不同浓度罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼在硬膜外阶梯式分娩镇痛中的应用

目的观察不同浓度罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼硬膜外阻滞在产程潜伏期阶梯式分娩镇痛中的效果。方法选择2015年2~4月单胎头位初产妇210例,随机分为七组,每组30例。1组:0.125%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼;2组:0.075%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开3cm),0.125%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开≥3cm);3组:0.1%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开3cm),0.125%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开≥3cm);4组:0.15%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼;5组:0.075%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开3cm),0.15%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开≥3cm);6组:0.1%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开3cm),0.15%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开≥3cm);7组:0.125%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开3cm),0.15%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼(宫口开≥3cm)。观察各组VAS评分、产程时间、产后出血量、Bromage评分以及产后不良反应,同时观察新生儿Apgar评分。结果七组产妇镇痛后各时间点的VAS评分差异无统计学意义。2、3组潜伏期时程较1组明显缩短(P0.05),5、6组较4组明显缩短(P0.05)。4组活跃期时程较1组明显延长(P0.05)。2、3组出血量较1组明显减少(P0.05),5、6、7组出血量较2组明显增多(P0.05),同样也明显多于3组(P0.05)。2、3组产妇运动神经阻滞较1组轻微,且5、6、7组产妇运动神经阻滞较4组也明显减弱(P0.05)。各组产妇产后不良反应及新生儿Apgar评分差异无统计学意义。结论产程潜伏期应用0.075%或0.1%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼,活跃期应用0.125%罗哌卡因+0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼,镇痛效果确切,对产程干扰小,产后出血量少,不影响产妇下肢活动,并且对母婴安全无明显影响。     

654-2在椎管内分娩镇痛中的应用

目的:探讨罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼和654-2在椎管内应用预防产妇分娩的镇痛效果.方法:分娩单胎初产妇270例,随机分成A 、B、C 3组,各90例.A组为空白组,无镇痛干预,B、C两组均蛛网膜下腔注入舒芬太尼5ug+盐酸罗哌卡因 2mg,共1ml.B组硬膜外按0.1%罗派卡因+0.1ug/ml舒芬太尼,C组在硬膜外腔注入10mg 654-2,并按B组配方在泵中再加入10 mg 654-2,5ml/h恒速泵入.结果:B、C组均有效镇痛,产程缩短,剖宫产率下降,阴道助产率无增加,C组反而减少(P＜0.05),对胎儿及新生儿无影响(与A组比较),而C组在镇痛和缩短产程上效果更明显(p<0.05).结论:654-2复合罗哌卡因舒芬太尼椎管内分娩镇痛效果明显,产程缩短,是极好的分娩镇痛方法.     

硬膜外混合不同浓度舒芬太尼分娩镇痛时罗哌卡因的半数有效浓度

目的测定产妇硬膜外分娩镇痛时不同浓度舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因的半数有效浓度(EC50),寻找舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因的适宜浓度。方法100例ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级的足月初产妇,妊娠37～42周,随机分为2组:0.4μg/ml舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因组(A组)(n=45)和0.6μg/ml舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因组(B组)(n=55)。2组均在宫口扩张至2～3 cm时行硬膜外穿刺,置管。2组第1例产妇罗哌卡因浓度均为0.12%,随后的罗哌卡因浓度按序贯法确定:即前1例若镇痛有效(注药后30 min时VAS评分≤3分)。则下1例接受的药物降低一个浓度梯度,若镇痛无效,则上升一个浓度梯度,浓度梯度0.01%。若镇痛效果可疑,则下1例接受的药物维持原浓度,计算罗哌卡因的EC50及其95%可信区间。观察镇痛期间发生的不良反应。结果A组、B组皮肤瘙痒发生率分别为11.9%、29.4%(P< 0.05),A组、B组各有1例发生恶心呕吐(P>0.05)。A组罗哌卡因的EC50为0.059%(95%可信区间为0.056%～0.062%),B组罗哌卡因的EC50为0.054%(95%可信区间为0.053%～0.055%)。结论硬膜外混合0.4、0.6μg/ml舒芬太尼分娩镇痛时,罗哌卡因的EC50分别为0.059%、0.054%;舒芬太尼的推荐浓度为0.4μg/ml。     

