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

Application of dezocine patient-controlled epidural analgesia in postoperative analgesia in patients with total myomectomy

BACKGROUND

Uterine fibroids are common benign gynecological conditions. Patients who experience excessive menstruation, anemia, and pressure symptoms should be administered medication, and severe cases require a total hysterectomy. This procedure is invasive and causes severe postoperative pain, which can affect the patient's postoperative sleep quality and, thus, the recovery process.

AIM

To evaluate use of dezocine in patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing total myomectomy.

METHODS

We selected 100 patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy for uterine fibroids and randomized them into two groups: A control group receiving 0.2% ropivacaine plus 0.06 mg/mL of morphine and an observation group receiving 0.2% ropivacaine plus 0.3 mg/mL of diazoxide in their PCEA. Outcomes assessed included pain levels, sedation, recovery indices, PCEA usage, stress factors, and sleep quality.

RESULTS

The observation group showed lower visual analog scale scores, shorter postoperative recovery indices, fewer mean PCEA compressions, lower cortisol and blood glucose levels, and better polysomnographic parameters compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The cumulative incidence of adverse reactions was lower in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dezocine PCEA can effectively control the pain associated with total myomectomy, reduce the negative impact of stress factors, and have less impact on patients' sleep, consequently resulting in fewer adverse effects.

Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses of 0.1% Ropivacaine Versus 0.2% Ropivacaine for the Maintenance of Epidural Analgesia in Labor

Objective The gold standard for pain management during labor is epidural analgesia, which can be administered in two different ways to the parturients, either by bolus doses or continuous infusions of local anesthetic solutions with opioids. Recently, programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEBs) via a pump are gaining popularity as a very effective method with minimal side effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimum ropivacaine concentration between two different regimens (0.1% or 0.2% both with fentanyl 2 μg/ml) that can provide satisfactory analgesia with the minimum degree of motor blockade, using PIEBs. Methods A prospective randomized controlled study was performed from March 2020 to March 2022. Two different concentrations of ropivacaine 0.1% and 0.2% via PIEBs were equally allocated to two groups of parturients with an additional patient control epidural rescue bolus if needed. Our primary endpoint was motor blockade, as assessed by the modified Bromage scale (MBS). We also recorded visual analog scale (VAS) scores, heart rate, blood pressure, total local anesthetic consumption, labor duration and method of delivery, and APGAR score of the newborns. Results All patients presented Bromage scores equal to 6, and the total consumption of the anesthetic solution was comparable between the two groups. Women in the 0.2% group showed higher pain relief and satisfaction compared to the 0.1% group. Concerning the 0,2% group, diastolic blood pressure and APGAR scores were lower alongside with a lower satisfactory extrusion stage observed by the obstetrician. Conclusion Both ropivacaine regimens provide satisfactory labor epidural analgesia for the expectant mother without any motor blockade.

Effects of different neuraxial analgesia modalities on the need for physician interventions in labour: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuraxial labour analgesia can be initiated with epidural (EPL), combined spinal epidural (CSE) or dural puncture epidural (DPE) and maintained with continuous epidural infusion (CEI), patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), but the optimal analgesia modality is still controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of commonly used neuraxial analgesia modalities on the proportion of women needing physician interventions, as defined by the need for physician-administered epidural top-ups for inadequate analgesia in labour.

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Wanfang Data were searched from January 1988 to August 2023 without language restriction.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more modalities of the following six neuraxial analgesia modalities in healthy labouring women: EPL+CEI+PCEA, EPL+PIEB+PCEA, CSE+CEI+PCEA, CSE+PIEB+PCEA, DPE+CEI+PCEA and DPE+PIEB+PCEA.

RESULTS

Thirty studies with 8188 women were included. Compared with EPL+CEI+PCEA, EPL+PIEB+PCEA [odds ratio (OR) = 0.44; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.22 to 0.86], CSE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.29; 95% CrI, 0.12 to 0.71) and DPE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.19; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.42) significantly reduced the proportion of women needing physician interventions. DPE+PIEB+PCEA had fewer women needing physician interventions than all other modalities, except for CSE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.63; 95% CrI, 0.25 to 1.62). There were no significant differences in local anaesthetic consumption, maximum pain score, and the incidence of instrumental delivery between the different neuraxial modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

PIEB+PCEA is associated with a lower risk of physician interventions in labour than CEI+PCEA. DPE or CSE and PIEB+PCEA may be associated with a lower likelihood of physician interventions than other neuraxial modalities. Otherwise, the new neuraxial analgesia techniques do not appear to offer significant advantages over traditional techniques. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to limited data and methodological limitations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42023402540).

