Comparison of intrathecal and epidural diamorphine for elective caesarean section using a combined spinal-epidural technique.
(9/280)
To assess calculated equivalent doses of intrathecal and epidural opioids for elective Caesarean section in terms of quality and duration of analgesia, and incidence of side effects, we have compared 50 patients, allocated randomly to one of two groups to receive either diamorphine 0.25 mg intrathecally (group 1) or 5 mg epidurally (group 2), in addition to intrathecal bupivacaine 10 mg, using a combined spinal-epidural technique. There was no significant difference in duration of analgesia between groups (group 1 mean 14.6 (SD 5.9) h, group 2 14.2 (6.5) h; mean difference 0.8 h; 95% Cl -2.8-4.5; P = 0.65) or quality of analgesia (VAPS and VRS scores). The degree of pruritus was similar in both groups (80-88%) but the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the epidural group (24% vs 4%; P < 0.05). Intrathecal diamorphine 0.25 mg produced the same duration and quality of postoperative analgesia as epidural diamorphine 5 mg for elective Caesarean section but with significantly less nausea and vomiting. (+info)
Comparison of midwife top-ups, continuous infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia for maintaining mobility after a low-dose combined spinal-epidural.
(10/280)
We studied 133 women given a combined spinal-epidural for analgesia in labour. The initial intrathecal dose contained bupivacaine 2.5 mg with fentanyl 25 micrograms. When the mothers were comfortable, they were allocated randomly to one of three groups: continuous infusion (group Cl, n = 46), midwife top-ups (group MW, n = 43) or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (group PCEA, n = 44), to maintain analgesia throughout labour. All epidural solutions contained 0.1% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 micrograms ml-1. Motor block was assessed by the mother's ability to straight leg raise (SLR). Four hours after combined spinal-epidural analgesia, 88.1% of women could SLR in group MW, 83.7% in group PCEA and 57.8% in group Cl (P = 0.002). Total use of bupivacaine was highest in group Cl (mean 11.3 (SD 3.3) mg h-1) compared with group MW (7.5 (3.1) mg h-1) and group PCEA (9.1 (2.1) mg h-1) (P < 0.001). Analgesia was similar between groups and overall satisfaction was equally high. (+info)
Bupivacaine augments intrathecal fentanyl for labor analgesia.
(11/280)
BACKGROUND: fentanyl has been shown to be an effective analgesic for labor; this study investigated the analgesic effect of low-dose bpivacaine added to intrathecal fentanyl for labor analgesia METHODS: Ninety parturients in active labor who requested regional analgesia were randomized to receive an intrathecal injection of either fentanyl, 25 microg; bupivacaine, 1.25 mg, with fentanyl, 25 microg; or bupivacaine, 2.5 mg, with fentanyl, 25 microg, as part of a combined spinal-epidural technique. Visual analog pain scores were recorded before and at intervals after injection until the patient requested further analgesia. Maternal blood pressure and fetal heart rate were recorded before and at intervals after injection. Lower-extremity muscle strength was tested before and 30 min after injection; anesthetic level to cold sensation and the presence and severity of pruritus were recorded. RESULTS: Duration of analgesia was longer in the group receiving bupivacaine, 2.5 mg, and fentanyl, 25 microg, than the group receiving plain fentanyl (108 vs. 92 min; P < 0.05). Onset of analgesia was faster in both groups receiving bupivacaine compared with plain fentanyl (P < 0.05). No differences in muscle strength after injection were found in any group, although anesthetic levels to cold were documented in all patients in the bupivacaine groups, and 21 of 30 in the plain fentanyl group. Baseline fetal heart rates did not change after injection in any group, and maternal blood pressure was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 2.5 mg isobaric bupivacaine to 25 microg fentanyl for intrathecal labor analgesia modestly increases duration and speeds onset of analgesia compared with plain intrathecal fentanyl. (+info)
The influence of the obstetrician in the relationship between epidural analgesia and cesarean section for dystocia.
(12/280)
BACKGROUND: The association between epidural analgesia for labor and the risk of cesarean section for dystocia remains controversial The authors hypothesized that if epidural analgesia were an important factor in determining cesarean section rates, then obstetricians with higher rates of utilization of epidural analgesia for labor would have higher rates of cesarean section for dystocia. METHODS: The frequency of use of epidural analgesia and frequency of occurrence of various patient risk factors for cesarean section were calculated for 110 obstetricians caring for > or = 50 low-risk parturients. These frequencies were compared by linear regression to obstetricians' rates of cesarean section for dystocia. Stepwise regression was used to attempt to predict obstetricians' cesarean rates from the incidence of various patient and provider risk factors. RESULTS: There was no relationship between frequency of epidural analgesia and rate of cesarean section for dystocia across practitioners (R2 = 0.019; P = 0.156). Weighting each obstetrician's data for the number of patients cared for during the study period did not change this result. Stepwise linear regression only modestly predicted obstetricians' cesarean section rates for dystocia, yielding a model containing 12 variables not including epidural analgesia (gestational age, induction of labor, maternal age, provider volume, nulliparity, and seven interactions; adjusted R2 = 0.312; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of use of epidural analgesia does not predict obstetricians' rates of cesarean section for dystocia. After accounting for a number of known patient risk factors, obstetrical practice style appears to be a major determinant of rates of cesarean section. (+info)
Patient-controlled analgesia: epidural fentanyl and i.v. morphine compared after caesarean section.
