittent bolus infusion. Sixty-three patients served as controls. Mean duration of the active phase and the second stage of labor were not statistically different between groups A and B. Each technique produced comparable analgesia, achieving equivalent maternal satisfaction, with no apparent complications. The active phase of labor was prolonged by an average of 60 minutes and the 2nd stage by an average of 36 minutes regardless of the type of epidural compared with controls. The mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcome were not significantly different among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that both continuous and intermittent epidural infusion produce comparable analgesia achieving equivalent maternal satisfaction with no difference regarding the duration of labor between them. Although patients receiving epidural analgesia experienced longer labors compared with controls, both mothers and neonates were unharmed.

Delivery room analgesia: an analysis of maternal satisfaction

On the first post-partum day, 324 mothers completed a questionnaire designed to assess maternal perception of delivery room experience. Antenatal pain expectation, actual pain severity, analgesia received, as well as maternal satisfaction and choice of analgesia for future deliveries were recorded. Forty-five percent of primiparae and 36% of multiparae reported that they anticipated suffering extreme pain during delivery. The incidence of unbearable pain was similar among patients who received no analgesia or intravenous pethidine but significantly (P<0.0001) higher when compared to epidural analgesia. During the first stage of labour, continuous epidural analgesia was associated with severe or unbearable pain in 51% and 58% of primiparae and multiparae, respectively. The incidence of severe or unbearable pain during the second stage of labour was 43% and 46% for primiparae and multiparae, respectively. Patient satisfaction with epidural analgesia did not correlate with subjective pain scores. Among mothers who received continuous epidural analgesia 70% described their experience as good or excellent and 65.8% indicated that they would request similar pain relief in the future. Despite advances in obstetric analgesia, women anticipate and actually experience severe pain during childbirth. However, due to psychological and cultural factors, as well as possible post-partum euphoria, satisfaction with the delivery room experience is high.

Ambulatory labor analgesia: what does an obstetrician need to know?

A simple statement that describes the degree of the patient's satisfaction with the pain relief from her labor epidural analgesia has often assessed the quality of labor analgesia as perceived by the patient. Many laboring parturients, midwives, obstetricians and anesthesiologists are increasingly concerned by the limitations of traditional epidural labor analgesia. In general, women dislike the inability to void, the often-dense motor block, the feeling of numbness of the lower body, the total lack of the urge to bear down, and the complete perineal anesthesia. Continuous search for balanced labor analgesia that provides relief from pain, while preserving motor function, has led to the development of an ambulatory labor analgesia technique. This article assesses the validity of various strongly advocated opinions as to whether parturients benefit from ambulation in labor and also reviews the current trends in ambulatory labor analgesia.

Combined spinal-epidural analgesia in the management of labouring parturients with mitral stenosis

We report the use of combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labour in three parturients with moderately severe mitral stenosis. In each case, rapid analgesia was achieved using intrathecal fentanyl 25 micrograms without major haemodynamic changes. Maintenance analgesia was then established gradually using a dilute epidural infusion of bupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl 0.0002%, with the avoidance of large or rapid boluses of local anaesthetic. Supplementary analgesia in the latter stages of labour was provided using slow epidural boluses of fentanyl, with or without a low concentration of bupivacaine, which was sufficient to allow controlled instrumental deliveries. We conclude that combined spinal-epidural analgesia is a useful technique for providing analgesia and maintaining haemodynamic stability in parturients with mitral stenosis.

Comparison of intermittent epidural bolus, continuous epidural infusion and patient controlled-epidural analgesia during labor

The aim of the study was to compare efficacy and side-effects produced by three techniques of epidural analgesia during labor: intermittent bolus (1B), continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). One hundred and fifty parturients allocated randomly to three groups received the same epidural solution of bupivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL. In the first group (IB: n=50) boluses were administered by the anesthesiologist and titrated to achieve adequate analgesia. In the second group (CEI: n=50) an 8 mL/h continuous infusion was delivered. In the third group (PCEA: n=50) parturients self-administered 5 mL boluses, with a lock-out interval of 10 min and a 4 h maximum dose of 50 mL. Insufficient analgesia in the CEI and PCEA groups was treated by extra boluses of the same solution. Quality of analgesia measured by visual analog scale (VAS), and maternal satisfaction were comparable in the three groups. Hourly consumption of bupivacaine was lower in the 113 group compared to the PCEA and CEI groups (p<0.05). The number of extra boluses was significantly higher in the CEI group compared to the PCEA group (32% vs. 12.5%). Motor block was significantly more frequent in the CEI group compared to the 113 group. The other side-effects were equally distributed in the three groups. We concluded that PCEA with bupivacaine and sufentanil is a valuable technique and a good alternative to the IB method. Compared to the CEI technique, PCEA allows a decrease in local anesthetic consumption without impairing the quality of anesthesia.

