Comparison of parturient - controlled remifentanil with epidural bupivacain and sufentanil for labour analgesia: Randomised controlled trial

The impact of sufentanil versus remifentanil on surgical site wound healing in caesarean section primiparas undergoing epidural anaesthesia: A systematic meta-analysis

Caesarean section (C-section) is a prevalent obstetric surgical procedure, with the choice of analgesic agents playing a pivotal role in postoperative recovery. This systematic meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of sufentanil (ST) and remifentanil (RT) on postoperative wound healing in caesarean section primiparas undergoing epidural anaesthesia. A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, yielding eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for inclusion. The primary outcome was wound healing assessment using the REEDA (redness, edema, ecchymosis, discharge, approximation) scale on the third, fifth and tenth postoperative days. The meta-analysis encompassed 691 primiparas. A significant difference in wound healing was observed between ST and RT on the third (I2  = 99%; Random: SMD: 6.75, 95% CIs: 3.11-10.39, p < 0.01) and fifth days (I2  = 99%; Random: SMD: 3.63, 95% CIs: 1.56-5.70, p < 0.01) postcaesarean section. However, no significant difference was noted on the tenth day (I2  = 5%; Random: SMD: 0.00, 95% CIs: -0.45-0.45, p = 0.35). Sufentanil and remifentanil exhibit differential effects on early postoperative wound healing in caesarean section primiparas undergoing epidural anaesthesia. While both opioids are effective analgesics, sufentanil demonstrates a more pronounced impact on wound healing during the immediate postoperative days. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting an opioid for pain management in this patient population.

The efficacy and safety of remifentanil patient-controlled versus epidural analgesia in labor: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (rPCA) and epidural analgesia (EA) has been used for pain relief in labor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rPCA versus EA in labor, to provide evidence support for clinical analgesia and pain care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Weipu databases for RCTs comparing rPCA and EA in labor until February 15, 2022. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10 RCTs involving 3086 parturients were enrolled, 1549 parturients received rPCA and 1537 received EA. Meta-analysis indicated that the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever within 1 hour of labor analgesia (OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.30~0.62), after 1 hour of labor analgesia (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.20~0.90) in the rPCA was significantly less than that of EA (all P<0.05). The incidence of respiratory depression (OR = 3.56, 95%CI: 2.45~5.16, P<0.001) in the rPCA was significantly higher than that of EA. There were no significant differences in the incidence of Apgar scores<7 at 5 minutes (OR = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.71~1.96, P = 0.53), the patients' satisfaction of pain relief during labor analgesia (SMD = 0.03, 95%CI: -0.40~0.46, P = 0.90) between rPCA and EA (all P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

rPCA can be an optional alternative to EA with similar pain relief and less risk of intrapartum maternal fever. However, rPCA was associated with increased risk of respiratory depression. Future studies with rigorous design and larger sample size are needed to provide more reliable evidences for clinical rPCA and EA use.

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.

Side Effects of Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Remifentanil Compared with Intermittent Epidural Bolus for Labour Analgesia - A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Epidural analgesia is considered a gold standard in obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia. However, in situation when it is contraindicated, unwanted by the patient or simply unavailable, remifentanil can be an excellent alternative. The goal of our study is to analyse the side effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during delivery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study included 155 pregnant women in term for birth, divided into 2 groups: a remifentanil group (RG), and an epidural group (EG). Patients in the RG received intravenous PCA with remifentanil, while patients in the ЕG received epidural analgesia with programmed intermittent bolus dosing. Our primary outcome was maternal safety; the secondary outcome was neonatal safety.

RESULTS

The results present a significantly lower SaO2 value of the parturients in the RG (96.95 ± 1.4 vs 98.22 ± 0.6), and a significantly higher respiratory rate per minute in the EG at all time points after the onset of analgesia (20.85 ± 1.4 vs 18.67 ± 0.9). There was more frequent sedation, nausea and vomiting in the RG, while in the EG there was a more elevated temperature, itching and irregularities in the CTG record. Regarding the newborn, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the Apgar scores, pH, pCO2, pO2, and bicarbonate, while there was a significantly lower value of the base excess in the RG group.

CONCLUSION

PCA with remifentanil is safe for the mother, foetus and the newborn, with minimal side effects. Continuous respiratory monitoring, oxygen supply and following of all consensus recommendations are mandatory.

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).

Obstetric anesthesia/analgesia does not affect disease course in multiple sclerosis: 10-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Multiple sclerosis (MS) often occurs in young women and the effect of obstetric anesthesia/analgesia on the disease is poorly understood. No previous study has investigated the course of the disease in women in labor in the Czech Republic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence or absence of relapses in the 6-month postpartum period in MS parturients with and without obstetric anesthesia/analgesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied all deliveries (n = 58,455) at the University Hospital Brno from 2004 to 2013 and identified those of the women with an ICD-10 code G35 (MS) recorded anytime in their medical history (n = 428). We included only deliveries of women with confirmed diagnosis at the time of labor (n = 70). Statistical analysis was performed using the Fischer Exact Test.

RESULTS

There were 70 deliveries of 65 women, including 45 vaginal deliveries and 25 Cesarean deliveries (16 under general anesthesia, 8 with epidural anesthesia and 1 with spinal anesthesia). Epidural obstetric analgesia was performed in 11 deliveries. There was no statistically significant difference in relapses between the vaginal delivery group (n = 15; 33%) and Cesarean section group (n = 10; 40%), p = 0.611.

CONCLUSION

Neither delivery mode (vaginal vs Caesarean) nor type of obstetric anesthesia/analgesia was found to have any impact on the course of MS at 6 months postpartum in women with this condition.

Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Parenteral opioids (intramuscular and intravenous drugs including patient-controlled analgesia) are used for pain relief in labour in many countries throughout the world. This review is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability to women of different types, doses and modes of administration of parenteral opioid analgesia in labour. A second objective is to assess the effects of opioids in labour on the baby in terms of safety, condition at birth and early feeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (11 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining the use of intramuscular or intravenous opioids (including patient-controlled analgesia) for women in labour. Cluster-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion, although none were identified. We did not include quasi-randomised trials. We looked at studies comparing an opioid with another opioid, placebo, no treatment, other non-pharmacological interventions (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)) or inhaled analgesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of each evidence synthesis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 studies that compared an opioid with placebo or no treatment, another opioid administered intramuscularly or intravenously or compared with TENS applied to the back. Sixty-one studies involving more than 8000 women contributed data to the review and these studies reported on 34 different comparisons; for many comparisons and outcomes only one study contributed data. All of the studies were conducted in hospital settings, on healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 37 to 42 weeks' gestation. We excluded studies focusing on women with pre-eclampsia or pre-existing conditions or with a compromised fetus. Overall, the evidence was graded as low- or very low-quality regarding the analgesic effect of opioids and satisfaction with analgesia; evidence was downgraded because of study design limitations, and many of the studies were underpowered to detect differences between groups and so effect estimates were imprecise. Due to the large number of different comparisons, it was not possible to present GRADE findings for every comparison.For the comparison of intramuscular pethidine (50 mg/100 mg) versus placebo, no clear differences were found in maternal satisfaction with analgesia measured during labour (number of women satisfied or very satisfied after 30 minutes: 50 women; 1 trial; risk ratio (RR) 7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 128.87, very low-quality evidence), or number of women requesting an epidural (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; very low-quality evidence). Pain scores (reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) score of at least 40 mm: 50 women; 1 trial; RR 25, 95% CI 1.56 to 400, low-quality evidence) and pain measured in labour (women reporting pain relief to be "good" or "fair" within one hour of administration: 116 women; 1 trial; RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.47, low-quality evidence) were both reduced in the pethidine group, and fewer women requested any additional analgesia (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, low-quality evidence).There was limited information on adverse effects and harm to women and babies. There were few results that clearly showed that one opioid was more effective than another. Overall, findings indicated that parenteral opioids provided some pain relief and moderate satisfaction with analgesia in labour. Opioid drugs were associated with maternal nausea, vomiting and drowsiness, although different opioid drugs were associated with different adverse effects. There was no clear evidence of adverse effects of opioids on the newborn. We did not have sufficient evidence to assess which opioid drug provided the best pain relief with the least adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Though most evidence is of low- or very-low quality, for healthy women with an uncomplicated pregnancy who are giving birth at 37 to 42 weeks, parenteral opioids appear to provide some relief from pain in labour but are associated with drowsiness, nausea, and vomiting in the woman. Effects on the newborn are unclear. Maternal satisfaction with opioid analgesia was largely unreported. The review needs to be examined alongside related Cochrane reviews. More research is needed to determine which analgesic intervention is most effective, and provides greatest satisfaction to women with acceptable adverse effects for mothers and their newborn.

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.

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.

Neonatal effect of remifentanil in general anaesthesia for caesarean section: a randomized trial

Background

Remifentanil has been suggested for its short duration of action to replace standard opioids for induction of general anaesthesia in caesarean section. While the stabilizing effect of remifentanil on maternal circulation has been confirmed, its effect on postnatal adaptation remains unclear, as currently published studies are not powered sufficiently to detect any clinical effect of remifentanil on the newborn.

Methods

Using a double-blinded randomized design, a total of 151 parturients undergoing caesarean delivery under general anaesthesia were randomized into two groups – 76 patients received a bolus of remifentanil prior to induction, while 75 patients were assigned to the control group. Remifentanil 1 μg/kg was administered 30 seconds before the standard induction of general anaesthesia. The primary outcome measure was an assessment of neonatal adaptation using the Apgar score, while secondary outcomes included the need for respiratory support after delivery and differences in umbilical blood gas analysis (Astrup).

Results

The incidence of lower Apgar scores between 0 and 7 was significantly higher in the remifentanil group at one minute (25% vs. 9.3% of newborns, p = 0.017); whilst at five minutes and later no Apgar score differences were observed. There was no difference in the need for moderate (nasal CPAP) or intensive (intubation) respiratory support, but significantly more neonates in the remifentanil group required tactile stimulation for breathing support (21% vs. 7% of newborns, p = 0.017). There was no difference in the parameters from umbilical cord blood gas analysis between the groups.

Conclusion

At a dose of 1 μg/kg, remifentanil prior to induction of general anaesthesia increases the risk of neonatal respiratory depression during first minutes after caesarean delivery but duration of clinical symptoms is short.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01550640.

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.

Efficacy and safety of remifentanil as an alternative labor analgesic

The objective of this review was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil in the management of labor pain. Although neuraxial analgesia is the best option during labor, alternative analgesic options are needed for patients with contraindications. Using a systematic literature search, clinical outcomes of remifentanil for labor pain have been summarized. Also, comparisons of remifentanil to other options including meperidine, epidural analgesia, fentanyl, and nitrous oxide are provided. Based on the literature review, remifentanil is associated with high overall maternal satisfaction and favorable side-effect profile. However, due to the low reporting of adverse events, large, randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate maternal and neonatal safety adequately and determine the optimal dosing needed to provide effective analgesia. While remifentanil is a feasible alternative for patients who cannot or do not want to receive epidural analgesia, administration should be monitored closely for potential adverse effects.