40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Acupuncture with manual and electrical stimulation for labour pain: a longitudinal randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          Acupuncture is commonly used to reduce pain during labour despite contradictory results. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture with manual stimulation and acupuncture with combined manual and electrical stimulation (electro-acupuncture) compared with standard care in reducing labour pain. Our hypothesis was that both acupuncture stimulation techniques were more effective than standard care, and that electro-acupuncture was most effective.

          Methods

          A longitudinal randomised controlled trial. The recruitment of participants took place at the admission to the labour ward between November 2008 and October 2011 at two Swedish hospitals . 303 nulliparous women with normal pregnancies were randomised to: 40 minutes of manual acupuncture (MA), electro-acupuncture (EA), or standard care without acupuncture (SC). Primary outcome: labour pain, assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes: relaxation, use of obstetric pain relief during labour and post-partum assessments of labour pain. The sample size calculation was based on the primary outcome and a difference of 15 mm on VAS was regarded as clinically relevant, this gave 101 in each group, including a total of 303 women.

          Results

          Mean estimated pain scores on VAS (SC: 69.0, MA: 66.4 and EA: 68.5), adjusted for: treatment, age, education, and time from baseline, with no interactions did not differ between the groups (SC vs MA: mean difference 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.7-6.9 and SC vs EA: mean difference 0.6 [95% CI] -3.6-4.8). Fewer number of women in the EA group used epidural analgesia (46%) than women in the MA group (61%) and SC group (70%) (EA vs SC: odds ratio [OR] 0.35; [95% CI] 0.19-0.67).

          Conclusions

          Acupuncture does not reduce women’s experience of labour pain, neither with manual stimulation nor with combined manual and electrical stimulation. However, fewer women in the EA group used epidural analgesia thus indicating that the effect of acupuncture with electrical stimulation may be underestimated. These findings were obtained in a context with free access to other forms of pain relief.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01197950.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Neural mechanism underlying acupuncture analgesia.

          Acupuncture has been accepted to effectively treat chronic pain by inserting needles into the specific "acupuncture points" (acupoints) on the patient's body. During the last decades, our understanding of how the brain processes acupuncture analgesia has undergone considerable development. Acupuncture analgesia is manifested only when the intricate feeling (soreness, numbness, heaviness and distension) of acupuncture in patients occurs following acupuncture manipulation. Manual acupuncture (MA) is the insertion of an acupuncture needle into acupoint followed by the twisting of the needle up and down by hand. In MA, all types of afferent fibers (Abeta, Adelta and C) are activated. In electrical acupuncture (EA), a stimulating current via the inserted needle is delivered to acupoints. Electrical current intense enough to excite Abeta- and part of Adelta-fibers can induce an analgesic effect. Acupuncture signals ascend mainly through the spinal ventrolateral funiculus to the brain. Many brain nuclei composing a complicated network are involved in processing acupuncture analgesia, including the nucleus raphe magnus (NRM), periaqueductal grey (PAG), locus coeruleus, arcuate nucleus (Arc), preoptic area, nucleus submedius, habenular nucleus, accumbens nucleus, caudate nucleus, septal area, amygdale, etc. Acupuncture analgesia is essentially a manifestation of integrative processes at different levels in the CNS between afferent impulses from pain regions and impulses from acupoints. In the last decade, profound studies on neural mechanisms underlying acupuncture analgesia predominately focus on cellular and molecular substrate and functional brain imaging and have developed rapidly. Diverse signal molecules contribute to mediating acupuncture analgesia, such as opioid peptides (mu-, delta- and kappa-receptors), glutamate (NMDA and AMPA/KA receptors), 5-hydroxytryptamine, and cholecystokinin octapeptide. Among these, the opioid peptides and their receptors in Arc-PAG-NRM-spinal dorsal horn pathway play a pivotal role in mediating acupuncture analgesia. The release of opioid peptides evoked by electroacupuncture is frequency-dependent. EA at 2 and 100Hz produces release of enkephalin and dynorphin in the spinal cord, respectively. CCK-8 antagonizes acupuncture analgesia. The individual differences of acupuncture analgesia are associated with inherited genetic factors and the density of CCK receptors. The brain regions associated with acupuncture analgesia identified in animal experiments were confirmed and further explored in the human brain by means of functional imaging. EA analgesia is likely associated with its counter-regulation to spinal glial activation. PTX-sesntive Gi/o protein- and MAP kinase-mediated signal pathways as well as the downstream events NF-kappaB, c-fos and c-jun play important roles in EA analgesia.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity.

            To determine the amount of change in pain severity, as measured by a visual analog scale, that constitutes a minimum clinically significant difference. Patients 18 years of age or older who presented with acute pain resulting from trauma were enrolled in this prospective, descriptive study. The setting was an urban county hospital emergency department with a Level 1 trauma center. In the course of a brief interview, patients were asked to indicate their current pain severity with a single mark through a standard 100-mm visual analog scale. At intervals of 20 minutes for the next 2 hours, patients were asked to repeat this measurement and, in addition, to contrast their present pain severity with that at the time of the previous measurement. They were to indicate whether they had "much less," "a little less," "about the same," "a little more," or "much more" pain. All contrasts were made without reference to prior visual analog scale measurements. A maximum of six measurements of pain change were recorded per patient. Measurements ended when the patient left the ED or when the patient reported a pain score of zero. The minimum clinically significant change in visual analog scale pain score was defined as the mean difference between current and preceding visual analog scale scores when the subject noted a little less or a little more pain. Forty-eight subjects were enrolled, and 248 pain contrasts were recorded. Of these contrasts, 41 were rated as a little less and 39 as a little more pain. The mean difference between current and preceding visual analog scale scores in these 80 contrasts was 13 mm (95% confidence interval, 10 to 17 mm). The minimum clinically significant change in patient pain severity measured with a 100-mm visual analog scale was 13 mm. Studies of pain experience that report less than a 13-mm change in pain severity, although statistically significant, may have no clinical importance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain.

              A visual analogue scale (VAS) and a 4-point scale (FPS) have been compared in patients suffering from prolonged constant pain due to chronic inflammatory or degenerative arthropathy. Each patient was treated with a constant low or high dose of paracetamol or dihydrocodeine throughout a four week period. The VAS was accurate, as reliable and more sensitive than the FPS in registering the intensity of chronic pain. Separate records of each estimate, sealed immediately on completion by the patient, resulted in omission of significantly more pain recordings on the FPS, whereas retention by the patients of their previous records did not systematically influence subsequent judgments. In this study, the VAS appeared to be more satisfactory than the FPS for patient self-rating of pain intensity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMC Complement Altern Med
                BMC Complement Altern Med
                BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
                BioMed Central
                1472-6882
                2014
                9 June 2014
                : 14
                : 187
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Reproductive Health, Karolinska Institutet, Retzius väg 13A, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
                [2 ]School of Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, 791 88 Falun, Sweden
                [3 ]Centre for Clinical Research Dalarna, Nissers väg 3, 791 82 Falun, Sweden
                [4 ]Department of Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
                [5 ]Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                [6 ]School of Health and Education, University of Skövde, P.O. Box 408, 541 28 Skövde, Sweden
                Article
                1472-6882-14-187
                10.1186/1472-6882-14-187
                4055800
                24913704
                cf26b5a9-510b-43d7-9898-1bd2638fa163
                Copyright © 2014 Vixner et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 February 2014
                : 29 May 2014
                Categories
                Research Article

                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                Complementary & Alternative medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article