Comparison of analgesic effects between programmed intermittent epidural boluses and continuous epidural infusion after cesarean section: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the analgesic effects of programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) and continuous epidural infusion (CEI) for postoperative analgesia after elective cesarean section (CS).

METHODS

Seventy-four women who underwent elective CS were randomized to receive either PIEB or CEI. The PIEB group received 4 ml-intermittent boluses of 0.11% ropivacaine every hour at a rate of 120 ml/h. The CEI group received a constant rate of 4 ml/h of 0.11% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was the pain score at rest at 36 h after CS. Secondary outcomes included the pain scores during mobilization, time-weighted pain scores, the incidence of motor blockade, and complications-related epidural analgesia during 36 h after CS.

RESULTS

The pain score at rest at 36 h after CS was significantly lower in the PIEB group compared with that in the CEI group (3.0 vs. 0.0; median difference: 2, 95% CI [1, 2], P < 0.001). The mean time-weighted pain scores at rest and during mobilizations were also significantly lower in the PIEB group than in the CEI group (pain at rest; mean difference [MD]: 37.5, 95% CI [24.6, 50.4], P < 0.001/pain during mobilization; MD: 56.6, 95% CI [39.8, 73.5], P < 0.001). The incidence of motor blockade was significantly reduced in the PIEB group compared with that in the CEI group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PIEB provides superior analgesia with less motor blockade than CEI in postpartum women after CS, without any apparent adverse events.

Influence of different volumes and frequency of programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In labor, programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) can be defined as the bolus administration of epidural solution at scheduled time intervals. Compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) with or without patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), PIEB has been associated with decreased pain scores and need for rescue analgesia and increased maternal satisfaction. The optimal volume and dosing interval of PIEB, however, has still not been determined.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022362708).

SETTINGS

Labor.

PATIENTS

Pregnant patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Central, CINAHL, Global Health, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials that examined pregnant patients in labor who received CEI or PIEB with or without a PCEA component. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, facilitating the indirect comparison of PIEB with different volumes and dosing intervals through the common comparator of CEI and substituting or supplementing direct comparisons with these indirect ones. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 30 trials were included. For the first primary endpoint, need for rescue analgesia, PIEB delivered at a volume of 4 ml and frequency of 45 min (4/45) was inferior to PIEB 8/45 (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.12-11.33), PIEB 10/60 was superior to PIEB 2.5/15 (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16-0.82), PIEB 4/45 (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.71) and PIEB 5/60 (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.08-0.70), and PIEB 5/30 was not inferior to PIEB 10/60 (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.31-1.19). For the second primary endpoint, maternal satisfaction, no differences were present between the various PIEB regimens. The quality of evidence for these multiple primary endpoints was low owing to the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Importantly, PIEB 5/30 decreased the pain score at 4 h compared to PIEB 2.5/15 (MD 2.45; 95% CI 0.13-4.76), PIEB 5/60 (MD -2.28; 95% CI -4.18--0.38) and PIEB 10/60 (MD 1.73; 95% CI 0.31-3.16). Mean ranking of interventions demonstrated PIEB 10/60 followed by PIEB 5/30 to be best placed to reduce the cumulative dose of local anesthetic, and this resulted in an improved incidence of lower limb motor blockade for PIEB 10/60 in comparison to CEI (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.67). No differences in neonatal outcomes were found. Some concerns were present for the risk of bias in two thirds of trials and the risk of bias was shown to be high in the remaining one third of trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should focus on PIEB 5/30 and PIEB 10/60 and how the method of analgesia initiation, nature and concentration of local anesthetic, design of epidural catheter and rate of administration might influence outcomes related to the mother and neonate.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus as an ideal method for labor analgesia: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) is effective for labor analgesia, an appropriate flow rate has not been established. Therefore, we investigated the analgesic effect based on different epidural injection flow rates.

