Does bupivacaine and fentanyl combination for epidural analgesia shorten the duration of labour?

Path analysis model of epidural/spinal anesthesia on breastfeeding among healthy nulliparous women: Secondary analysis of the United States Certificate of Live Births 2016

BACKGROUND

The effect of epidural/spinal anesthesia during labor on breastfeeding is unclear. Few studies had assessed whether or how medically assisted delivery (operative vaginal delivery or unscheduled cesarean birth) plays a mediating role. We aimed to examine whether the relationship between using epidural/spinal anesthesia and breastfeeding is mediated by increased medically assisted delivery among healthy nulliparous women.

METHODS

A secondary, cross-sectional analysis was conducted using US birth certificate data from 2016 (n = 381 199). Logistic regression was used to examine associations between factors. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the model fit of the path models and to quantify the direct, indirect, and total effect of anesthesia on breastfeeding at discharge, considering medically assisted delivery as a mediator.

RESULTS

Women who were administered epidural/spinal anesthesia were more likely to experience medically assisted delivery (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.01 (2.91-3.12)) and less likely to be breastfeeding at discharge (0.95 [0.92-0.98]). Operative vaginal and unscheduled cesarean deliveries were significantly associated with nonbreastfeeding at discharge (0.81 [0.77-0.84] and 0.81 [0.79-0.84], respectively). SEM revealed excellent model fit for our model. The indirect effect was significant (β = -0.038; 95% CI, -0.043 to -0.033), as was the total effect (β = -0.038; 95% CI, -0.043 to -0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural/spinal anesthesia is associated with nonbreastfeeding at discharge, mediated through medically assisted delivery. Health care providers should consider these risks and provide adequate support to help all parents attain their breastfeeding goals.

Mixed-methods systematic review: Childbearing women's views, experiences, and decision-making related to epidural analgesia in labour

AIMS

To investigate childbearing women's views, experiences and decision-making related to epidural analgesia in labour.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was implemented across Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE from 2000 to September 2018. The literature search was undertaken in January 2018 and updated in September 2018. Thirty papers were selected.

RESULTS

Four overarching synthesized findings were identified: (a) choice; (b) pain management experience; (c) lack of information; and (d) information provision and consent.

REVIEW METHODS

Quality appraisal was conducted using JBI levels of evidence and other established tools. NVivo was used to independently dual code and thematically synthesize qualitative data. A narrative synthesis of the quantitative findings from the included studies was undertaken. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess confidence in the review findings based on the qualitative data. A set of integrated mixed-methods synthesized findings was produced.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for practice based on the systematic review findings are that midwives should dedicate time to discuss epidural with women and birth partners, ideally during the second or third trimester of pregnancy, asking women what coping strategies or pain relief they have been considering, if any. The factors which may influence the woman's choice of epidural, including pain threshold, ability to cope with pain, timing of epidural and length of labour should be continuously evaluated during labour. The midwife should remain with women after an epidural has been sited, demonstrating understanding of the woman's choice and providing an opportunity for discussion of plans for the remaining labour and birth.

IMPACT

The findings of this systematic review can inform both healthcare professionals and service users on various aspects of the decision-making process about the use of epidural analgesia in labour. Data can be transferable to similar settings in high-income countries.

Intrapartum interventions that affect maternal and neonatal outcomes for vaginal birth after cesarean section

Objective

To investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes after different intrapartum interventions for vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) in mainland China.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed on 143 VBAC cases from Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital between January 2015 and November 2016. These cases were divided into two groups on the basis of different intrapartum interventions. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared.

Results

The durations of the first stage and total labor after oxytocin were significantly longer than those before oxytocin use. The proportion of operative vaginal delivery with oxytocin was significantly higher than that without oxytocin (43.9% vs. 11.8%). The times of the first stage, second stage, and total labor with analgesia were significantly longer than those without analgesia (548.4±198.1 vs. 341.8±233.0 minutes, 52.0±38.9 vs. 36.0± 29.1 minutes, and 606.3±212.1 vs. 387.3±233.0 minutes, respectively). Postpartum hemorrhage and operative vaginal delivery occurred significantly more frequently in women with epidural analgesia than in those without epidural analgesia (29.7% vs. 12.3 and 35.1% vs. 16.0%, respectively).

Conclusions

Induction can increase the rate of operative vaginal delivery in VBAC. Oxytocin and epidural analgesia may increase the risk of operative vaginal delivery, and may be associated with a prolonged duration of labor.

Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I2 = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I2 = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I2 = 73%; Tau2 = 1.89; Chi2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.

Epidural fentanyl does not affect cervical dilation and progress of first stage of vaginal delivery: a randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

Local anesthetics combined with opioids are commonly used in labor epidural analgesic schemes. This study investigated if the addition of fentanyl to epidural ropivacaine can affect cervical dilation and progress of vaginal delivery.

METHODS

Sixty-two nulliparous parturients were randomized to receive epidurally 8 ml ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl 20 μg (F/R-group, n = 31) or with normal saline 0.4 ml (R-group, n = 31), every hour. Rescue doses of 5 ml ropivacaine 0.2% were also administered. Measurements were performed every 60 min until full cervical dilation. The primary end-point was the time to reach 10-cm cervical dilation. Secondary outcomes were Bishop scores, mode of delivery, total ropivacaine dose, pain, and satisfaction scores (numerical scale, 0-10).

RESULTS

Data from 60 parturients (29 in the F/R and 31 in the R-group) were analyzed. The F/R-group had 26 vaginal deliveries (four instrumentally assisted), and three cesarean deliveries. The R-group had 27 vaginal deliveries (six instrumentally assisted) and 4 cesarean deliveries. Time to 10-cm cervical dilation did not differ between the groups (4 ± 2.4 h in the F/R-group vs 4.4 ± 2.1 h in the R-group, p = .341). The number of women remaining in the study every hour until full cervical dilation and Bishop scores for a 4-h period did not differ between the groups (p = .617). Total ropivacaine dose was comparable between the groups, but the F/R-group reported significantly lower pain (p = .01) and higher satisfaction scores (p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of fentanyl to ropivacaine 0.2% solution did not affect cervical dilation and progress of the first stage of labor, but improved both analgesia and satisfaction.