Literature DB >> 27591455

A prospective, randomized, blinded-endpoint, controlled study - continuous epidural infusion versus programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor analgesia.

Joana Nunes1, Sara Nunes2, Mariano Veiga2, Mara Cortez2, Isabel Seifert2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that administration of a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) leads to greater analgesia efficacy and maternal satisfaction with decreased anesthetic interventions.
METHODS: In this study, 166 women with viable pregnancies were included. After an epidural loading dose of 10mL with Ropivacaine 0.16% plus Sufentanil 10μg, parturient were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: A - Ropivacaine 0.15% plus Sufentanil 0.2μg/mL solution as continuous epidural infusion (5mL/h, beginning immediately after the initial bolus); B - Ropivacaine 0.1% plus Sufentanil 0.2μg/mL as programmed intermittent epidural bolus and C - Same solution as group A as programmed intermittent epidural bolus. PIEB regimens were programmed as 10mL/h starting 60min after the initial bolus. Rescue boluses of 5mL of the same solution were administered, with the infusion pump. We evaluated maternal satisfaction using a verbal numeric scale from 0 to 10. We also evaluated adverse, maternal and neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: We analyzed 130 pregnants (A=60; B=33; C=37). The median verbal numeric scale for maternal satisfaction was 8.8 in group A; 8.6 in group B and 8.6 in group C (p=0.83). We found a higher caesarean delivery rate in group A (56.7%; p=0.02). No differences in motor block, instrumental delivery rate and neonatal outcomes were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance of epidural analgesia with programmed intermittent epidural bolus is associated with a reduced incidence of caesarean delivery with equally high maternal satisfaction and no adverse outcomes.
Copyright © 2015 Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analgesia; Analgesia obstétrica; Bolus intermitente programado; Epidural; Epidural analgesic techniques; Infusion; Infusão; Obstetric analgesia; Programmed intermittent bolus; Técnicas de analgesia epidural

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 27591455     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.12.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Braz J Anesthesiol


  5 in total

1.  Patient intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) plus very low continuous epidural infusion (CEI) versus patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) plus continuous epidural infusion (CEI) in primiparous labour: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Maria Belen Rodríguez-Campoó; Antonio Curto; Manuel González; Cesar Aldecoa
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Programmed Intermittent Bolus and Continuous Infusion as the Background Infusion for Parturient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia.

Authors:  Jiqian Xu; Jie Zhou; Hairong Xiao; Shangwen Pan; Jie Liu; You Shang; Shanglong Yao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Optimization of programmed intermittent epidural bolus volume for different concentrations of ropivacaine in labor analgesia: a biased coin up-and-down sequential allocation trial.

Authors:  Xin Ran; Shuzhi Zhou; Kailan Cao; Peng He
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 3.105

4.  Programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal and gynecological cancer surgery: a randomized, triple-blinded clinical trial.

Authors:  Thomas Wiesmann; Lilli Hoff; Lara Prien; Alexander Torossian; Leopold Eberhart; Hinnerk Wulf; Carsten Feldmann
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  Intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusions for labor analgesia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Xian Liu; Huan Zhang; Haijing Zhang; Mengzhuo Guo; Yuanchao Gao; Chunyan Du
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.