硬膜外罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼或芬太尼用于潜伏期分娩镇痛

目的探讨硬膜外罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼或芬太尼用于潜伏期分娩镇痛的镇痛效果。方法选择自愿要求分娩镇痛的初产妇120例,随机均分为罗哌卡因+舒芬太尼0.5μg/ml组(S组)和罗哌卡因+芬太尼1.5μg/ml组(F组)。潜伏期宫口开大2cm,规律宫缩时开始硬膜外分娩镇痛,背景输注10ml/h,单次PCA剂量5ml,锁定时间30min。观察记录各时点疼痛VAS评分、产程时间、分娩方式、新生儿Apgar评分、产后出血量、缩宫素使用情况、产妇满意度及不良反应等。结果宫口开大3、5、8、10cm时S组疼痛VAS评分明显低于F组(P0.05);两组间产程时间、剖宫产率和器械助产率差异无统计学意义;两组新生儿出生5min时Apgar评分、缩宫素使用率、产后出血量差异无统计学意义;两组头晕、恶心呕吐、皮肤瘙痒等不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义。结论舒芬太尼复合罗哌卡因用于潜伏期硬膜外分娩镇痛安全有效,不良反应少。     

不同浓度罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼分娩镇痛对产妇产间发热的影响

目的研究不同浓度罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼硬膜外注射用于分娩镇痛对产妇产间发热及致热因子的影响。方法适合阴道分娩、自愿要求分娩镇痛的初产妇120例,孕37～41周,年龄20～35岁,ASA I或Ⅱ级,随机分为三组:0.075%罗哌卡因组(A组)、0.1%罗哌卡因组(B组)和0.125%罗哌卡因组(C组),每组40例。宫口扩张至3 cm时实施硬膜外分娩镇痛,A组0.075%罗哌卡因+舒芬太尼0.5μg/ml;B组0.1%罗哌卡因+舒芬太尼0.5μg/ml;C组0.125%罗哌卡因+舒芬太尼0.5μg/ml。记录镇痛后1、2、3、4和5 h、胎儿娩出即刻、分娩后2 h产妇鼓膜温度;分别在镇痛前、胎儿娩出即刻及分娩后2 h采集产妇静脉血,测定血清IL-1β、IL-6、TNF-α浓度;记录产程时间;采用改良Bromage法评定三组产妇在镇痛后1 h及胎儿娩出即刻的运动神经阻滞程度。结果与镇痛前比较,镇痛后5 h及胎儿娩出即刻三组鼓膜温度明显升高,C组发热率明显高于A组和B组(P0.05)。与镇痛前比较,胎儿娩出即刻三组血清IL-1β、IL-6、TNF-α浓度明显升高(P0.05)。C组第二产程和镇痛时间明显长于A组和B组,B组第二产程和镇痛时间明显长于A组(P0.05)。三组运动神经阻滞程度差异无统计学意义。结论不同浓度罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼硬膜外注射用于分娩镇痛均能产生良好的镇痛效果,低浓度罗哌卡因分娩镇痛产妇发热率低,产妇分娩期间发热与致热因子水平升高相关。     

