Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Lumbar epidural block is an effective and routinely used technique for labor pain relief, and the combined spinal-epidural block has the benefit of using lower doses of local anesthetics and rapid onset of analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two anesthetic techniques: combined spinal-epidural block and continuous epidural block in pregnant women for labor analgesia. Methods: Eighty patients, ASA II and III, with cephalic presentation and cervical dilation between 5 and 6 cm, undergoing labor analgesia, allocated in two groups according to the anesthetic technique: combined spinal-epidural (GI) and continuous epidural (GII). Pain severity before the blockade, time to complete analgesia, degree of motor blockade, time to full cervical dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, pain severity during the 1st and 2nd stage of labor, type of delivery, use of oxytocin during labor, maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory parameters and adverse events, and neonatal repercussions were recorded. Results: At the time of anesthesia, pain severity was similar in both groups. Pain relief was faster in GI (4.5 ± 1.5 min) when compared to GII (11.6 ± 4.6 min) p = 0.01; pain scores in the first and second stages of delivery were lower in GI (0.9 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.7, respectively) when compared to GII (1.9 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.5, respectively), with p = 0.01 only in the first stage of labor; there was need for local anesthetics supplementation in GII; there were more frequent spontaneous deliveries in GI (80% of patients) than in GII (50%) (p = 0.045) and more frequent use of instrumental (p = 0.03) in GII (12 patients) compared to GI (4 patients); the frequency of cesarean deliveries was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in Group II than in Group I, with 4 cases in GI and 8 cases in GII; absence of maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory changes and neonatal repercussions; more frequent pruritus in GI (10 patients) and (0 patients in GII) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The combined blockade proved to be effective with better quality of analgesia and greater comfort for pregnant women, constituting a good option for the practice of obstetric analgesia.

Related collections

Most cited references 21

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

Barbara Leighton, Stephen H Halpern (2002)

Mothers given an epidural rather than parenteral opioid labor analgesia report less pain and are more satisfied with their pain relief. Analgesic method does not affect fetal oxygenation, neonatal pH, or 5-minute Apgar scores; however, neonates whose mothers received parenteral opioids require naloxone and have low 1-minute Apgar scores more frequently than do neonates whose mothers received epidural analgesia. Epidural labor analgesia does not affect the incidence of cesarean delivery, instrumented vaginal delivery for dystocia, or new-onset long-term back pain. Epidural analgesia is associated with longer second-stage labor, more frequent oxytocin augmentation, hypotension, and maternal fever (particularly among women who shiver) but not with longer first-stage labor. Analgesic method does not affect lactation success. Epidural use and urinary incontinence are associated immediately postpartum but not at 3 or 12 months. The mechanisms of these unintended effects need to be determined to improve epidural labor analgesia.

0 comments Cited 51 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour.

Scott W Simmons, Neda Taghizadeh, Alicia T Dennis … (2012)

Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction. To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 September 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search on 30 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section. All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Quasi RCTs and cross-over trials were not considered for inclusion in this review. Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. Twenty-seven trials involving 3274 women met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed.Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses five outcomes showed a significant difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to speed of onset of analgesia from time of injection (mean difference (MD) -2.87 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -0.67; two trials, 129 women); the need for rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70; one trial, 42 women); urinary retention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; one trial, 704 women); and rate of instrumental delivery (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; six trials, 1015 women). Traditional epidural was more favourable in relation to umbilical venous pH (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.00; one trial, 55 women). There were no data on maternal satisfaction, blood patch for post dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, umbilical cord pH, rare neurological complications, analgesia for caesarean section after analgesic intervention or any economic/use of resources outcomes for this comparison. No differences between CSE and traditional epidural were identified for mobilisation in labour, the need for labour augmentation, the rate of caesarean birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache, maternal hypotension, neonatal Apgar scores or umbilical arterial pH.For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, three outcomes were statistically significant. Two of these reflected a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection with CSE and the third was of more pruritus with CSE compared to low-dose epidural (average RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.65; 11 trials, 959 women; random-effects, T² = 0.26, I² = 84%). There was no significant difference in maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; seven trials, 520 women; random-effects, T² = 0.00, I² = 45%). There were no data on respiratory depression, maternal sedation or the need for labour augmentation. No differences between CSE and low-dose epidural were identified for need for rescue analgesia, mobilisation in labour, incidence of post dural puncture headache, known dural tap, blood patch for post dural headache, urinary retention, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, headache, the need for labour augmentation, mode of delivery, umbilical pH, Apgar score or admissions to the neonatal unit. There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

0 comments Cited 49 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The relationship of maternal anxiety, plasma catecholamines, and plasma cortisol to progress in labor.

R Lederman, Una McCann, B Work … (1978)

The relationships among maternal anxiety, selected stress-related biochemical factors, and progress in three defined phases of labor were determined for 32 married, normal, primigravid women, 20 to 32 years of age. Comparisons of plasma epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol in third-trimester pregnancy, during labor, and after delivery are provided. At the onset of Phase 2 of labor (3 cm. of cervical dilatation), self-reported anxiety and endogenous plasma epinephrine are significantly correlated. With the deletion of subjects to control for the effect of medications, higher epinephrine levels are significantly associated with lower uterine contractile activity at the onset of Phase 2 and with longer labor in Phase 2 (3 to 10 cm. of cervical dilatation). The relationship between epinephrine and progress in labor is explained by an adrenoreceptor theory.