Patient-requested Neuraxial Analgesia for Labor (original) (raw)
Related papers
Anesthesiology, 2007
A systematic review, including a meta-analysis, on the timing effects of neuraxial analgesia (NA) on cesarean and instrumental vaginal deliveries in nulliparous women was conducted. Of 20 articles identified, 9 met the inclusion quality criteria (3,320 participants). Cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.23) and instrumental vaginal delivery (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.21) rates were similar in the early NA and control groups. Neonates of women with early NA had a higher umbilical artery pH and received less naloxone. In the early NA group, fewer women were not compliant with assigned treatment and crossed over to the control group. Women receiving early NA for pain relief are not at increased risk of operative delivery, whereas those receiving early parenteral opioid and late epidural analgesia present a higher risk of instrumental vaginal delivery for nonreassuring fetal status, worse indices of neonatal wellness, and a lower quality of maternal analgesia.
Use of Labor Neuraxial Analgesia for Vaginal Delivery and Severe Maternal Morbidity
JAMA Network Open, 2022
IMPORTANCE Addressing severe maternal morbidity (SMM) is a public health priority in the US. Use of labor neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is suggested to reduce the risk of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), the leading cause of preventable severe maternal morbidity. OBJECTIVE To assess the association between the use of labor neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery and SMM. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this population-based cross-sectional study, women
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2012
Objective To assess if there is a difference in duration of labor, the mode of delivery, average Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, maternal overall satisfaction with analgesia, side effects and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women who received early labor analgesia with either epidural, patient-controlled IV analgesia (PCIA) with remifentanil or combined spinal-epidural (CSE) techniques. Study design This is a prospective randomized interventional study. Subjects and methods The study included 1,140 healthy nulliparous women (with term, singleton pregnancies) early in labor, requesting labor analgesia, during the period from September 2009 to August 2011 at TAIBA Hospital in Kuwait. The participants were randomized to receive either epidural analgesia (Group I), or PCIA with remifentanil (Group II) or CSE analgesia (Group III). The primary outcome was the rate of cesarean delivery. Results CSE analgesia was associated with a statistically highly significant decrease in labor duration (from analgesia to vaginal delivery), duration of latent and active phases of the first stage, and duration of the second stage of labor, average VAS pain scores, and a highest maternal overall satisfaction score with analgesia (P \ 0.01) as compared to epidural analgesia or PCIA with remifentanil. Conclusion In terms of labor duration, average VAS pain scores, and maternal overall satisfaction score with analgesia, CSE analgesia is superior to that provided by epidural analgesia or PCIA with remifentanil for pain relief in early labor in nulliparous women. However, there were no differences in the mode of delivery, side effects or neonatal outcomes between the three techniques.
Labor analgesia and its impact on the maternal and perinatal outcomes
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira, 2023
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in parturients undergoing labor analgesia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study in parturients who underwent labor analgesia. Parturients were categorized into three groups: Group 1 (n=83)-analgesia performed with cervical dilatation ≤4.0 cm; Group 2 (n=82)-analgesia performed with cervical dilatation between 5.0 and 8.0 cm; and Group 3 (n=83)-analgesia performed with cervical dilatation ≥9.0 cm. RESULTS: Analgesia in parturients with cervical dilatation ≥9.0 cm showed a higher prevalence and a 3.86-fold increase (OR 3.86; 95%CI 1.50-9.87; p=0.009) in the risk of forceps delivery. Analgesia in parturients with cervical dilatation ≤4.0 cm showed a higher prevalence and a 3.31-fold increase (OR 3.31; 95%CI 1.62-6.77; p=0.0016) in the risk of cesarean section. Analgesia in parturients with cervical dilatation ≥9.0 cm was associated with a higher prevalence of fetal bradycardia (20.7%), a need for neonatal oxygen therapy (6.1%), and a need for admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (4.9%). Analgesia in parturients with cervical dilatation ≤4 cm was associated with a higher prevalence of Apgar score <7 at 1st minute (44.6%). CONCLUSION: Performing labor analgesia in parturients with cervical dilatation ≤4.0 or ≥9.0 cm was associated with a higher prevalence of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 2010
Purpose Modern neuraxial labour analgesia reflects a shift in obstetrical anesthesia thinking -away from a simple focus on pain relief towards a focus on the overall quality of analgesia. However, advances in the methods used to measure outcomes have not kept pace with clinical progress, and these approaches must evolve to facilitate meaningful assessment of the advances provided towards the quality of analgesia. Developing a tool to measure the quality of neuraxial labour analgesia that research has achieved is best guided by women's perspectives. As the initial step in developing an instrument to quantitatively measure quality neuraxial labour analgesia, this qualitative descriptive study explored childbearing women's experiences and perspectives regarding this subject. Methods Twenty-eight postpartum women, all delivering with neuraxial labour analgesia, were recruited from three
Update on modern neuraxial analgesia in labour: a review of the literature of the last 5 years
Anaesthesia, 2011
Several strategies and alternative therapies have been used to provide analgesia for labour pain. Over the last few years, a number of improvements have enhanced the efficacy and safety of neuraxial analgesia and ultimately have improved mothers' satisfaction with their birth experience. As labour analgesia is a field of obstetric anaesthesia that is rapidly evolving, this review is an update, from a clinical point of view, of developments over the last 5-7 years. We discuss advantages and controversies related to combined spinal-epidural analgesia, patient controlled epidural analgesia and the integration of computer systems into analgesic modalities. We also review the recent literature on future clinical and research perspectives including ultrasound guided neuraxial block placement, epidural adjuvants and pharmacogenetics. We finally look at the latest work with regards to epidural analgesia and breastfeeding.
Women and Birth, 2020
To compare labour and birth outcomes between nulliparous women who used versus did not use intrapartum epidural analgesia. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Two maternity hospitals in Ireland. Population: A total of 1221 nulliparous women who gave birth vaginally or by emergency caesarean section. Methods: Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyse categorical outcomes, with results presented as ratios of relative risks (RRR). For dichotomous outcomes we used logistic regression, with results presented as odds ratios (OR). Main outcome measures: Mode of birth, IV syntocinon use, pyrexia (!38 C), antibiotic treatment, first stage labour !10 h, second stage labour !2 h, blood loss (!500 mls, !1000 mls), perineal trauma. Neonatal outcomes included APGAR score !7 at 1 min and 5 min, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, and infant feeding method. Results: Women using EA were more likely to require a vacuum-assisted birth (RRR 3.35, p < 0.01) or forceps-assisted birth (RRR 11.69, p < 0.01). Exposure to EA was associated with significantly greater risk of !10 h first (OR 6.72, p = 0.01) and !2 h second (OR 2.25, p < 0.01) stage labour, increased likelihood of receiving IV syntocinon (OR 9.38, p < 0.01), antibiotics (OR 2.97, p < 0.01) and a greater probability of pyrexia (OR 10.26, p < 0.01). Women who used EA were half as likely to be breastfeeding at three months postpartum (OR 0.53, p < 0.01). No differences were observed between groups in neonatal outcomes. Conclusions: Our data shows significant associations between EA use and several intrapartum outcomes.