Literature DB >> 30506299

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.

Maria Belen Rodríguez-Campoó1, Antonio Curto1, Manuel González2, Cesar Aldecoa3.   

Abstract

Epidural maintenance technique for labour analgesia updates constantly. Thanks to infusion pumps, the recently developed programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) may reduce the use of anesthetic drugs and minimize unintended consequences such as cardio or neurotoxicity. Nevertheless, it is not yet a general practice. So far, there are no comparative studies in the literature that address levobupivacaine-based CEI + PCEA versus CEI + PIEB + PCEA. A randomized double-blind trial was carried out to evaluate if PIEB could reduce local anesthetic use compare to PCEA. Primiparous pregnant patients were divided into two groups: PIEB group (continuous infusion plus intermittent automatic doses) and PCEA group (continuous infusion plus PCEA). The primary objective was to analyze the differences between both groups regarding levobupivacaine total dose. The secondary objectives were to find out the differences concerning pain control, motor blockage, satisfaction score, labour time and delivery outcomes. Statistical analyses were done by protocol. The study recruited 200 patients (103 PIEB, 97 PCEA). The total dose administered was significantly higher in PIEB group: PCEA group 52.97 mg, IC 95% 45.65-60.28 mg and PIEB group 62.04 mg, IC 95% 55.46-68.61 mg (p = 0.021). PIEB group required fewer top up boluses (median value1; range 0-2) than CEI + PCEA group (median value 6; range 3-9) p < 0.05. Satisfaction scores were higher in PIEB group (p = 0.039, CI 95% 1.23-1.42). CEI + PIEB was found to be a good alternative to CEI + PCEA with very high rates of satisfaction in both groups although it was higher in PIEB group. PIEB group required fewer PCEA boluses. Further studies are needed to determine the best approach for epidural pain management.Clinical Trial Number and Registry URL: NCT03133091 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03133091?term=MB+Rodriguez&rank=1) .

Entities:  

Keywords:  Levobupivacaine; Obstetric epidural analgesia; Patient-controlled epidural analgesia; Patient-intermittent epidural boluses

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30506299     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-018-0229-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  36 in total

1.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.

Authors:  D Moher; K F Schulz; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-04-14       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-07-07       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Ropivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, versus bupivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, using patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor: a double-blind comparison.

Authors:  C Fischer; P Blanié; E Jaouën; C Vayssière; I Kaloul; J C Coltat
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  Patient-controlled epidural analgesia following combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour: the effects of adding a continuous epidural infusion.

Authors:  C Missant; A Teunkenst; E Vandermeersch; M Van de Velde
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.669

5.  Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12,944 women in England.

Authors:  Roshni R Patel; Tim J Peters; Deirdre J Murphy
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-01-19       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 6.  The effects of epidural analgesia on labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review.

Authors:  Barbara L Leighton; Stephen H Halpern
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Automated intermittent epidural boluses improve analgesia induced by intrathecal fentanyl during labour.

Authors:  Sebastian M H Chua; Alex T H Sia
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2004 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 5.063

8.  Relative analgesic potencies of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labor: implications for therapeutic indexes.

Authors:  L S Polley; M O Columb; N N Naughton; D S Wagner; C J van de Ven
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing bupivacaine with ropivacaine for labor analgesia.

Authors:  Stephen H Halpern; Terrance W Breen; David C Campbell; Holly A Muir; Jean Kronberg; Robert Nunn; Gordon H Fick
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Labor analgesia and cesarean delivery: an individual patient meta-analysis of nulliparous women.

Authors:  Shiv K Sharma; Donald D McIntire; Jackie Wiley; Kenneth J Leveno
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 7.892

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Optimum interval time of programmed intermittent epidural bolus of ropivacaine 0.08% with sufentanyl 0.3 μg/mL for labor analgesia: a biased-coin up-and-down sequential allocation trial.

Authors:  Shuang-Qiong Zhou; Jing Wang; Wei-Jia Du; Yu-Jie Song; Zhen-Dong Xu; Zhi-Qiang Liu
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 2.628

3.  Programmed intermittent epidural bolus in parturients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Xian-Xue Wang; Xiao-Lan Zhang; Zhao-Xia Zhang; Zi-Qin Xin; Hua-Jing Guo; Hai-Yan Liu; Jing Xiao; Yun-Lin Zhang; Shu-Zhen Yuan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 1.889

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.