BACKGROUND: Although patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) during labor has been extensively studied in recent clinical trials, the role of a background infusion associated with self-administered boluses is still debated. The authors designed a study to assess whether the use of PCEA with or without background infusion could improve the comfort of parturients and their satisfaction during labor and delivery without affecting the total consumption of local anesthetics. METHODS:One hundred thirty-three laboring parturients requestingepidural analgesia administered via PCEA with a solution of 0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil were randomly assigned to four groups, according to the rate of background infusion used (0, 3, 6, and 9 ml/h). Local anesthetic requirements, maternal satisfaction, verbal pain scores, incidence of side effects, and outcome of labor were compared among groups. RESULTS:Patient demographics, labor characteristics, side effects, and Apgar scores were similar in each group. No significant differences were observed between groups in verbal pain scores during labor, number of supplemental boluses, or maternal satisfaction. A significantly greater overall total drug consumption with a 6-ml/h or a 9-ml/h background infusion (74 and 78 ml, respectively) was observed in comparison with PCEA without a background infusion (55 ml). A similar relation was observed for hourly use during both the first and the second stage of labor. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the use of a background infusion with PCEA during labor leads to a greater consumption of anesthetic solution without improving comfort and satisfaction of parturients. Moreover, not using a background infusion does not provide an increased incidence of supplemental boluses (which might cause problems in a busy unit) and allows for a substantial reduction in the cost of analgesia.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) during labor has been extensively studied in recent clinical trials, the role of a background infusion associated with self-administered boluses is still debated. The authors designed a study to assess whether the use of PCEA with or without background infusion could improve the comfort of parturients and their satisfaction during labor and delivery without affecting the total consumption of local anesthetics. METHODS: One hundred thirty-three laboring parturients requesting epidural analgesia administered via PCEA with a solution of 0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil were randomly assigned to four groups, according to the rate of background infusion used (0, 3, 6, and 9 ml/h). Local anesthetic requirements, maternal satisfaction, verbal pain scores, incidence of side effects, and outcome of labor were compared among groups. RESULTS:Patient demographics, labor characteristics, side effects, and Apgar scores were similar in each group. No significant differences were observed between groups in verbal pain scores during labor, number of supplemental boluses, or maternal satisfaction. A significantly greater overall total drug consumption with a 6-ml/h or a 9-ml/h background infusion (74 and 78 ml, respectively) was observed in comparison with PCEA without a background infusion (55 ml). A similar relation was observed for hourly use during both the first and the second stage of labor. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the use of a background infusion with PCEA during labor leads to a greater consumption of anesthetic solution without improving comfort and satisfaction of parturients. Moreover, not using a background infusion does not provide an increased incidence of supplemental boluses (which might cause problems in a busy unit) and allows for a substantial reduction in the cost of analgesia.
Authors: Pamela Angle; Christine Kurtz Landy; Cathy Charles; Jennifer Yee; Jo Watson; Rose Kung; Jean Kronberg; Stephen Halpern; Desmond Lam; Lie Ming Lie; David Streiner Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2010-03-13 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Ban Leong Sng; David Woo; Wan Ling Leong; Hao Wang; Pryseley Nkouibert Assam; Alex Th Sia Journal: J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-10