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

Efficacy of epidural analgesia for intractable cancer pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to conventional treatment may benefit from epidural analgesia. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia in patients with intractable cancer pain.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies on patients with cancer who received epidural analgesia. We assessed the quality of all included studies using the risk-of-bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was pain relief after epidural analgesia, and the secondary outcome was quality of life, analgesic consumption, and adverse events. The studies were grouped based on the medications used for epidural analgesia. A descriptive synthesis was performed following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline.

RESULTS

Our systematic review included nine randomized controlled trials (n = 340) and 15 observational studies (n = 926). Two randomized controlled trials suggested that epidural opioids were not superior to systemic opioids in relieving pain. Epidural opioids combined with local anesthetics or adjuvants, including calcitonin, clonidine, ketamine, neostigmine, methadone, and dexamethasone, offered better analgesic effects. No significant difference in pain relief between an intermittent bolus and a continuous infusion of epidural morphine was observed. Epidural opioids had more analgesic effects on nociceptive pain than neuropathic pain. The methods used to evaluate the quality of life and the corresponding results were heterogeneous among studies. Six observational studies demonstrated that some patients could have decreased opioid consumption after epidural analgesia. Adverse events, including complications and drug-related side effects, were reported in 23 studies. Five serious complications, such as epidural abscess and hematoma, required surgical management. The heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the studies hindered meta-analysis and evidence-level determination.

CONCLUSION

Coadministration of epidural opioids, local anesthetics, and adjuvants may provide better pain relief for intractable cancer pain. However, we must assess the patients to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks before epidural analgesia. Therefore, further high-quality studies are required.

Analgesic considerations for induction of labor

Induction of labor may be indicated to minimize maternal and fetal risks. The rate of induction is likely to increase as recent evidence supports elective induction at 39 weeks gestation. We review methods of induction and then analgesic options as they relate to indications and methods to induce labor. We specifically focus on parturients at high risk for anesthetic complications including those requiring anticoagulation, and those with cardiac disease, obesity, chorioamnionitis, prior spinal instrumentation, elevated intracranial pressure, known or anticipated difficult airway, thrombocytopenia, and preeclampsia. Guidelines regarding timing of anticoagulation dosing with neuraxial anesthetic techniques have been defined through consensus statements. Early epidural placement may be beneficial in patients with cardiac disease, obesity, anticipated difficult airway, and HELLP syndrome. Questions remain regarding how early is too early for epidural placement, what options are safest for patients with bacteremia, and what pain relief should be offered to those unable to tolerate cervical exams in early labor.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Use of Remifentanil for Open in utero Fetal Myelomeningocele Repair Maintains Uterine Relaxation with Reduced Volatile Anesthetic Concentration

INTRODUCTION

Open fetal repair of myelomeningocele (MMC) is an option for prenatally diagnosed spina bifida. Historically, high-dose volatile anesthetic was used for uterine relaxation but is associated with fetal cardiovascular depression. We examined the impact of administering a supplemental remifentanil infusion on the concentration of inhaled anesthetic required for intraoperative uterine relaxation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 22 consecutive patients who underwent open fetal MMC repair with desflurane anesthesia from 2014 to 2018. The anesthetic protocol was modified to include high-dose opioid with remifentanil in 2016. We examined intraoperative end-tidal desflurane concentrations, vasopressor use, incidence of umbilical artery Doppler abnormalities, and incidence of preterm labor and delivery.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 11) who received desflurane and remifentanil (Des/Remi) were compared to patients (n = 11) who received desflurane (Des) alone. Intraoperatively, the maximum end-tidal desflurane required to maintain uterine relaxation was lower in the Des/Remi group (7.9 ± 2.2% vs. 13.1 ± 1.2%, p < 0.001). The mean phenylephrine infusion rate was also lower in the Des/Remi group (36 ± 14 vs. 53 ± 10 mcg/min, p = 0.004).

DISCUSSION

Use of opioid with supplemental remifentanil was associated with lower volatile anesthetic dosing and decreased vasopressor use; fetal outcomes were not different. Remifentanil may allow for less volatile anesthetic use while maintaining adequate uterine relaxation.

The Trend of Labor Analgesia in the World and China: A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in Recent 30 Years

Purpose

Labor analgesia is part of the most important tasks an anesthesiologist needs to deal with. With the “two-child policy” in China, the number of parturients has increased significantly, labor analgesia more should be valued. There has been a tremendous change on labor analgesia research in China and around the world; however, broader trends in the prevalence and scope of labor analgesia research remain underexplored. The current study quantitatively analyzes trends in labor analgesia research publications in the past 30 years.

Methods

A bibliometric approach was used to search Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure for all labor analgesia-related research articles. The research progress and growing trend were quantitatively analyzed by total publications, research types, research institutions, journal impact factors, and author’s contribution. Total citations frequency, average citations per item and h-index were used for evaluating literature quantity.