METHODS

Nulliparous women scheduled for spontaneous labor were enrolled in this randomized trial. After injection of intrathecal 0.2% ropivacaine 3 mg with fentanyl 20 μg, participants were randomized to three study groups. Epidural analgesics, 10 ml during one hour, were administered with patient controlled epidural analgesia as follows (0.2% ropivacaine 60 ml, fentanyl 180 μg, and 0.9% saline 40 ml): continuous (n = 28, 10 ml/h for continuous infusion), PIEB (n = 29, 240 ml/h for bolus infusion of 10 ml), or manual (n = 28, 1200 ml/h for bolus injection of 10 ml). The primary outcome was hourly consumption of the epidural solution. The time interval between labor analgesia and the first breakthrough pain was investigated.

RESULTS

The median (Q1, Q3) hourly consumption of epidural anesthetics was significantly different among the groups (continuous: 14.3 [8.7, 16.9] ml, PIEB: 9.4 [6.2, 9.8] ml, manual: 8.6 [7.6, 9.9] ml; P < 0.001). The time to breakthrough pain for the PIEB group was longer than that for the other groups (continuous: 78.5 [35.8, 185.0] min, PIEB: 200.0 [88.5, 441.5] min, manual: 60.5 [37.3, 162.0] min, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

PIEB, with a low-flow rate, provided more adequate labor analgesia than a continuous epidural infusion or manual injection with a high-flow rate.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus in maintenance of epidural labor analgesia: a literature review

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), administered by the infusion pump programmed to deliver boluses of epidural solution at certain intervals, is gradually gaining more attention as a technique to maintain the labor analgesia in recent years. Many studies find that it may have some advantages when compared with other methods. However, its exact effectiveness and optimal regimen are still unclear. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published between January 2010 and June 2022. Of the 263 publications identified, 27 studies were included. The purpose of this review is to discuss the effects of PIEB with continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in maintenance of epidural labor analgesia on labor outcomes and elucidate the latest research progress of implementation strategies.

Tools for assessing labour pain: a comprehensive review of research literature

ABSTRACT

The experience of pain associated with labour is complex and challenging to assess. A range of pain measurement tools are reported in the literature. This review aimed to identify current tools used in research to assess labour pain across the past decade and to evaluate their implementation and adequacy when used in the context of labour pain. A literature search was conducted in databases MEDLINE and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, using search terms relating to labour, pain, and measurement. A total of 363 articles were selected for inclusion. Most studies (89.9%) assessed pain as a unidimensional experience, with the most common tool being the Visual Analogue Scale, followed by the Numerical Rating Scale. Where studies assessed pain as a multidimensional experience, the most common measurement tool was the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Only 4 studies that used multidimensional tools selected a tool that was capable of capturing positive affective states. Numerous variations in the implementation of scales were noted. This included 35 variations found in the wording of the upper and lower anchors of the Visual Analogue Scale, some assessment tools not allowing an option for "no pain," and instances where only sections of validated tools were used. It is clear that development of a standardised pain assessment strategy, which evaluates the multidimensions of labour pain efficiently and effectively and allows for both positive and negative experiences of pain to be reported, is needed.

Effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus protocol on physician-administered rescue boluses of labor analgesia

Background

Prior studies have shown that programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) boluses, provide better pain relief, reduced motor block, and better patient satisfaction compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) techniques. We hypothesized that patients who had labor epidural analgesia (LEA) maintained with PIEB and PCEA would be less likely to receive a physician-administered rescue analgesia bolus compared to patients who had CEI and PCEA.

Methods

We searched our electronic medical record for patients who had CEI and PCEA from August 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 and for patients who had PIEB and PCEA from August 2, 2022 to December 31, 2022.

Results

A total of 792 and 665 patients had maintenance of LEA with CEI/PCEA and PIEB/PCEA, respectively. A multivariate logistic regression was performed and, after adjusting for variables of interest, patients who had PIEB and PCEA were less likely to receive one or more physician-administered rescue analgesia boluses (odds ratio 0.504; 95% confidence interval 0.392, 0.649; P < 0.001) compared to patients who had CEI and PCEA.

Conclusion

PIEB/PCEA was associated with fewer physician-administered boluses of rescue analgesia compared to CEI/PCEA when used for LEA.