A survey of epidural analgesia for labour in the United Kingdom

A postal survey of obstetric units throughout the UK was conducted to obtain information about the provision of epidural analgesia for labour. Ninety per cent of units offered a 24-h epidural service and the average epidural rate was 24%. The most commonly administered epidural test dose was 3 ml of bupivacaine 0.5% and bupivacaine 0. 25% was most often used as the initial epidural top-up. Continuous infusions of low-dose bupivacaine and opioid mixtures were the most popular method of maintenance epidural analgesia. Twenty-four per cent of units offered combined spinal-epidural analgesia in addition to standard epidural analgesia. Midwives played a prominent role in the administration of epidural bolus top-ups and also in the assessment and maintenance of continuous epidural infusions.

Epidural analgesia for labour and delivery in a parturient with congenital hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy

We report a parturient delivering vaginally at term with symptomatic congenital hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Epidural analgesia was used during labour and delivery and is likely to have made a useful contribution to the successful outcome. Although controversial, reported use of epidural analgesia during labour for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy parturients has been generally positive. A multi-disciplinary team approach, early anaesthetic assessment and a carefully managed epidural catheter inserted in early labour can optimize analgesia and minimize the stresses of labour and vaginal delivery provided the risks of reduced preload and afterload are minimized.

Epidural analgesia following upper abdominal surgery: United Kingdom practice

BACKGROUND

Epidural Analgesia (EA) may be used to provide pain relief after upper abdominal surgery. A variety of drugs and combinations may be used. Potential side effects lead some to believe EA should be restricted to high care areas.

METHOD

The use of EA following upper abdominal surgery is surveyed in 214 hospitals in the United Kingdom by means of a postal questionnaire.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent use EA frequently and 3% not at all. The low thoracic site is the most commonly used, by 65%. Forty-eight percent use a combination of sites. EA is most frequently achieved using a mixture of an opioid and a local anaesthetic (97%). No other agents are used. Fentanyl and diamorphine are the opioids used most widely (61% and 52% departments, respectively) in combination with local anaesthetic. Subcutaneous heparin is regularly used in 89% of departments. In 43%, the epidural is sited shortly after administering heparin. Use of EA is restricted solely to intensive or high-care units in 46% of hospitals. In 82% of departments, EA is continued for up to 72 h. Ninety-six percent of departments use continuous epidural infusions in the post-operative period. Adjunct analgesia includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 50% of departments. An anaesthetist supervises EA in 89% of hospitals. EA is considered to be the best mode of analgesia available by 80% of respondents.

CONCLUSION

EA is widely used in the United Kingdom following upper abdominal surgery. A degree of consensus exists on the choice of drug types, their method of administration and duration. There is no consensus as to whether the technique should be used on a general ward, which opioid should be used or the timing of heparin.

Influence of epidural analgesia on fetal and neonatal well-being

Epidural analgesia is a frequently used method to reduce the pain of child-bearing. Concerns regarding the safety and potential hazards still persist in the medical community. This review intends to examine how epidural analgesia determines the various factors of fetal and neonatal well-being. Placental drug transfer of opiates like morphine, pethidine and fentanyl is rapid and can lead to neonatal depression. Sufentanil seems to be the safest opiate to administer epidurally. Local anaesthetics are transferred to the fetus in substantial amounts, but the reported effects are subtle and are probably inconsequential. Utero- and fetoplacental blood flow seems to be improved by epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics. Even when using stronger solutions for more extensive blockade in patients for caesarean section, no adverse effects could be demonstrated using pulsed Doppler technique as long as prolonged hypotension (> 2 min) is avoided. Hypotension is best prevented with 20-25 ml/kg crystalloid preload and prompt treatment with ephedrine or etilephrine. Addition of adrenaline to local anaesthetics is considered to be safe for the healthy mother and fetus but it should best be avoided in mothers with pregnancy induced hypertension. Fetal and neonatal acid-base balance and gas-exchange are not adversely affected by epidural analgesia. Many studies show that epidural analgesia can indeed protect the fetus if hypotension is prevented. Neonatal well-being evaluated by APGAR, BRAZELTON, SCANLON and NACS scores is not significantly influenced by local anaesthetics. Neonatal depression can occur however with epidural use of morphine, fentanyl and alfentanil. Sufentanil, again in doses up to 30 micrograms in association with bupivacaine seems to be devoid of depressive effects on the neonate. In summary, the anaesthetist has good arguments to reassure his obstetrical colleagues that providing epidural analgesia for pregnant women in labour is a justifiable intervention to support the natural process of child-bearing.