不同剂量罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼腰-硬联合阻滞在产程潜伏期分娩镇痛的效果

目的 评价不同剂量罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼腰-硬联合阻滞在产程潜伏期分娩镇痛中的效果.方法 选择2013年9月～2014年2月在北京美中宜和妇儿医院住院的80例单胎头位,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级的初产妇,随机、双盲分为舒芬太尼4μg+罗哌卡因2 mg组(S1组)、舒芬太尼4μg+罗哌卡因3mg(S2组)、舒芬太尼4μg+罗哌卡因4mg(S3组)和舒芬太尼4μg(S组),每组20例.均于产程潜伏期(宫口开1 cm)行分娩镇痛.四组均采用0.1％罗哌卡因混合舒芬太尼0.5 μg/ml行PCEA.镇痛期间监测产妇生命体征和胎心率,记录镇痛情况、产程、催产素用量、分娩方式、阴道出血量、新生儿Apgar评分.结果 与S组和S1组比较,镇痛后5、10、60 min和宫口7～8 cm时S2组 、和S3组NRS评分均明显降低(P＜0.01);与S2组比较,镇痛后5 min时S3组NRS评分明显降低(P＜0.01).四组产妇镇痛起效时间、显效时间依次为S3组＜S2组＜S1组＜S组(P＜0.01),首次给药维持时间和镇痛平面依次为S组＜S1组＜S2组＜S3组(P＜0.01).S2组产妇阴道出血量明显少于S1组和S3组(P＜0.05).S3组有4例产妇镇痛后Bromage评分为1分,约1h阻滞消失.S3组恶心发生率明显高于S组和S1组(P＜0.05).S2组产妇产后镇痛满意度高于其他三组.结论 舒芬太尼4 μg复合罗哌卡因2～3 mg均可安全有效地用于产程潜伏期分娩镇痛.舒芬太尼4μg复合罗哌卡因3 mg蛛网膜下腔阻滞镇痛起效快、维持时间长、镇痛效果更佳、产妇满意度高.     

罗哌卡因复合不同浓度舒芬太尼对分娩镇痛的麻醉效果

目的分析对分娩镇痛患者实施罗哌卡因复合不同浓度舒芬太尼的应用效果及安全性。方法将2010-01—2014-05间进行分娩镇痛的产妇120例做为研究对象。其中A组采用0.1%罗哌卡因复合0.2ug/m L舒芬太尼,B组采用0.1%罗哌卡因复合0.4ug/m L舒芬太尼,C组给予0.1%罗哌卡因复合0.6ug/m L舒芬太尼,观察对比3组镇痛的效果及不良反应的发生率。结果 B组和C组产妇的镇痛维持时间高于A组产妇,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);A组镇痛起效时间较长,与其他2组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);C组产妇缩宫素使用量、不良反应发生率等高于A组与B组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论采用0.4ug/ml舒芬太尼复合O~l%罗哌卡因在分娩镇痛中效果肯定,安全性高,值得应用。     

0.15%罗哌卡因硬膜外给药用于分娩镇痛中爆发痛的治疗效果

目的比较不同浓度罗哌卡因单独或复合舒芬太尼硬膜外给药抑制分娩镇痛中爆发痛的临床效果。方法选择成功施行硬膜外分娩镇痛后,第一产程中出现爆发痛的初产妇60例,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,足月单胎,随机分为0.15%罗哌卡因的追加组(A组)和0.08%罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼0.4μg/ml的追加组(B组),每组30例。记录产妇VAS评分、改良Bromage评分、追加次数、罗哌卡因、舒芬太尼用量及缩宫素使用例数、产程时间、分娩方式、不良反应等。结果与B组比较,A组爆发痛给予追加剂量20min后VAS评分明显降低,追加次数明显减少,舒芬太尼用量明显减少,皮肤瘙痒、尿潴留等不良反应发生率明显下降;两组改良Bromage评分均为0,缩宫素使用例数、产程时间、分娩方式差异无统计学意义。结论0.08%罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼0.4μg/ml背景输注8ml/h的情况下,0.15%罗哌卡因抑制分娩镇痛后第一产程中出现的爆发痛的效果明显优于0.08%罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼0.4μg/ml,且不良反应少。     