Assessing Continuous Epidural Infusion and Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus for Their Effectiveness in Providing Labor Analgesia: A Mono-Centric Retrospective Comparative Study

Background and Objectives: Local anesthetics administered via epidural catheters have evolved from intermittent top-ups to simultaneous administration of continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using the same device. The latest programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) model is believed to create a wider and more even distribution of analgesia inside the epidural space. The switch from CEI + PCEA to PIEB + PCEA in our department began in 2018; however, we received conflicting feedback regarding workload from the quality assurance team. This study aimed to investigate the benefits and drawbacks of this conversion, including the differences in acute pain service (APS) staff workload, maternal satisfaction, side effects, and complications before and after the changeover. Materials and Methods: Items from the APS records included total delivery time, average local anesthetic dosage, and the formerly mentioned items. The incidence of side effects, the association between the duration of delivery and total dosage, and hourly medication usage in the time subgroups of the CEI and PIEB groups were compared. The staff workload incurred from rescue bolus injection, catheter adjustment, and dosage adjustment was also analyzed. Results: The final analysis included 214 and 272 cases of CEI + PCEA and PIEB + PCEA for labor analgesia, respectively. The total amount of medication and average hourly dosage were significantly lower in the PIEB + PCEA group. The incidences of dosage change, manual bolus, extra visits per patient, and lidocaine use for rescue bolus were greater in the PIEB + PCEA group, indicating an increased staff workload. However, the two groups did not differ in CS rates, labor time, maternal satisfaction, and side effects. Conclusions: This study revealed that while PIEB + PCEA maintained the advantage of decreasing total drug doses, it inadvertently increased the staff burden. Increased workload might be a consideration in clinical settings when choosing between different methods of PCEA.

Combined Programmed Intermittent Bolus and Patient-Controlled Bolus Is a More Favorable Setting for Epidural Pain Relief Than Continuous Infusion

Epidural analgesia is a suitable and effective treatment for labor pain. However, the preferable modality setting for delivery remains debatable. This study adopted a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) setting in conjunction with a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) setting to improve the quality of labor analgesia and reduce the number of medical staff. We conducted a prospective observational analysis of primigravida parturients scheduled for spontaneous labor, which required epidural analgesia for painless labor. A total of 483 healthy primigravida parturients with singleton pregnancies were included in this cohort; 135 nulliparous patients were assigned to the continuous infusion setting (CEI) group and 348 to the PIEB + PCEA group. Compared to the CEI setting, the PIEB + PCEA setting significantly reduced the manual rescue by the clinician, extended the time required for the first manual rescue dose, and acclaimed good maternal satisfaction. The use of the CEI mode increased for poor performance requiring more than two rescues with an odds ratio of 2.635 by a binary logistic regression analysis. Using the PIEB + PCEA setting as the maintenance infusion had a longer duration for the first requested manual rescue, fewer manual rescue boluses, excellent satisfaction, and no significant increase in adverse events compared to the CEI setting.

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.

Comparison of programmed intermittent epidural bolus injection and continuous epidural injection in controlling nighttime pain and improving sleep quality after thoracotomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain after open thoracotomy is known to be very severe and affects sleep quality. This study aimed to investigate the effects of a programmed intermittent epidural bolus injection versus continuous epidural injection for controlling nighttime pain and improving sleep quality after thoracotomy.

METHODS

Seventy-six patients scheduled for open thoracotomy for lung cancer or other lung diseases were enrolled. The participants were divided into 2 groups. Group A was continuously injected with 0.2% levobupivacaine at 1.1 mL/h, and group B was injected intermittently with 3 mL 0.2% levobupivacaine at 3 hours intervals through a thoracic epidural catheter via a programmed infusion pump. Within 48 hours after surgery, the degree of pain control using visual analog scale and the patients' sleep conditions on postoperative day (POD) 0 and 1 were evaluated, and other adverse events were investigated.

RESULTS

On POD 1 night, the visual analog scale in group B showed lower than group A (P = .009). Comparison of time to fall asleep showed no differences between 2 groups. Total sleep time was no difference on POD 0 but was longer in group B than that in group A on POD 1 (P = .042). Awakening from sleep on POD 0 was lower in group B than that in group A (P = .033), and satisfaction with sleep quality on POD 0 was superior in group B compared to group A (P = .005). Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred more frequently in group B than in group A (P = .018).

CONCLUSION

The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique of patient-controlled epidural analgesia reduces postoperative nighttime pain and improves sleep quality in patients undergoing thoracotomy for lung cancer or other lung diseases.