Results

From 1988 to 2018, over 8000 documents in labor analgesia research field were published worldwide. According to Scopus, 68.2% papers of all documents were articles. The USA published the largest number of articles (2204, 27.45%). China had published 175 articles (2.18%), ranking the 11th. According to WOS, there were 221 research categories for labor analgesia articles all over the world. The total citations were 76,207, average 9.086 citations per item, and the h-index was 114, average 14 citations per item worldwide. The total citations and h-index of papers published in China were as follows: 353 total citations, 7.06 citations per item, and 10 h-index. High contribution journals, authors, institutions and the top 10 most cited articles on labor analgesia in the world and China were also listed.

Conclusion

Labor analgesia research has grown markedly during the 1988–2018 period. Although China had made remarkable achievements, there was a gap in the high-quality studies between China and other leading countries.

Pain management during labor and vaginal birth

Neuraxial analgesia provides excellent pain relief in labor. Optimizing initiation and maintenance of neuraxial labor analgesia requires different strategies. Combined spinal-epidurals or dural puncture epidurals may offer advantages over traditional epidurals. Ultrasound is useful in certain patients. Maintenance of analgesia is best achieved with a background regimen (either programmed intermittent boluses or a continuous epidural infusion) supplemented with patient-controlled epidural analgesia and using dilute local anesthetics combined with opioids such as fentanyl. Nitrous oxide and systemic opioids are also used for pain relief. Nitrous oxide may improve satisfaction despite variable effects on pain. Systemic opioids can be administered by healthcare providers or using patient-controlled analgesia. Appropriate choice of drug should take into account the stage and progression of labor, local safety protocols, and maternal and fetal/neonatal side effects. Pain in labor is complex, and women should fully participate in the decision-making process before any one modality is selected.

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).

A Review of the Impact of Obstetric Anesthesia on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes

Obstetric anesthesia has evolved over the course of its history to encompass comprehensive aspects of maternal care, ranging from cesarean delivery anesthesia and labor analgesia to maternal resuscitation and patient safety. Anesthesiologists are concerned with maternal and neonatal outcomes, and with preventing and managing complications that may present during childbirth. The current review will focus on recent advances in obstetric anesthesia, including labor anesthesia and analgesia, cesarean delivery anesthesia and analgesia, the effects of maternal anesthesia on breastfeeding and fever, and maternal safety. The impact of these advances on maternal and neonatal outcomes is discussed. Past and future progress in this field will continue to have significant implications on the health of women and children.

Total Intravenous Anesthesia versus Inhalation Anesthesia for Breast Cancer Surgery

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

What We Know about This Topic

IV anesthesia may impair anticancer immunity less than volatile anesthesia and therefore reduce recurrence risk

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

In a large propensity-matched retrospective cohort analysis, the authors compared total IV and volatile anesthesia for breast cancer surgery

Recurrence hazard was similar with each approach

Selection of IV or volatile anesthesia should be based on factors other than cancer recurrence

Background

The association between type of anesthesia used and recurrence of cancer remains controversial. This retrospective cohort study compared the influence of total IV anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia on the primary outcome of recurrence-free survival after breast cancer surgery.

Methods

The authors reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who had breast cancer surgery at a tertiary care teaching hospital between January 2005 and December 2013. The patients were grouped according to whether IV or inhalation anesthesia was used for surgery. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to evaluate the influence of type of anesthesia on recurrence-free survival and overall survival. The risks of cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality were compared between each type of anesthesia.

Results

Of 7,678 patients who had breast cancer surgery during the study period, data for 5,331 patients were available for analysis (IV group, n = 3,085; inhalation group, n = 2,246). After propensity score matching, 1,766 patients remained in each group. Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed that there was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival or overall survival between the two groups, with 5-yr recurrence-free survival rates of 93.2% (95% CI, 91.9 to 94.5) in the IV group and 93.8% (95% CI, 92.6 to 95.1) in the inhalation group. Inhalation anesthesia had no significant impact on recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = 0.782) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.33, P = 0.805) when compared with total IV anesthesia.

Conclusions

The authors found no association between type of anesthesia used and the long-term prognosis of breast cancer. The results of this retrospective cohort study do not suggest specific selection of IV or inhalation anesthesia for breast cancer surgery.

[Effects of propofol sedation on psychological stress in surgical patients under epidural]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effects of propofol sedation on psychological stress in patients undergoing surgery under epidural anesthesia.