产妇分娩时舒芬太尼或芬太尼混合罗哌卡因病人自控硬膜外镇痛的效应

目的比较产妇分娩时舒芬太尼或芬太尼混合罗哌卡因病人自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)的效应。方法无产科及硬膜外阻滞禁忌证的阴道分娩单胎初产妇120例,随机分为2组(n：60)：舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因PCEA组(S组)和芬太尼混合罗哌卡因PCEA组(F组)。当产妇宫口开至3cm时,L_(2,3)间隙硬膜外穿刺置管,S组硬膜外注射0．15%罗哌卡因和0．5μg/ml舒芬太尼混合液试验剂量5 ml,随后追加上述混合液10 ml,30min后以0．1%哌卡因和0．5μg/ml舒芬太尼的混合液行PCEA；F组混合液中以2μg/ml芬太尼替代0．5μg/ml舒芬太尼,其他用药情况均与S组同。两组PCA剂量为6 ml,锁定时间为15 min。记录产妇视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS)、下肢运动神经阻滞程度、生命体征、产程、分娩方式、不良反应及新生儿Apgar评分。结果两组镇痛期间VAS评分均降低,S组镇痛20～60 min VAS评分均低于F组。两组镇痛起效时间、达最高镇痛平面的时间、最高绝对平面、PCA实际按压次数、有效按压次数差异均无统计学意义。S组皮肤瘙痒的发生率高于F组,舒芬太尼、芬太尼用量分别为16±8、(70±28)μg,比率为1：4．4。两组产程和分娩方式构成比差异无统计学意义。结论产妇分娩时等效剂量的舒芬太尼或芬太尼混合罗哌卡因PCEA均可提供良好的镇痛效果。     

产程潜伏期蛛网膜下腔注射舒芬太尼联合罗哌卡因混合舒芬太尼病人自控硬膜外镇痛的效果

目的评价产程潜伏期蛛网膜下腔注射舒芬太尼联合0．1％罗哌卡因混合舒芬太尼病人自控硬膜外镇痛（PCEA）的效果。方法80例单胎、足月、有分娩镇痛要求的初产妇，ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级，随机分2组（n=40），潜伏期组（L组）于产程潜伏期（宫口开0．5～2．5cm）行分娩镇痛，活跃期组（A组）于产程活跃期（宫口开3．0～5．0cm）行分娩镇痛。经L2，3行脊椎-硬膜外联合穿刺，蛛网膜下腔注射舒芬太尼10μg后，硬膜外置管连接PCEA装置，镇痛泵内含0．1％罗哌卡因混合舒芬太尼0．5μg／ml，设定单次剂量5ml，锁定时间10min，无背景剂量。镇痛期间持续监测产妇血压、心率、呼吸频率、脉搏血氧饱和度、胎儿心率及宫缩强度，记录镇痛情况、产程、催产素使用情况、阴道出血量、分娩方式、新生儿Apgar评分及不良反应的发生情况。结果2组产妇循环、呼吸功能指标及胎儿心率均在正常范围；与镇痛前比较，2组镇痛期间VAS评分均降低（P〈0．01）；与A组比较，L组罗哌卡因与舒芬太尼的用量、PCEA有效和总的按压次数较多，总镇痛时间长（P〈0．01），单位时间的罗哌卡因、舒芬太尼用量、VAS评分、产程、分娩方式构成比、催产素使用情况、产后出血量、运动阻滞程度、新生儿Apgar评分、产妇不良反应发生率、胎儿宫内窘迫发生率及新生儿窒息发生率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论产程潜伏期蛛网膜下腔注射舒芬太尼10μg联合0．1％罗哌卡因混合舒芬太尼0．5μg／ml PCEA可产生安全、有效地分娩镇痛。     

北京地区妇幼专科医院医务人员对椎管内分娩镇痛认知情况的调查

目的 调查北京地区妇幼专科医院部分医务人员对椎管内分娩镇痛的认知情况,为进一步开展分娩镇痛提供决策依据。
方法 采用自行设计的问卷于2019年6—8月对北京地区22家妇幼专科医院医务人员进行椎管内分娩镇痛认知和应用情况的问卷调查。调查问卷内容包括3个部分共23个条目。
结果 本次调查共收集到调查问卷3 786份,其中95.25%的医务人员听说过椎管内分娩镇痛,清楚了解为39.65%。87.63%的医务人员认为目前最有效的分娩镇痛方法为椎管内分娩镇痛。83.64%的医务人员赞成椎管内分娩镇痛,15.75%的医务人员不支持也不反对分娩镇痛。96.67%的麻醉科医师了解椎管内分娩镇痛,而产科医师和助产士分别只有64%和78.82%了解分娩镇痛。22家妇幼专科医院2018年度椎管内分娩镇痛率最低为2.12%,最高为93.98%,平均为46.25%,其中14家公立妇幼专科医院椎管内分娩镇痛率为43.21%,8家非公立妇幼专科医院为88.63%,分娩镇痛改剖宫产比率为6.20%。
结论 北京地区各妇幼专科医院分娩镇痛率极不均衡,非公立医院分娩镇痛开展比例明显高于公立医院。麻醉科医师、产科医师和助产士对椎管内分娩镇痛了解程度明显高于其他科室人员。     