Analgesic Effects, Birth Process, and Prognosis of Pregnant Women in Normal Labor by Epidural Analgesia Using Sufentanil in Combination with Ropivacaine: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective. The objective is to evaluate the analgesic, labor, and prognostic effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) versus sufentanil in conjunction with ropivacaine in normal labor. Methods. Sixty pregnant women who had a normal delivery at our hospital between February 2019 and April 2021 were included. Pregnant women were arbitrarily assigned to a control group and a research group. Pregnant women in the control group received lidocaine analgesia and PCEA with sufentanil combined with ropivacaine in the research group. Satisfaction with care, fetal umbilical artery blood flow, VAS score, labor and bleeding, neonatal Apgar score and incidence of adverse events were analyzed. Results. First, we made a comparison of satisfactory performance of nursing care. The satisfaction rate of the research group was 100.00%, compared to 83.33% for the control group. Nursing satisfaction was higher in the research group, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). Following analgesia, PI, RI, and S/D values of umbilical artery blood flow were lower in the research group than those in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant ( $P>0.05$ ). The VAS scores at 10 min, 20 min, and 30 min were found to be lower in the research group than in the control group after analgesia, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). Bleeding was significantly lower in the research group for all stages of labor, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). Apgar scores at 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes postpartum were greater in the research group than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). As a final note, the incidence of pruritus, hypotension, respiratory depression, nausea, and vomiting was found to be lower in the research group than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusion. PCEA with sufentanil coupled with ropivacaine was used to perform labor analgesia. With significant reduction in maternal pain and assurance of labor, ropivacaine combined with sufentanil epidural labor analgesia did not reduce fetal umbilical artery blood flow without extended labor. It could not affect the labor process or the safety of the fetus, which is safe for the mother and fetus.

Comparison of Continuous Infusion of Ropivacaine and Fentanyl With Intermittent Bolus Doses of Ropivacaine and Fentanyl for Epidural Labor Analgesia: A Randomized Open-Label Study

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of continuous epidural infusion with intermittent bolus doses for labour analgesia using ropivacaine 0.2% and opioids.

Methods

In this study, 70 primigravida patients were randomly divided into two groups of 35 each. Both groups received a loading dose of 10ml of 0.2% ropivacaine and 1μg/ml fentanyl in 5ml incremental doses while monitoring blood pressure and heart rate. Subsequently, Group I received a continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl at 10ml/hr, while Group II received 10 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl in bolus form every hour manually, with the first dose given after one hour of the initial loading dose. A rescue bolus dose of 5ml of 0.2% ropivacaine was given in both groups when they complained of breakthrough pain (VAS score >3). An additional 5ml bolus dose was given in both groups at the time of crowning. The blood pressure, heart rate, and severity of pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) were assessed. Total drug volume utilized, the number of bolus doses, duration of the first and second stage of labour, rate of instrumental delivery and cesarean section, and neonatal Apgar scores were also recorded.

Results

The total volume of drugs consumed and the number of boluses required for breakthrough pain were both significantly lower in Group II. There was a similar decrease in hemodynamic parameters (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure) from baseline in both the groups with no significant difference between them. The onset of analgesia was significantly faster in Group I with both groups achieving optimum analgesia (VAS ≤ 3) within 20 minutes of the loading dose. Maternal motor blockade scores, the duration of the first and second stage of labour, the rate of instrumental delivery, cesarean section, and neonatal Apgar scores, did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusion

Both techniques, i.e. continuous epidural infusion and intermittent epidural boluses are effective for providing labour analgesia. But consumption of drugs and episodes of breakthrough pain was higher in the continuous infusion group (Group I).

Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus in Comparison with Continuous Epidural Infusion for Uterine Contraction Pain Relief After Cesarean Section: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Purpose

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) was reported to provide superior maintenance of labour analgesia with better pain relief and less motor block than continuous epidural infusion (CEI). Whether this is also evident for uterine contraction pain relief after cesarean section remains unknown.

Patients and Methods

Parturients scheduled for cesarean section were recruited for the study. At the end of the surgery, after a similar epidural loading dose given, patients received either PIEB (6 mL·h⁻¹) or CEI (6 mL·h⁻¹) of 0.1% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was the uterine contraction pain assessed with visual analog scale (VAS-U) at the postoperative 36 h. Secondary outcomes included incision pain at the rest (VAS-R) and in the movement-evoked (VAS-P), and lower extremity motor block (defined as Bromage score > 0). The whole profile of VAS scores between groups was analyzed using linear mixed model. When significant differences were found, the pairwise comparison was done with the Mann Whitney U-test followed by Bonferroni correction.

