硬膜外分娩镇痛对分娩方式的影响

目的 评价硬膜外分娩镇痛对分娩方式的影响.方法 初产妇400例,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,足月、单胎、头位,无妊娠并发症及硬膜外麻醉禁忌证.分为硬膜外镇痛组和非镇痛组(n=200).硬膜外镇痛组宫口开至3 cm时,采用0.1%罗哌卡因混合0.5 μg/ml舒芬太尼行硬膜外镇痛,宫口开全后停止镇痛.记录镇痛前和镇痛15 min时VAS评分;评价运动阻滞程度;记录分娩方式、第一产程、第二产程、新生儿出生后1、5 min时Apgar评分和新生儿体重;记录镇痛过程中不良反应的发生情况.结果 硬膜外镇痛组镇痛15 min时VAS评分由(8.3±0.8)分降至(1.6±1.1)分(P＜0.05).与非镇痛组比较,硬膜外镇痛组顺产率和阴道器械助产率升高,剖宫产率降低,第一产程和第二产程延长(P＜0.05).2组新生儿出生后1、5 min时Apgar评分和新生儿体重比较差异无统计学意义(P＜0.05).硬膜外镇痛组下肢运动阻滞发生率为0.5%,下肢麻木发生率为9.0%,恶心呕吐发生率为1.5%.结论 硬膜外分娩镇痛可降低剖宫产率,提高自然分娩率.     

不同浓度罗哌卡因用于全产程硬膜外分娩镇痛的疗效观察

目的比较不同浓度罗哌卡因用于不同产程硬膜外分娩镇痛的效果。方法选择要求硬膜外分娩镇痛的初产妇360例,随机分为3组(n=120)。所有患者在完成硬膜外腔置管后,硬膜外腔注射负荷剂量局麻药(0.1%罗哌卡因+2μg/ml芬太尼),阻滞平面达T_(10)后接PCA泵行PCEA。A组PCA采用0.1%罗哌卡因+2μg/ml芬太尼,宫口开全时停止PCA。B组PCA采用0.1%罗哌卡因+2μg/ml芬太尼全产程镇痛。C组PCA采用0.08%罗哌卡因+2μg/ml芬太尼全产程镇痛。观察产妇镇痛前(T_0)、镇痛后1小时(T_1)、2小时(T_2)、3小时(T_3)、宫口开全时(T_4)、分娩时(T_5)、会阴部修复时(T_6)VAS评分;采用Bromage评分评价运动阻滞程度;记录产程时间、镇痛时间、分娩方式、新生儿Apgar评分、满意度评分及不良反应的发生情况。结果与T_0时比较,B、C两组产妇T_1~T_6时点VAS评分较低,A组T_1~T_5时点VAS评分较低(P0.05)。与A组比较,B、C两组产妇T_6时点VAS评分较低;产妇对分娩镇痛效果满意度较高(P0.05)。3组产妇第一产程时间、第一产程镇痛时间、第二产程时间、分娩方式、新生儿Apgar评分、Bromage评分及不良反应差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论全产程硬膜外分娩镇痛效果优于第一产程分娩镇痛,而0.08%罗哌卡因复合芬太尼用于全产程分娩镇痛具有较好的效果与安全性。     

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。     

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。     

罗哌卡因联合舒芬太尼用于分娩镇痛对镇痛效果和产程的影响

目的探讨罗哌卡因联合舒芬太尼用于硬膜外分娩镇痛对视觉模拟评分(VAS)及产程的影响。方法选择无麻醉禁忌证、无经阴道分娩禁忌且自愿接受硬膜外自控镇痛(PCEA)的初产妇150例,均分成两组:芬太尼组(F组),0.125%罗哌卡因 2μg/ml芬太尼;舒芬太尼组(S组),0.125%罗哌卡因 0.5μg/ml舒芬太尼。另外设置对照组(D组,n=50)未接受PCEA的初产妇。结果S组VAS小于F组(P<0.05);两组均无明显运动阻滞。第一产程F、S组短于D组(P<0.05),但第二产程延长(P<0.05);F、S组的助产率、剖宫产率和D组比差异无统计学意义,三组新生儿1、5minApgar评分差异无统计学意义。结论罗哌卡因联合舒芬太尼用于分娩镇痛具有起效快,镇痛作用强,维持时间长等特点。罗哌卡因联合阿片类药物用于硬膜外分娩镇痛能缩短第一产程延长第二产程,增加缩宫素使用率但不增加剖宫产率和产钳助产率。     

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.     