(13/280)
We have compared patient-controlled epidural fentanyl (PCEF) and patient-controlled i.v. morphine (PCIM) after Caesarean section in 84 patients, in a randomized, double-blind study. All patients had an epidural and an i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device, one of which delivered normal saline. Group PCEF received epidural fentanyl 20 micrograms with a 10-min lockout. Group PCIM received i.v. morphine 1 mg with a 5-min lockout. PCA use was lower for PCEF patients (P = 0.0007). The highest pain score recorded at rest for PCEF patients was median 20 (interquartile range 10-33) mm compared with 32 (14-52) mm for PCIM patients (P = 0.02). The highest pain score recorded on coughing was 31 (21-41) mm with PCEF compared with 56 (30-71) mm for PCIM (P = 0.001). There was less nausea (P = 0.02) and drowsiness (P = 0.0003) with PCEF. There was no difference in the overall incidence and severity of pruritus (P = 0.77). However, pruritus started earlier with PCEF. (+info)
Relative potencies of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for analgesia in labour.
(14/280)
We have used the technique of randomized, double-blind sequential allocation to compare the minimum local analgesic concentrations (MLAC) of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine for women in the first stage of labour. The test bolus was 20 ml of local anaesthetic solution. The concentration was determined by the response of the previous woman to a higher or lower concentration of local anaesthetic, according to up-down sequential allocation. Efficacy was assessed using a 100-mm visual analogue pain score (VAPS). The test solution had to achieve a VAPS of 10 mm or less to be judged effective. For bupivacaine, MLAC was 0.093 (95% CI 0.076-0.110)% w/v, and for ropivacaine, 0.156 (95% CI 0.136-0.176)%w/v (P < 0.0001, 95% CI difference 0.036-0.090). The analgesic potency of ropivacaine was 0.60 (0.47-0.75) relative to bupivacaine. Claims for reduced toxicity and motor block must be considered with differences in analgesic potency in mind. (+info)
Analgesic and hemodynamic effects of intrathecal clonidine as the sole analgesic agent during first stage of labor: a dose-response study.
(15/280)
BACKGROUND: Intrathecal clonidine produces dose-dependent postoperative analgesia and enhances labor analgesia from intrathecal sufentanil. The authors evaluated the dose-response potency of intrathecally administered clonidine by itself during first stage of labor with respect to analgesia and maternal and fetal side effects. METHODS: Thirty-six parturients requesting labor analgesia were included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Parturients with < 6 cm cervical dilatation received either 50, 100, or 200 microg intrathecal clonidine. The authors recorded visual analog pain score (VAPS), maternal blood pressure and heart rate, ephedrine requirements, and sedation at regular intervals and fetal heart rate tracings continuously. Duration of analgesia was defined as time from intrathecal clonidine administration until request for additional analgesia. RESULTS: Clonidine produced a reduction in VAPS with all three doses. The duration of analgesia was significantly longer in patients receiving 200 microg (median, 143; range, 75-210 min) and 100 microg (median, 118; range, 60-180 min) than 50 microg (median, 45; range, 25-150 min), and VAPS was lower in the 200-microg than in the 50-microg group. In the 200-microg group, hypotension required significantly more often treatment with ephedrine than in the other groups. No adverse events or fetal heart rate abnormalities occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Fifty to 200 microg intrathecal clonidine produces dose-dependent analgesia during first stage of labor. Although duration and quality of analgesia were more pronounced with 100 and 200 microg than with 50 microg, the high incidence of hypotension requires caution with the use of 200 microg for labor analgesia. (+info)
Effect of combined spinal-epidural ambulatory labor analgesia on balance.
(16/280)
BACKGROUND: Low-dose combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labor has proved popular with women because lower-limb motor power is preserved, allowing ambulation. However, there has been debate about the safety of allowing women to walk following low-dose regional analgesia because of somatosensory impairment. The authors undertook a prospective controlled observational study using computerized dynamic posturography to examine balance function in pregnant women after combined spinal-epidural analgesia. METHODS: The authors performed posturographic testing on 44 women in labor after institution of regional analgesia and compared them with a control group of 44 pregnant women. A separate group of six women were tested both before and after combined spinal-epidural analgesia. RESULTS: Neurologic examination after regional analgesia showed two parturients (4%) to have motor weakness (excluded from posturography). Four women (9%) had clinical dorsal column sensory loss; these women all completed posturography. The spinal-epidural analgesia group showed a small, statistically significant reduction in one of six posturographic sensory-organization tests; however, this difference was functionally minor. There were no other differences in posturography between the control and spinal-epidural groups. Similar results were found in the paired study, in which there was minimal change in balance function after spinal-epidural analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to objectively examine the effect of spinal-epidural analgesia on balance function. Using computerized dynamic posturography, the authors were unable to find any functional impairment of balance function after spinal-epidural ambulatory analgesia in women in labor who had no clinical evidence of motor block. (+info)