28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block Translated title: Bloqueio combinado raquiperidural para analgesia de parto. Estudo comparativo com bloqueio peridural contínuo

      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

          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.

          Translated abstract

          Resumo Introdução: O bloqueio peridural lombar constitui técnica eficaz e rotineiramente empregada para alívio da dor do parto e o bloqueio combinado raquiperidural tem como benefícios o emprego de doses menores de anestésicos locais e rápido início de analgesia. O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar comparativamente a eficácia e a segurança de duas técnicas anestésicas: bloqueio combinado raquiperidural e peridural contínua em grávidas submetidas à analgesia de parto. Método: Oitenta gestantes, ASA 2 e 3, apresentação cefálica e dilatação cervical entre cinco e seis centímetros, submetidas à analgesia de parto, distribuídas em dois grupos de acordo com a técnica anestésica: técnica combinada raquiperidural (GI) e peridural contínua (GII). Avaliaram-se: intensidade de dor antes do bloqueio; tempo para completa analgesia; grau do bloqueio motor; tempo para dilatação cervical total; duração do 2° estágio do trabalho de parto; intensidade de dor durante o 1° e o 2° estágio do trabalho de parto; tipo de parto; uso de ocitocina durante trabalho de parto; parâmetros cardiocirculatórios, respiratórios e eventos adversos maternos; repercussões neonatais. Resultados: No momento da anestesia a intensidade de dor era semelhante em ambos os grupos. O alívio da dor foi mais rápido no GI (4,5 ± 1,5 min) quando comparado com o GII (11,6 ± 4,6 min) p = 0,01; os escores de dor no primeiro e segundo estágios de parto foram menores no GI (0,9 ± 0,3) e (1,8 ± 0,7) quando comparados com o GII (1,9 ± 0,6) e (2,2 ± 0,5) com p = 0,01 somente no primeiro estágio de trabalho de parto; houve necessidade de complementação com anestésicos locais no GII; partos espontâneos mais frequentes em GI (80% das pacientes) do que em GII (50%) p = 0,045 e instrumentais mais frequentes (p = 0,03) em GII (12 pacientes) quando comparadas com o GI (quatro pacientes); a frequência de partos cesáreos foi significativamente maior (p = 0,02) no Grupo II do que no Grupo I, quatro casos no GI e oito no GII; ausência de alterações cardiocirculatórias e respiratórias maternas e repercussões neonatais; prurido mais frequente no GI (10 pacientes) e (0 paciente no GII) p = 0,02. Conclusão: O bloqueio combinado mostrou-se eficaz com melhor qualidade de analgesia e maior conforto às gestantes, constitui boa opção para a prática de analgesia obstétrica.

          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.

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Labour analgesia and obstetric outcomes.

              Neuraxial analgesic techniques are the gold standards for pain relief during labour and delivery. Despite the increased use and known benefits of neuraxial labour analgesia, there has been significant controversy regarding the impact of neuraxial analgesia on labour outcomes. Review of the evidence suggests that effective neuraxial labour analgesia does not increase the rate of Caesarean delivery, even when administered early in the course of labour; however, its use is associated with a prolonged second stage of labour. Effective second-stage analgesia might also be associated with an increased rate of instrumental vaginal delivery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                rba
                Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia
                Rev. Bras. Anestesiol.
                Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Campinas, SP, Brazil )
                0034-7094
                1806-907X
                January 2019
                : 69
                : 1
                : 7-12
                Affiliations
                Campinas São Paulo orgnameUniversidade Estadual de Campinas orgdiv1Faculdade de Ciências Médicas orgdiv2Departamento de Anestesiologia Brazil
                Article
                S0034-70942019000100007
                10.1016/j.bjane.2018.08.003
                deeebb93-bed4-425b-a836-12640dfac015

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 21, Pages: 6
                Product
                Product Information: website
                Categories
                Scientific Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article