硬膜外舒芬太尼分娩镇痛的效应随机、多中心研究

目的 采用随机、多中心方法探讨硬膜外舒芬太尼分娩镇痛的有效性和安全性.方法 分娩单胎孕初产妇240例,自愿接受分娩镇痛,无产科及硬膜外阻滞禁忌证,年龄＜35岁,孕周＞37周,体重＜100 kg,随机分为2组(n=120)舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因组(S组)和芬太尼混合罗哌卡因组(F组).当产妇宫口开至3 cm时,L2,3间隙硬膜外穿刺置管,S组硬膜外注射0.15%罗哌卡因和0.5 μg·ml-1舒芬太尼混合液试验剂量5 ml,观察5 min确认导管在硬膜外腔后追加上述混合液5～10 ml,30min后以0.1%罗哌卡因和0.5 μg·ml-1舒芬太尼混合液行病人自控硬膜外镇痛.F组混合液以2 μg·ml-1芬太尼替代0.5 μg·ml-1舒芬太尼,其他用药情况均与S组同.两组PCA剂量均为6 ml,锁定时间均为15 min.于镇痛前、镇痛10、30、60 min行视觉模拟评分(VAS)和运动神经阻滞分级(采用改良Bromage分级法测定),记录镇痛起效时间、首次PCA时间、镇痛药物用量、低血压、镇痛不良反应、镇痛满意度、生命体征、产程、分娩方式及新生儿Apgar评分.结果 与镇痛前比较,镇痛期间两组VAS评分降低(P＜0.05),镇痛效果满意;镇痛10、30和60 min两组收缩压和舒张压均降低(P＜0.05),心率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).与F组比较,S组首次PCA时间延迟约14 min,PCA用量和有效次数减少(P＜0.05),S组皮肤瘙痒发生率增高(P＜0.05).PCA用量舒芬太尼6 μg,芬太尼36 μg,用量比1∶6.两组产后镇痛满意度优良率(分别为95%和93.5%)、镇痛起效时间、VAS评分、镇痛后催产素使用率、产后失血量、产程、剖宫产率、器械助产率及新生儿产后1、5 min Apgar评分差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因硬膜外分娩镇痛安全有效,舒芬太尼镇痛持续时间长于芬太尼,效价为芬太尼的6倍.     

罗哌卡因复合芬太尼用于产妇自控硬膜外分娩镇痛的可行性

目的评价罗哌卡因复合芬太尼用于产妇自控硬膜外镇痛的可行性.方法ASA I～Ⅱ级初产妇足月单胎90例随机分为3组.30例为对照组,60例分为2组镇痛组A组(PCEA-LP)0.2%罗哌卡因复合芬太尼2μg/ml负荷量10ml,当VAS≥20mm时,自控给药4ml/次,锁定时间为15min.B组(PCEA-LCP)相同药物负荷量10ml,半小时后背景量4ml/h,当VAS≥20mm给药4ml/次,锁定时间为15min,直到宫口开全停药.连续监测呼吸循环状况,评估镇痛效应和运动阻滞的程度,观察记录产程进展,采集静脉血测血浆儿茶酚胺浓度,观察不良反应及新生儿情况.结果新生儿评分,脐带静脉血血气分析,活跃期及第Ⅱ产程时间3组无显著差异.A、B两组间VAS疼痛评分,感觉阻滞,运动阻滞程度,NE,E浓度和剖宫产率无差别.对照组剖宫产率显著高于镇痛组(P＜0.01),第一产程末NE、E浓度显著高于镇痛组(P＜0.01).A组用药量、瘙痒发生率低及胎头吸引率均低于B组(P＜0.01).结论0.2%罗哌卡因复合芬太尼2μg/ml硬膜外自控镇痛安全有效,降低了剖宫产率,在相同的分娩镇痛水平PCEA-LP模式比PCEA-LCP模式用药更少,副作用发生率低.     