Results

One hundred and twenty parturients were studied (PIEB, 60; CEI, 60). VAS-U at the postoperative 36 h in the PIEB group was lower than in the CEI group (Bonferroni-adjusted P < 0.01). The linear mixed model indicated that VAS-U, VAS-R and VAS-P were lower in the PIEB group compared with the CEI group (all P < 0.01). Motor block was higher in the CEI group than in the PIEB group during the study period except 2 h (all P < 0.05). No differences of adverse events such as hypotension and urinary retention were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus provides more effective uterine contraction and incision pain relief and less motor block after cesarean section than continuous epidural infusion without an increased risk of urinary retention and blood pressure instability.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus in parturients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) in parturients.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2021) were searched for identification of randomized placebo-controlled trials in which PIEB was applied in parturients. The outcomes were the effect of analgesia, satisfaction score, mode of delivery, duration of labor, neonatal condition, and adverse events. The pooled odds ratios (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

PIEB was found to be associated with decreased total consumption of ropivacaine (WMD = -15.83, 95% CI: -19.06 to -12.60, P < .00001; I2 = 61%; P for heterogeneity = .04), total consumption of sufentanil (WMD = -4.93, 95% CI: -6.87 to 2.98, P < .00001; I2 = 68%; P for heterogeneity = .05), numbers of patients who require patient-controlled epidural analgesia bolus (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.51, P < .0001; I2 = 65%; P for heterogeneity = .01), the number of attempts (WMD = -4.12, 95% CI: -7.21 to -1.04, P = .009; I2 = 100%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), rate of breakthrough pain (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.80, P = .005; I2 = 47%; P for heterogeneity = .09). Eight studies focus on the duration of analgesia. After by meta-analysis, we found that the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 30 minutes, 2 hours, 4 hours, and 5 hours in PIEB group was significantly lower when compared with control group, (WMD = -0.15, 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.04, P = .006; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .64), (WMD = -0.79, 95% CI: -1.32 to 0.25, P = .004; I2 = 97%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), (WMD = -1.00, 95% CI: -1.08 to -0.91, P < .00001; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .67), (WMD = -1.81, 95% CI: -3.23 to -0.39, P = .01; I2 = 98%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), respectively. Nineteen studies discussed the mode of delivery between 2 groups. The results suggest that the rate of normal delivery is significantly higher in PIEB group compared with control group (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.08-1.75, P = .01). The time of first and second stage of labor are significantly shorter in PIEB group compared with control group, the result is (WMD = -10.52, 95% CI: -14.74 to 4.76, P < .00001; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .86), (WMD = -1.48, 95% CI: -2.26 to -0.69, P = .0002; I2 = 35%; P for heterogeneity = .10), respectively. Thirteen studies concerned the satisfaction score of patients. The satisfaction score of patients in the PIEB group was significantly higher when compared with control group (WMD = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.42-1.39, P = .0003; I2 = 98%; P for heterogeneity < .00001). The Apgar score at 1, 5 minutes in PIEB group are significantly higher (WMD = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13 P = .007; I2 = 55%; P for heterogeneity = .04), (WMD = -0.08, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.05, P < .00001; I2 = 21%; P for heterogeneity = .27), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PIEB is a good alternative for labor analgesia with better analgesic effect, maternal and infant outcome.

Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Although recent evidence shows that the programmed intermittent epidural bolus can provide improved analgesia compared to continuous epidural infusion during labor, its usefulness in major upper abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion on the consumption of postoperative rescue opioids, pain intensity, and consumption of local anesthetic by retrospective analysis of data of patients who underwent major upper abdominal surgery under ultrasound-assisted thoracic epidural analgesia between July 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was total opioid consumption up to 72 h after surgery. The data of postoperative pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and adverse events from 193 patients were analyzed (continuous epidural infusion: n = 124, programmed intermittent epidural bolus: n = 69). There was no significant difference in the rescue opioid consumption in the 72 h postoperative period between the groups (33.3 mg [20.0–43.3] vs. 28.3 mg [18.3–43.3], p = 0.375). There were also no significant differences in the pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and incidence of adverse events. Our findings suggest that the quality of postoperative analgesia and safety following major upper abdominal surgery were comparable between the groups. However, the use of programmed intermittent epidural bolus requires further evaluation.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus for post-cesarean delivery analgesia: a randomized controlled double-blind trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) in postoperative pain management compared with continuous epidural infusion (CEI) after cesarean delivery.