Epidural infusions of bupivacaine and diamorphine in labour

Three different concentrations of bupivacaine, 0.125%, 0.062% and 0.031%, all with diamorphine 0.0025%, were given as an epidural infusion at 10 ml.h-1 to 63 mothers in labour. When the three infusions were compared, significant differences were found in maternal requirements for top-ups and the degree of motor block, but there were no differences in the pain scores. The reduced motor block was not associated with a reduction in the instrumental delivery rate.

Anaesthesia for caesarean section (epidural and general): effects on the neonate

Anaesthesia may impair the condition of the neonate either directly (largely mechanically in utero or due to the influence of drugs) or indirectly via alteration of placental perfusion. These influences may further differ during normal caesarean section from those under complicated conditions. The criteria with which neonatal conditions are estimated need to be carefully distinguished with respect to results obtained. Neurobehavioural test results may give different information to the observer. A variety of drugs, not simply one, is used during general anaesthesia (GA). Even the consequences of maternal stress-fetal and neonatal levels of catecholamines or endogenous peptides may play a role. Local anaesthetics are known to cross the placenta as general anaesthetics do; in most cases, their effects are clinically irrelevant. Fetal and neonatal deliterious effects of regional anaesthesia (RA) are mainly related to maternal hypotension and the administration of large doses of local anaesthetics. If adequate doses of local anaesthetics and/or opioids are used, alterations in neurobehavioural scores are subtle and transient. Under normal maternal and fetal conditions, GA and RA are almost identically useful with respect to neonatal well being after caesarean section; subtle and inconsistent neurobehavioral residua may be present for a short period of time following GA. Under conditions of a compromised fetus, the neonate may however benefit from epidural anaesthesia more than from GA.

Continuous regional analgesia in comparison with intravenous opioid administration for routine postoperative pain control

This study compares retrospectively the postoperative analgesia provided via intravenous opioids with continuous regional techniques (interpleural and epidural infusions) administered as a clinical routine by an anaesthesia-based Acute Pain Service. In 2630 patients no severe complications resulting in morbidity or mortality occurred; the rate of potentially serious complications was in the 0.5% range and comparable between the techniques. A detailed analysis of a randomised subsample of 340 patients revealed better analgesia at rest and better compliance with physiotherapy under continuous regional analgesia. Techniques of continuous regional analgesia also resulted in fewer incidents of desaturation and fewer side effects. Patient satisfaction with these techniques was higher than with intravenous opioid administration. In conclusion, continuous regional analgesia in a routine clinical setting is comparable to intravenous opioid administration with regard to safety, but results in significantly better analgesia with fewer side effects.

Update on epidural analgesia during labor and delivery

Properly administered epidural analgesia provides adequate pain relief during labor and delivery, shortens the first stage of labor, avoids adverse effects of narcotics, hypnotics, or inhalation drugs and it could be used as anesthesia in case a cesarean section is required. Epidural analgesia should be provided to all patients who need and ask for it with an exception of contraindications such as coagulation disorders, suspected infection or gross anatomic abnormality. The technique must be carried out with care if serious life-threatening complications, such as intravenous or intrathecal injection of local anesthetic, are to be avoided. The aim of many recent investigations has been to reduce the total dose of local anesthetic used. Supplementation of an opioid (mainly fentanyl) and introduction of the patient controlled epidural pump may not only serve this goal, but also reduce the demands on the time of obstetric anesthetists. We conclude that properly and skillfully administered epidural is the best form of pain relief during labor and delivery and we hope that more mothers could enjoy its benefits.