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。     

布托啡诺联合罗哌卡因在硬膜外分娩镇痛中的效果观察

目的探讨布托啡诺联合罗哌卡因用于硬膜外分娩镇痛中的效果。方法选择90例接受硬膜外分娩镇痛的产妇,均在第一产程开始时实施硬膜外麻醉镇痛。随机分为2组,各45例。观察组应用布托啡诺联合罗哌卡因。对照组使用芬太尼联合罗哌卡因。比较2组镇痛起效时间、镇痛至宫口开全时间、麻醉期间出现的不良反应及新生儿Apgar评分。结果观察组镇痛起效时间短于对照组,不良反应低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。2组镇痛至宫口开全时间及新生儿Apgar评分,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论布托啡诺联合罗哌卡因用于硬膜外分娩镇痛,镇痛起效快、不良反应少,镇痛效果满意。     

Labor analgesia and cesarean delivery: an individual patient meta-analysis of nulliparous women

BACKGROUND: The authors performed an individual patient meta-analysis of 2,703 nulliparous women who were randomized to either epidural analgesia or intravenous opioids for pain relief during labor from five trials conducted at their hospital. The primary purpose in this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of epidural analgesia during labor on the rate of cesarean delivery. METHODS: Between November 1, 1993, and November 3, 2000, 2,703 nulliparous women (2,188 healthy parturients and 515 women with pregnancy-induced hypertension) in spontaneous labor at term were randomized to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous opioid analgesia in the five studies. Epidural analgesia was initiated with either epidural bupivacaine or intrathecal sufentanil and was maintained with a low-dose (0.0625% or 0.125%) mixture of bupivacaine with fentanyl. Intravenous opioid analgesia was initiated with 50 mg meperidine and 25 mg promethazine hydrochloride and was maintained with intravenous boluses of meperidine as needed. RESULTS: A total of 1,339 nulliparous women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 1,364 women were randomized to receive intravenous meperidine analgesia. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups (epidural analgesia, 10.5% [140 of 1,339] vs. intravenous meperidine analgesia, 10.3% [141 of 1,364]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.34; P = 0.920). Significantly more women randomized to epidural analgesia had forceps deliveries compared to meperidine analgesia (13% [172 of 1,339] vs. 7% [101 of 1,364]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.40; P < 0.001). Epidural women had longer first and second stages of labor. Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared to women who received intravenous meperidine analgesia. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia compared to intravenous meperidine analgesia during labor does not increase the number of cesarean deliveries.     

Labor epidurals and outcome

The use of epidural analgesia for labor continues to increase dramatically. It has been suggested that epidural analgesia increases the risk of cesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, and prolonged labor. These issues have been extensively investigated. The use of epidural analgesia does not increase the risk of cesarean section. It may affect the incidence of forceps delivery, but it depends on the medications used. Epidural analgesia does prolong labor, although the clinical significance of this prolongation has not been shown.     

Labor Analgesia and Cesarean Delivery: An Individual Patient Meta-analysis of Nulliparous Women

Background: The authors performed an individual patient meta-analysis of 2,703 nulliparous women who were randomized to either epidural analgesia or intravenous opioids for pain relief during labor from five trials conducted at their hospital. The primary purpose in this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of epidural analgesia during labor on the rate of cesarean delivery.

Methods: Between November 1, 1993, and November 3, 2000, 2,703 nulliparous women (2,188 healthy parturients and 515 women with pregnancy-induced hypertension) in spontaneous labor at term were randomized to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous opioid analgesia in the five studies. Epidural analgesia was initiated with either epidural bupivacaine or intrathecal sufentanil and was maintained with a low-dose (0.0625% or 0.125%) mixture of bupivacaine with fentanyl. Intravenous opioid analgesia was initiated with 50 mg meperidine and 25 mg promethazine hydrochloride and was maintained with intravenous boluses of meperidine as needed.