Anesthesiologists’ practices for late termination of pregnancy: a French national survey

BackgroundApproximately 6600 cases of medical termination of pregnancy are performed in France annually, of which 78% are performed during the second or third trimester of pregnancy. There are few data and no recommendations regarding anesthesia and analgesia for these late terminations. The aims of this study were to determine the role of anesthesiologists and analgesia and anesthesia practices used for late terminations in France.MethodsAn electronic mailing survey was sent to all obstetric anesthesia teams working in hospitals with a prenatal diagnosis center in France. The same survey was also sent to a sample of obstetric anesthesia teams working in hospitals near Paris without a prenatal diagnosis center.ResultsThe response rate was 96% (45/47) for those with and 85% (23/27) for those without a prenatal diagnosis centre. Anesthesiologists at units with prenatal diagnosis participate on a regular or frequent basis on multidisciplinary prenatal committees in 36% of responding centers and are involved in 69% of centers in case of maternal health problems. Epidural or more rarely combined spinal–epidural analgesia is performed in more than 90% of cases. The block is performed after fetocide in 22% of centers and after the start of labor in 38% of centers. Sedation or general anesthesia is used at delivery in every case or at patient request in 2% and 60% of centers, respectively. Minor differences were found when comparing practices of high-volume centers with prenatal diagnosis and small volume centers without.ConclusionsFrench anesthesiologists do not participate routinely in the decision and planning of all late terminations. Overall, very similar analgesic and anesthetic practices are observed in high- and low- volume centers, with epidural techniques being the most common.     

A multicenter interdisciplinary survey of practices and opinions regarding oral intake during labor

IntroductionDifferent society guidelines diverge regarding oral intake in labor. Our goal was to assess practices and opinions in Israeli labor and delivery units, comparing different disciplines.MethodsAn anonymous Google Forms survey was sent to anesthesiologists, obstetricians and midwives in all Israeli labor and delivery units.ResultsResponses were collected from all 27 labor and delivery units contacted, with a total of 501 respondents comprising 161 anesthesiologists, 102 obstetricians and 238 midwives. Forty-eight per cent stated there were no institutional guidelines for oral intake. The most common oral intake permitted was light food (60%). Midwives were significantly more likely than anesthesiologists and obstetricians to consider that women who are both low risk for cesarean delivery (P <0.00001) and high risk for cesarean delivery (P=0.001) should eat. Epidural analgesia did not impact recommendations regarding oral intake. The most common reasons for restricting oral intake were obstetric. Sixty-two per cent identified aspiration as the main risk associated with eating during labor, but 19% of midwives compared with 4% of anesthesiologists and obstetricians stated there were no risks (P <0.00001). The annual delivery volume of the unit did not impact staff practices.ConclusionsThere was a discrepancy between opinions and practices across all disciplines. Permissive practices identified in this survey should be addressed to find the safe middle ground between restrictive and permissive policies for low- and high-risk women.     

A survey of the practice of thoracic epidural analgesia in the United Kingdom

A postal survey of the practice of thoracic epidural analgesia was sent to 275 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Responses were received from 70% of hospitals. Informed consent is rarely adequately obtained, with only 28% of respondents mentioning even the most common complications. Epidural cannulation is most often (60%) performed following induction of general anaesthesia, rather than in the awake patient. A test dose of local anaesthetic without adrenaline is usual. Neither aspirin nor low-dose heparin are considered a contraindication. The majority of respondents used a combination of bupivacaine with fentanyl (51%) or diamorphine (40%), usually administered by continuous infusion. Drugs were frequently prepared and adjusted by anaesthetic staff. The majority of epidurals (63%) are nursed in intensive care units postoperatively. Properly funded pain management teams, at present unusual, would facilitate ward-based epidural management and release intensive care resource. A central register of epidural complications is required to provide valuable evidence for the optimum practice of thoracic epidural analgesia.     