Patterns of sedation and analgesia in the postoperative ICU patient

Control of pain, discomfort, and agitation is an integral part of the postoperative management of critically ill patients. We examined the sedative and analgesic practices in a surgical ICU during two six-month periods, one in 1986-1987 and the other in 1989-1990. Narcotics, especially morphine and Fentanyl, were the most commonly used drugs. The amount of Fentanyl received by the endotracheal patients in the 1986-1987 group was quite large, 5.5 +/- 4.3 (SD) mg/day. The use of midazolam during the second survey period was associated with a reduced dose of narcotics in artificially ventilated patients receiving continuous intravenous Fentanyl and morphine. The use of epidural Fentanyl, especially following thoracic surgery, was greatly increased during the second study period. More work is needed to assess the effects and effectiveness of ICU sedative and analgesic regimens.

A survey of epidural analgesia practice in Western Australian obstetric units

A survey of epidural practices in all obstetric units in this state was conducted to obtain information regarding epidural analgesia services, epidural conduct and management, management of complications and staff education. The survey revealed a diversity of practice and in some instances standards of care. While reflecting the regionalisation of services in this geographically vast state, the problems identified appear universal and are likely to be relevant on a broader and national scale. Practices are discussed and recommendations made with respect to improvement of management and continuing education.

Epidural bupivacaine dilution for labour. A comparison of three concentrations infused with a fixed dose of fentanyl

We have compared the effects of three epidural infusions in a randomised, double-blind study of 56 primigravid mothers in labour. An initial dose of bupivacaine 0.5% 8 ml was followed by infusion of either bupivacaine 0.125%, 0.062% or 0.031%. All solutions contained fentanyl 0.0002% and were run at 7.5 ml/hour. Women receiving the most dilute solution had significantly less analgesia (p less than 0.001) for the first 4 hours of the study, but pain scores were then similar for the three groups. No obvious benefit was gained by using very dilute bupivacaine.

Bupivacaine versus bupivacaine plus fentanyl for epidural analgesia: effect on maternal satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

To compare a combination of epidural fentanyl and bupivacaine with bupivacaine alone for epidural analgesia in labour and to evaluate factors in addition to analgesia that may influence maternal satisfaction.

DESIGN

A prospective randomised pilot study.

SETTING

Birmingham Maternity Hospital.

SUBJECTS

85 primiparous women who requested epidural analgesia in labour and their babies.

INTERVENTIONS

Group 1 mothers were treated with bupivacaine conventionally, group 2 mothers with bupivacaine and fentanyl in a more complex way designed to provide satisfactory analgesia but with less troublesome side effects.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall maternal satisfaction, maternal perception of epidural analgesia and its side effects, and aspects of mothers' psychological states during labour, quantified using 100 mm visual linear analogue scales; the frequency of normal and operative deliveries; and measurements of neonatal wellbeing.

RESULTS

Satisfaction was higher in group 2 mothers (median group difference +3 mm, 95% confidence interval +1 to +5, p = 0.012): this was associated with more normal deliveries (difference between proportions 0.23, 95% confidence interval +0.03 to +0.42); greater self control (median group difference -7 mm, -17 to -2, p = 0.003); and reduced unpleasantness of motor blockade (-10 mm, -19 to -5, p less than 0.001), sensory blockade (-5 mm, -11 to -2, p = 0.002) and shivering (-5 mm, -18 to 0, p = 0.046) at the expense of mild itching (0 mm, 0 to 0, p less than 0.001). Group 1 mothers found restricted movements more unpleasant (-1 mm, -11 to 0, p = 0.006) and were more sleepy (-4 mm, -20 to 0, p = 0.032). The addition of fentanyl to bupivacaine reduced the requirement for local anaesthetic (-33 mg, -55 to -15, p less than 0.001) without compromising analgesia. No adverse effects in neonates were attributed to the use of fentanyl.

CONCLUSIONS

The already high maternal satisfaction from conventional epidural analgesia can be improved; epidural fentanyl may be combined with bupivacaine to reduce operative deliveries and confer other advantages that may increase maternal satisfaction. Further investigations should be performed to determine the exact mechanisms of these findings and, in particular, to develop a safe method of delivering such analgesia to women.