METHODS

Sixty patients scheduled to undergo elective ileostomy closure under epidural anesthesia were randomized into propofol sedation group and control group (n=30). The patients in the sedation group received a loading dose of propofol of 0.6 mg·kg- 1· h- 1 followed by a maintenance dose with continuous infusion of 3 mg·kg- 1· h- 1 given after the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score reached 2-3. An equivalent volume of normal saline was administered in patients in the control group. The patients' preoperative and intraoperative anxiety scores were assessed with the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI) on the day before and on the first day after the surgery, respectively. The mean blood pressure (MBP), heart rate (HR), SpO2, OAA/S, and the indicators of psychological stress of brain functional state of the patients (including the wavelet index [WLi], anxiety index [ANXi], comfortable index [CFi] and pain index [Pi]) were recorded at 5 min after entering the operating room (T0), at the time of lumbar puncture (T1) and change to supine position after the puncture (T2), at 20 s (T3), 40 s (T4), and 60 s (T5) after intravenous administration, and at 2 min (T6), 4 min (T5), 6 min (T8), 8 min (T9), 10 min (T10) and 40 min (T11) after skin incision. The patient's satisfaction with anesthesia was assessed with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score on the first day after the operation. Serum cortisol level was measured before anesthesia and at the end of operation to calculate the changes in cortisol level.

RESULTS

The two groups of patients were comparable for preoperative SAI scores (P>0.05); The patients in the sedation group appeared to have lower intraoprative SAI scores, but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.05). MBP, HR, and SpO2 at the time points from T6 to T10 and OAA/S, WLi, ANXi, CFi, and Pi at the time points from T6 to T11 were significantly lower in the sedation group (all P < 0.05), and these parameters were not significantly different between the two groups at the other time points (all P>0.05). The patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the sedation group (Z=2.07, P < 0.05). Compared with the preoperative levels, serum cortisol level at the end of the operation was increased in the sedation group but lowered in the control group, and the variations of serum cortisol level differed significantly between the two groups (t=4.75, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative propofol sedation can alleviate the patients' anxiety, improve the comfort level, and lessen physiological stress during surgeries under epidural anesthesia.

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.

[Pain therapy during labour]

To date the gold standard of treating labour pain is regional analgesia by application of epidural analgesia. When offering epidural analgesia, the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) is more effective in terms of pain reduction, less motor blocks and higher satisfaction of the parturient compared to continuous application via perfusor pump. An upcoming alternative to epidural analgesia is remifentanil, a short acting and potent opioid. Remifentanil, however, requires haemodynamic monitoring as cardiac and respiratory impairment has been described. Nitrous oxide has been used for decades in the Anglosphere but it is a greenhouse gas, and interactions with Vitamin B₁₂ are possible. Using novel extraction systems, nitrous oxide has become more attractive for treatment of the initial phase of labour pain in Central Europe. In order to provide the parturient with the best possible and with a tailored pain concept an interdisciplinary approach with obstetricians, midwives and anaesthesiologists is required.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

The 2015 Gerard W. Ostheimer Lecture: What's New in Labor Analgesia and Cesarean Delivery

Every year the Board of Directors of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology selects an individual to review the literature pertinent to obstetric anesthesiology published the previous calendar year. This individual selects the most notable contributions, creates a syllabus of the articles, and then presents his/her overview in an annual lecture named in honor of the late Gerard W. Ostheimer, a pioneering obstetric anesthesiologist from the Brigham and Women's Hospital. This article reviews the literature published in 2014 focusing on the themes of labor analgesia and cesarean delivery. Its contents were presented as the Gerard W. Ostheimer Lecture at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, May 16, 2015, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The syllabus is available as Supplemental Digital Content (http://links.lww.com/AA/B397).

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!

A systematic review of the effects of adding neostigmine to local anesthetics for neuraxial administration in obstetric anesthesia and analgesia

BACKGROUND

Drugs used in obstetric patients must accomplish two goals: efficacy and safety for both mother and fetus. Neostigmine has been co-administered epidurally and intrathecally with local anesthetics and other adjuncts in the obstetric setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and incidence of adverse events related to the use of neostigmine in obstetric anesthesia.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled human trials was conducted using the data sources Google Scholar and PubMed (updated 1 November 2014). Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment; comparison of neostigmine or neostigmine with local anesthetics and/or other adjuvants versus placebo or placebo with local anesthetics and/or other adjuvants; and approval by an ethics committee.

RESULTS

The use of neostigmine as an adjuvant in neuraxial anesthesia is associated with a reduction in the dose of local anesthetic during labor analgesia and postoperative analgesia following cesarean section: mean reduction of local anesthetic (ropivacaine or bupivacaine) vs. control -4.08 (95% CI -6.7 to -1.5) mg/h (P=0.002). The risk of nausea was increased vs. control with intrathecal neostigmine (OR 8.99 [95% CI 4.74 to 17.05], P <0.001) but not with epidural neostigmine (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.46 to 2.05], P=0.94). Use of neuraxial neostigmine was associated with a decrease in the risk of pruritus but there was no increase in the incidence of hypotension, dizziness or sedation and no effect on the incidence of abnormal fetal heart rate patterns or Apgar scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuraxial administration of neostigmine significantly reduces local anesthetic consumption without serious adverse side effects to the mother or fetus. However, neostigmine is only recommended for epidural administration as intrathecal use significantly increases the incidence of maternal nausea and vomiting.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial.

SETTING

15 hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

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

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