Labor analgesia in the US and Japan

Obstetric anesthesia has made significant progress over the last 50 years. It is one of the major subspecialties in anesthesia in US. Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) was founded in 1968. According to its SCORE project on the practice of obstetric anesthesia, 82.4% of all parturients received some form of anesthesia for cesarean section or labor analgesia. Epidural analgesia was the most common form of labor analgesia (65%), followed by CSEA. This high percentage of anesthesia care for parturients mandates the presence of obstetric anesthesiologists at labor and delivery suites in major hospitals in US. The Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Anesthesia, formerly "Mutsu-bunben Kenkyukai", now called "Bunben to Masui Kenkyukai", was founded in Japan at about the same time as SOAP. Despite its long history, obstetric anesthesia is yet to be a major subspecialty in Japan. It is encouraging, however, that the number of attendants in obstetric anesthesia sessions in JSA seems increasing. SOAP has played an important role in the education and progress of obstetric anesthesia in US. I hope that the joint symposium of SOAP, Bunben to Masui Kenkyukai, and JSA at 39th SOAP annual meeting will facilitate the progress of obstetric anesthesia in Japan.     

硬膜外分娩镇痛对分娩方式影响的回顾性分析

目的 评价硬膜外分娩镇痛对分娩方式的影响.方法 将我院2005年1月至2006年12月的临床分娩资料,按年和月分别统计硬膜外分娩镇痛率、顺产率、产钳率和剖宫产率;收集接受硬膜外分娩镇痛而以剖宫产结束分娩的产妇资料.分娩镇痛的方法是待产妇宫口开至2 cm以上时采用0.15%罗哌卡因或0.1%罗哌卡因复合2 mg/L芬太尼硬膜外镇痛,首剂负荷量10ml～12ml,背景量5 ml/h～8 ml/h,患者自控镇痛量1ml～5 ml,锁定时间15 min,宫口开全停泵.结果 与2005年比较,2006年硬膜外分娩镇痛率升高(21.90%对33.8%,P＜0.05),顺产率升高(51.7%对55.2%,P＜0.05),剖宫产率降低(43.9%对40.1%,P＜0.05),产钳率无明显变化(4.4%对4.7%,P＞0.05).随着每月硬膜外分娩镇痛率由8.4%升至41.2%时,剖宫产率由46.9%降至37.6%,两者之间呈负相关(r=0.678,P＜0.05).两年共完成硬膜外分娩镇痛5 461例,其中1125例(20.6%)以削宫产结束分娩,原因分别为胎儿窘迫371例(33.0%),头盆不称323例(28.7%),持续性枕后位或枕横位219例(19.5%),活跃期停滞141例(12.5%),发烧44例(3.9%),其他原因26例(2.3%).结论 硬膜外分娩镇痛为畏惧产痛而要求削宫产的产妇提供了自然分娩的机会,在一定程度上能够降低剖宫产率、提高自然分娩率;但接受硬膜外分娩镇痛而以剖宫产结束分娩的产妇,剖宫产的原因是否与分娩镇痛有关还需进一步研究.     

The effect of unanticipated perioperative death on anesthesiologists

Purpose

Unanticipated perioperative death (UPD) is a significant event for the anesthesiologist that has not been widely studied. An anonymous questionnaire was used to obtain information about the frequency of UPD, anesthesiologists’ most significant UPD, and their opinions regarding UPD.

Methods

A questionnaire was mailed to all anesthesiologists who were registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta in 2005 (n = 285).

Results

The study achieved a 63% response rate. Sixty-four percent of respondents had been in practice for more than ten years, and 53% of respondents had experienced at least one UPD. After the UPD, 46% of the respondents performed further elective cases the same day, although 62% of them indicated that this was not advisable. Personal consequences were reported. Twenty-five percent felt they were being blamed for the event, and 10% thought about the UPD on a daily basis for more than a year afterwards. Mortality and morbidity reviews were common, and disciplinary consequences occurred infrequently. Sixty-four percent of anesthesiologists’ most significant UPDs were elective cases. The etiology of death was thought to be anesthesia-related in only 11% of the UPDs. Although most respondents agreed that supportive and educational activities in the aftermath were advisable, such activities occurred in a minority of cases.