Results: A total of 1,339 nulliparous women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 1,364 women were randomized to receive intravenous meperidine analgesia. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups (epidural analgesia, 10.5% [140 of 1,339]vs. intravenous meperidine analgesia, 10.3% [141 of 1,364]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.34; P = 0.920). Significantly more women randomized to epidural analgesia had forceps deliveries compared to meperidine analgesia (13% [172 of 1,339]vs. 7% [101 of 1,364]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.40; P < 0.001). Epidural women had longer first and second stages of labor. Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared to women who received intravenous meperidine analgesia.     

Does epidural increase the incidence of cesarean delivery or instrumental labor in Saudi populations?

BACKGROUND: This is a retrospective review of the medical records of 861 patients admitted for vaginal delivery. Patients were randomized to either epidural analgesia or other analgesic methods of pain relief for labor pains. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of epidural analgesia on the rate of cesarean section delivery. METHODS: 861 patients were admitted to Saad Specialist Hospital for vaginal delivery between May 1, to September 30, 2006. Patients were divided into Nulliparous (334 patients) and Multiparous (527 patients) populations. Each population was then divided into two groups, epidural and non-epidural group. Epidural analgesia was initiated by a bolus of bupivacaine 0.25% (6 to 10 ml) plus fentanyl (50 to 100 microg), followed by bupivacaine 0.125% plus fentanyl (1 to 2 microg/ml) at the rate of (6 to 12 ml/h). Non-epidural analgesia was initiated by one or mixture of I.M meperidine 50 to 100 mg I.M, promethazine hydrochloride 25 mg, or Ontonox inhalers. RESULTS: In the Nulliparous population a total of 57 patients requested epidural (the epidural gp), while 277 patients received other analgesic methods (the non-epidural gp). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean section deliveries between the two analgesia groups (12 patients of 57 in the epidural group (21.1%), versus 61 patients of 277 (22%) in the non-epidural gp). In the Multiparous population, a total of 49 patients requested epidural analgesia (epidural gp), while 478 patients received other analgesic methods (the non-epidural gp). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean section deliveries between the two analgesia groups (5 of 49 patients (10.2%) in the epidural group compared to 39 of 478 patients (8.2%) in the non-epidural gp). Significantly, more patients in the epidural group had forceps or vacuum assisted deliveries compared to the other analgesia group (the non-epidural gp). This was evident in both the Nulliparous population (7 of 57 patients in the epidural gp (12.3%) compared to 13 of 277 patients (4.7%) in the non-epidural gp, p<0.05), and in the Multiparous population (4 of 49 patients (8.2%) in the epidural gp versus only 6 of 478 patients (1.3%) in the non-epidural gp, p<0.005). Patients in the epidural gp had significantly lower pain scores compared to the other analgesia gp. Nulliparous reported lower pain scores during the first stage (epidural 2 +/- 2 vs non-epidural 5 +/- 4, p<0.0001) and second stage of labor (epidural 3 +/- 3 vs non-epidural 6 +/- 3, p<0.0001). Multiparous scores were (epidural 2 +/- 2 vs non-epidural 4 +/- 3, p<0.0001) in the first stage and (epidural 3 +/- 3 vs non-epidural 5 +/- 4, p = 0.0007) in the second stage. Higher satisfaction rates were reported in epidural groups versus the non-epidural groups. 80% of Nulliparous women who received epidural rated their satisfaction as excellent or good versus 45% in the non-epidural group p<0.001. In the Multiparous population 77% in the epidural versus 43% in the non-epidural groups p<0.001 reported excellent to good satisfaction rates. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia is an effective method of pain relief during labor compared to the other analgesic methods of labor pain relief, and it does not increase the incidence of cesarean section deliveries.     