METHODS

A total of 58 participants were randomly allocated to receive PIEB (3 mL bolus every 60 min) or CEI (3 mL/h) for postoperative analgesia after undergoing elective cesarean section under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. Both groups had the same epidural solution containing ropivacaine 0.2% plus fentanyl 2 µg/mL. The primary outcome was postoperative pain score at rest and mobilization at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h. The secondary outcomes were the total amount of ropivacaine used in the 48 h study period and the time to the first PCEA bolus.

RESULTS

Data from 58 women were analyzed. There was a reduction in pain verbal numerical rating scores at 12 h in patients receiving PIEB compared with CEI at rest [2 (1.75-3) vs. 3 (2-4), p = 0.011]; and on movement [4 (3-5) vs. 5 (4-6), p = 0.038]. No differences were found in pain scores at any other time-point up to 48 h. Total ropivacaine consumption at 48 h was less in the PIEB group compared with the CEI group [316 mg (304-321) vs. 336 mg (319-344), p = 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Postoperative epidural analgesia for patients who underwent cesarean delivery with PIEB compared with CEI resulted in less ropivacaine usage while providing comparable analgesia.

Effect of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with and without automatic intermittent bolus on levobupivacaine consumption during labour: A single-centre prospective double-blinded randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

During labour, the effects of adding a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) baseline analgesic regimen to patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) remain uncertain.

METHODS

This single centre prospective double-blinded controlled study randomised nulliparous women over 35 weeks of gestational age in a PCEA + PIEB or PCEA only group. After an epidural analgesia catheter was inserted, a specific pump administered a solution of levobupivacaine 0.625 mg mL^-1, sufentanil 0.25 µg mL^-1, and clonidine 0.375 µg mL^-1. In both groups the PCEA mode delivered an 8 mL bolus with a lockout period of 8 min. In the PCEA + PIEB group, women also received a programmed 8 mL bolus every 60 min. Additional bolus were allowed if required. The primary outcome was the hourly consumption of levobupivacaine from epidural catheter placement to new-born delivery. Secondary outcome were motor block, oxytocin use, sufentanil consumption, additional bolus required, instrumental vaginal delivery, unplanned caesarean section, pain during labour and women's satisfaction.

RESULTS

Analysis included 162 and 155 women in the PCEA and PCEA + PIEB groups, respectively. The median [IQR] hourly consumption of levobupivacaine was significantly lower in the PCEA group (9.9 (7.8-12.4] mg h^-1) as compared to the PCEA + PIEB group (11.2 [7.9-14.3] mg h^-1; p = 0.046). The difference between medians was 1.3 mg h^-1 95 % CI (0.1-2.9). There was no difference between groups for secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PCEA only modestly decreased the hourly consumption of local anaesthetic as compared to PCEA + PIEB but the difference was not clinically relevant.

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.

Comparative analgesic efficacy and safety of intermittent local anaesthetic epidural bolus for labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Continuous epidural infusion (CEI) is commonly used for labour analgesia, but concerns over potential motor block, second-stage labour complications, and ineffective analgesia in late labour have prompted examining intermittent epidural bolus (IEB) as an alternative. However, evidence comparing these modalities is conflicting. The meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic efficacy of CEI vs IEB.

METHODS

Databases were searched for trials comparing CEI to IEB for labour analgesia. The two co-primary outcomes were risk of breakthrough pain and difference in area under the curve (AUC) for pain scores during the first 4 h post-epidural initiation. Local anaesthetic consumption, maternal outcomes (i.e. delivery mode, labour duration, and maternal satisfaction), and side-effects of epidural analgesia were also evaluated. Results were pooled using random-effects modelling. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to evaluate evidence reliability.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (3133 patients) were analysed. Compared with CEI, IEB decreased risk of breakthrough pain by 38% (risk ratio [95% confidence interval {CI}] of 0.62 [0.48, 0.81]; P=0.0004; I²=47%; 1164 patients) and reduced AUC of pain during the 4 h interval by 32.9% (mean difference [95% CI] of -16.7 mm h^-1 [-18.9, -14.4]; P<0.0001; 1638 patients). Intermittent epidural bolus enhanced maternal satisfaction, shortened labour duration, decreased motor block, and reduced local anaesthetic consumption. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant for epidural side-effects or mode of delivery. The TSA indicated adequate power for reliable inferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent epidural bolus provides improved labour pain control during the first 4 h after epidural initiation with less breakthrough pain. Moderate- to high-quality evidence of intermittent epidural bolus superiority support its use as a safe and effective continuous epidural infusion alternative for labour analgesia.