Conclusions

Alberta anesthesiologists are likely to experience UPD during their careers, and the experience can be associated with important personal consequences. Support for the anesthesiologist is inconsistent, and many continued to perform elective cases immediately following UPD. These conditions were not supported by the majority of respondents.     

硬膜外镇痛联合导乐陪伴在全程分娩中的应用

目的 评估硬膜外镇痛联合导乐陪伴(助产士陪伴)用于全程分娩的效果.方法 300例初产妇进入产程潜伏期后实施分娩镇痛联合导乐陪伴(A组)、单用分娩镇痛(B组)和单用导乐陪伴(C组),每组100例.记录镇痛效果(VAS)、神经阻滞评分(MBS)、满意度评分、产程、分娩方式、催产素的使用、新生儿Apgar评分及不良反应.结果 A和B组镇痛后30 minVAS评分显著低于镇痛前[(0.9±0.6)分和(1.0±0.5)分vs.(7.6±1.2)分和(7.4±1.4)分](P<0.01).A组产妇满意度显著高于B组和C组[(98.2±3.0)分vs.(85.2±5.8)分和(83.6±6.1)分](P<0.05).A组及C组第一、二产程均短于B组(P<0.05).结论 硬膜外镇痛联合导乐陪伴用于分娩全程,镇痛效果确切,并可缩短产程.     

第二产程有背景剂量硬膜外分娩镇痛对产程和分娩结局的影响

目的探讨在产妇自控硬膜外分娩镇痛基础上加用背景剂量方案并持续至第二产程结束的镇痛效果及其是否增加围产期风险。方法本研究是一项回顾性队列研究,选择北京大学第一医院2014年3月和2015年3月所有接受硬膜外分娩镇痛的初产妇503例,按照镇痛方案分成两组,有背景剂量组(P组,n=245)和无背景剂量组(C组,n=258)。收集产妇的基线资料,围产期资料和NRS疼痛评分,分析不同镇痛方案对围产期不良事件的影响。结果 P组第二产程NRS疼痛评分[3(3~4)分vs.5(4~5)分]明显低于C组(P0.001)。P组第二产程时间[50(29~82)min vs.38(24~62)min]明显长于C组(P=0.001),产时出血量[200(100~250)ml vs.150(100~200)ml]明显多于C组(P=0.003)。两组的最终分娩方式(P=0.656)和产后出血发生率(9.8%vs.10.9%,P=0.697)差异无统计学意义。结论相比于单纯自控镇痛,加用背景剂量的硬膜外分娩镇痛提供更好镇痛效果的同时不增加围产期风险,可安全应用于临床。     

National survey of obstetric anaesthesia clinical practices in the republic of Austria

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to describe the current obstetric anaesthetic practices in Austria by performing a comprehensive questionnaire survey.MethodsA questionnaire was sent via email to key anaesthesiologists from obstetric anaesthesia departments of 81 hospitals registered at the Austrian Ministry of Health.ResultsOf 81 departments contacted, 65 (80%), covering 84% of annual births in Austria, responded to the 82-question survey. Epidural analgesia was offered universally, at a rate under 30% in 56 (86%) of respondent hospitals. The caesarean section rate was under 30% in 44 (68%) respondent obstetric units. All respondents provided spinal anaesthesia as the primary anaesthetic technique for elective caesarean section. Three (5%) respondents administered long-acting intrathecal morphine and 18 (28%) respondents did not routinely administer any intrathecal opioid. Wound infiltration for acute postoperative pain control was practiced in two (3%) respondent units. A transversus abdominis plane block was offered as rescue analgesia in 14 (22%) departments. Spinal hypotension was treated using a prophylactic phenylephrine infusion in two (3%) respondent hospitals. Prophylactic antibiotics were administered prior to skin incision by 31 (48%) respondents.ConclusionThis survey reveals that obstetric anaesthetic practices in Austria differ in part from current European and American guidelines. Findings will direct the national workforce on obstetric anaesthesia that aims to introduce into Austria practice guidelines, based on international collaborations and guideline recommendations.