Induction of labor with oxytocin increases cesarean section rate as compared with oxytocin for augmentation of spontaneous labor in nulliparous parturients controlled for lumbar epidural analgesia

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To study labor outcomes in parturients receiving oxytocin for augmentation or induction of labor, in the presence of labor epidural analgesia. DESIGN: Retrospective study of data from a continuous quality improvement database. SETTING: Tertiary-care hospital with more than 8000 deliveries per annum. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1671 healthy nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies and who requested labor epidural analgesia at our institution, 675 patients received oxytocin during elective induction of labor, whereas 996 patients received oxytocin for augmentation of spontaneous labor. Measured variables were cervical dilatation at time of epidural analgesia request, epidural insertion to 10-cm time, duration of stage 2 of labor, normal spontaneous vaginal delivery rate, cesarean section rate, operative vaginal delivery rate, and baby weight. Women admitted for induction of labor requested epidural analgesia sooner than those who had their labor augmented (p < 0.001). The incidence of cesarean section was higher in the induced group (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Patients who have their labor induced request analgesia sooner and are at a higher risk of cesarean section than are patients who go into labor spontaneously. Any study that purports to assess the effects of epidural analgesia in labor should distinguish between induced and augmented/spontaneous labor.     

Cesarean delivery: a randomized trial of epidural analgesia versus intravenous meperidine analgesia during labor in nulliparous women

BACKGROUND: Controversy concerning increased cesarean births as a result of epidural analgesia for relief of labor pain has been attributed, in large part, to difficulties interpreting published studies because of design flaws. In this study, the authors compared epidural analgesia to intravenous meperidine analgesia using patient-controlled devices during labor to evaluate the effects of labor epidural analgesia, primarily on the rate of cesarean deliveries while minimizing limitations attributable to study design. METHODS: Four hundred fifty-nine nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term were randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous meperidine analgesia. Epidural analgesia was initiated with 0.25% bupivacaine and was maintained with 0.0625% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 microg/ml at 6 ml/h with 5-ml bolus doses every 15 min as needed using a patient-controlled pump. Women in the intravenous analgesia group received 50 mg meperidine with 25 mg promethazine hydrochloride as an initial bolus, followed by 15 mg meperidine every 10 min as needed, using a patient-controlled pump. A written procedural manual that prescribed the intrapartum obstetric management was followed for each woman randomized in the study. RESULTS: A total of 226 women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 233 women were randomized to receive intravenous meperidine analgesia. Protocol violations occurred in 8% (38 of 459) of women. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups (epidural analgesia, 7% [16 of 226; 95% confidence interval, 4-11%] vs. intravenous meperidine analgesia, 9% [20 of 233; 95% confidence interval, 5-13%]; P = 0.61). Significantly more women randomized to epidural analgesia had forceps deliveries compared with those randomized to meperidine analgesia (12% [26 of 226] vs. 3% [7 of 233]; P < 0.001). Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared with women who received intravenous meperidine analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia compared with intravenous meperidine analgesia during labor does not increase cesarean deliveries in nulliparous women.     

Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Trial of Epidural Analgesia versus Intravenous Meperidine Analgesia during Labor in Nulliparous Women

Background: Controversy concerning increased cesarean births as a result of epidural analgesia for relief of labor pain has been attributed, in large part, to difficulties interpreting published studies because of design flaws. In this study, the authors compared epidural analgesia to intravenous meperidine analgesia using patient-controlled devices during labor to evaluate the effects of labor epidural analgesia, primarily on the rate of cesarean deliveries while minimizing limitations attributable to study design.

Methods: Four hundred fifty-nine nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term were randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous meperidine analgesia. Epidural analgesia was initiated with 0.25% bupivacaine and was maintained with 0.0625% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 [mu]g/ml at 6 ml/h with 5-ml bolus doses every 15 min as needed using a patient-controlled pump. Women in the intravenous analgesia group received 50 mg meperidine with 25 mg promethazine hydrochloride as an initial bolus, followed by 15 mg meperidine every 10 min as needed, using a patient-controlled pump. A written procedural manual that prescribed the intrapartum obstetric management was followed for each woman randomized in the study.

