Labor outcomes with epidural analgesia: an observational before-and-after cohort study comparing continuous infusion versus programmed intermittent bolus plus patient-controlled analgesia

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.

Dural Puncture Epidural with 25-G Spinal Needles versus Conventional Epidural Technique in Conjunction with PIEB for Labor Analgesia: A Randomized Trial

Purpose

To compare the effect of Dural puncture epidural (DPE) and conventional epidural (EP), in conjunction with programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) and low-concentration ropivacaine strategy.

Methods

After written informed consent was obtained, healthy nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies, vertex presentation at 38-42 weeks' gestation, cervical dilation of 3-5 cm, and a desire for pain relief were randomly assigned to DPE or EP group. Dural matter was puncture with 25G Whitacre needle in DPE group. Analgesia was initiated with 15 mL of 0.1% ropivacaine over 5 minutes and was maintained by PIEB (8 mL of 0.08% ropivacaine with 2 μg/mL fentanyl every 40 min). Primary outcome was the percentage of adequate analgesia, defined as NRPS ≤1, at 30 minutes after the initiation of the epidural bolus.

Results

Out of 130 enrolled parturients, 127 were included in final analysis (64 in DPE group, 63 in EP group). No significant difference was found in percentage of adequate analgesia at 30 minutes (risk ratio: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.90-1.31; P = 0.366). At 8, 12, 14, and 16 minutes, percentage of adequate analgesia was higher in DPE group (P = 0.023, 0.027, 0.016 and 0.033, respectively). NPRS scores in DPE group decreased more dramatically within the first 30 min. The incidence of S2 sensory blocks at 20 and 30 min in DPE group was higher (P = 0.010 and 0.006, respectively). There were no differences in patient satisfaction, delivery mode, adverse effects, fetal bradycardia, and Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes.

Conclusion

The combination of the use of DPE technique with 25G spinal needle and PIEB technique for labor analgesia appears to enhance the quality of labor analgesia by accelerating onset and providing improved sacral blockade, without increasing adverse effects.

Randomized Assessment of the Optimal Time Interval Between Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses When Combined With the Dural Puncture Epidural Technique for Labor Analgesia

BACKGROUND

The dural puncture epidural (DPE) and programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) techniques are recent advances in neuraxial labor analgesia. Previous studies have investigated the PIEB optimal interval for effective analgesia when a standard epidural technique is used to initiate labor analgesia. However, it is unknown whether these findings are applicable when DPE is used.

METHODS

Patients were randomized into 1 of 5 groups with PIEB intervals of 35, 40, 45, 50, or 55 minutes. Labor analgesia was initiated on request with a DPE technique by epidural injection over 2 minutes of 15 mL of ropivacaine 0.1% with sufentanil 0.5 μg/mL after a dural puncture with a 25-gauge Whitacre needle. Effective analgesia was defined as no additional requirement for a patient-controlled bolus during the first stage of labor. The PIEB interval that was effective in 50% of patients (EI50) and 90% of patients (EI90) was estimated using probit regression.

RESULTS

One hundred laboring parturients received the DPE technique of whom 93 proceeded to have analgesia maintained with PIEB using 10 mL boluses of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 0.5 μg/mL. Totals of 89.5% (17/19), 84.2% (16/19), 82.4% (14/17), 52.6% (11/19), and 36.8% (7/19) of patients in groups 35, 40, 45, 50, and 55, respectively, received effective PIEB analgesia. The estimated values for EI50 and EI90 were 52.5 (95% CI, 48.4-62.6) minutes and 37.0 (95% CI, 28.4-40.9) minutes, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The estimate of the PIEB optimal interval for effective analgesia after the DPE technique was comparable to that reported in previous studies when analgesia was initiated using a conventional epidural technique.

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.