Results: A total of 226 women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 233 women were randomized to receive intravenous meperidine analgesia. Protocol violations occurred in 8% (38 of 459) of women. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups (epidural analgesia, 7% [16 of 226; 95% confidence interval, 4-11%]vs. intravenous meperidine analgesia, 9% [20 of 233; 95% confidence interval, 5-13%];P = 0.61). Significantly more women randomized to epidural analgesia had forceps deliveries compared with those randomized to meperidine analgesia (12% [26 of 226]vs. 3% [7 of 233];P < 0.001). Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared with women who received intravenous meperidine analgesia.     

The effect on breastfeeding rate of regional anesthesia technique for cesarean and vaginal childbirth]

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the influence of regional techniques of anesthesia and analgesia on breastfeeding rate after cesarean section and vaginal delivery. METHODS: Study design: prospective, area-based. Setting: Obstetrics and Pediatrics Department at Aosta Valley Regional Hospital. Subjects: all the mothers and their newborns during a three-year period (1993-1995). Maternal wish to breastfeed was the main inclusion criterion. Data recorded: feeding modality at discharge, anesthesia and analgesia modality, maternal/neonatal socio-demographic and clinical data. RESULTS: 2725 records were examined, among them 1920 vaginal deliveries and 355 cesarean sections were statistically analyzed. chi 2 analysis showed a significant greater incidence of breastfeeding after cesarean section under regional anesthesia (spinal or epidural) versus general anesthesia: 95% vs 85.5%, p = 0.002. Breastfeeding rate was not different after vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia versus delivery without analgesia: 96.5% vs 97.8%. Logistic regression confirmed the positive role of regional anesthesia and few other maternal and neonatal variables on breastfeeding rate after cesarean section. CONCLUSIONS: Regional anesthesia seems to be advantageous for breastfeeding after cesarean section, probably because of a faster neonatal-maternal bonding if compared with general anesthesia. Epidural analgesia for vaginal delivery does not adversely affects breastfeeding if compared with delivery without analgesia.     

低浓度罗哌卡因用于分娩镇痛时对产力的影响

目的探讨低浓度罗哌卡因用于分娩镇痛时对产程中子宫肌和腹肌收缩力的影响。方法选择拟自然分娩初产妇150例,采用随机数字表法将接受分娩镇痛的100例初产妇分为0.0625%罗哌卡因组(罗哌卡因组,50例)和0.0625%左布比卡因组(左布比卡因组,50例),选取同期经阴道分娩未采取镇痛措施的初产妇50例作为对照组。记录产妇的年龄、BMI、孕周、剖宫产率、钳产率、第一产程时间、第二产程时间、缩宫素使用率、产后2 h出血量。分别于分娩镇痛开始时(T1)、分娩镇痛后15 min(T2)、分娩镇痛后30 min(T3)和分娩镇痛后45 min(T4)4个时点采用VAS评分评估产妇疼痛情况。记录肌电图(electromyography,EMG)爆发波能量参数[包括爆发波次数、爆发波持续时间、均方根(root mean square,RMS)、功率及峰值频率],综合评估产妇子宫肌和腹肌收缩力。结果3组产妇在年龄、BMI、孕周、剖宫产率、钳产率及产后2 h出血量方面比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);与对照组和罗哌卡因组比较,左布比卡因组第一产程时长和第二产程时长延长,缩宫素使用率明显升高(P<0.05)。在T2、T3、T4时点,与对照组比较,罗哌卡因组和左布比卡因组产妇VAS评分明显降低(P<0.05)。第一产程中,与对照组比较,罗哌卡因组和左布比卡因组产妇子宫肌EMG的RMS明显降低(P<0.05);与对照组和罗哌卡因组比较,左布比卡因组产妇的EMG功率明显降低(P<0.05)。第二产程中,与对照组和罗哌卡因组比较,左布比卡因组产妇子宫肌EMG的爆发波持续时间明显延长(P<0.05);与对照组比较,罗哌卡因组和左布比卡因组的RMS明显降低(P<0.05)。结论0.0625%的罗哌卡因用于硬膜外分娩镇痛时能达到良好的镇痛效果,对产妇产力无明显影响,且不延长产程。