Ropivacaine 0.15% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL and ropivacaine 0.10% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL are equivalent for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor

We compared the administration of 0.15% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil with that of 0.10% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil for labor analgesia with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) to determine whether a decreased concentration of ropivacaine could produce equally effective analgesia. One-hundred-thirty healthy pregnant women at term were randomized in a double-blinded fashion. The PCEA settings were as follows: 12-mL initial bolus, 5-mL bolus dose, 5-min lockout interval, and 10 mL/h basal infusion. Patient demographics and labor characteristics were comparable in both groups. No differences were observed for pain scores, maternal satisfaction, volume of anesthetic solution administered, number of boluses requested and delivered, need for supplemental boluses, mode of delivery, motor block, side effects, or Apgar scores. Patients in the 0.10% ropivacaine group used significantly less drug than those in the 0.15% group (mean, 57 mg; 95% confidence interval, 50.5-63.5 mg; versus mean, 88.0 mg; 95% confidence interval, 74.4-93.3 mg, respectively; P < 0.0001). Ropivacaine 0.10% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil administered via PCEA for labor analgesia is equally effective as ropivacaine 0.15% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil, with a 30% local anesthetic-sparing effect and a 40% reduction in cost. However, this reduction in local anesthetic is not associated with a decrease in the incidence of motor block, side effects, or instrumental deliveries. IMPLICATIONS: Ropivacaine 0.10% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil given via patient-controlled epidural anesthesia for labor analgesia is equally as effective as ropivacaine 0.15% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil, with a 30% local anesthetic-sparing effect and a 40% reduction in cost. This reduction in ropivacaine concentration is not associated with a decrease in the incidence of motor block, side effects, or instrumental deliveries.     

Background infusion is not beneficial during labor patient-controlled analgesia with 0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil

BACKGROUND: Although patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) during labor has been extensively studied in recent clinical trials, the role of a background infusion associated with self-administered boluses is still debated. The authors designed a study to assess whether the use of PCEA with or without background infusion could improve the comfort of parturients and their satisfaction during labor and delivery without affecting the total consumption of local anesthetics. METHODS: One hundred thirty-three laboring parturients requesting epidural analgesia administered via PCEA with a solution of 0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil were randomly assigned to four groups, according to the rate of background infusion used (0, 3, 6, and 9 ml/h). Local anesthetic requirements, maternal satisfaction, verbal pain scores, incidence of side effects, and outcome of labor were compared among groups. RESULTS: Patient demographics, labor characteristics, side effects, and Apgar scores were similar in each group. No significant differences were observed between groups in verbal pain scores during labor, number of supplemental boluses, or maternal satisfaction. A significantly greater overall total drug consumption with a 6-ml/h or a 9-ml/h background infusion (74 and 78 ml, respectively) was observed in comparison with PCEA without a background infusion (55 ml). A similar relation was observed for hourly use during both the first and the second stage of labor. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the use of a background infusion with PCEA during labor leads to a greater consumption of anesthetic solution without improving comfort and satisfaction of parturients. Moreover, not using a background infusion does not provide an increased incidence of supplemental boluses (which might cause problems in a busy unit) and allows for a substantial reduction in the cost of analgesia.     

甲磺酸罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼用于分娩硬膜外自控镇痛

目的观察甲磺酸罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼硬膜外自控镇痛（PCEA）用于分娩镇痛的效果。方法选择120例ASAI或Ⅱ级初产妇，随机分为舒芬太尼组（A组）、芬太尼组（B组）、无镇痛组（N组），每组40例。A组和B组采用PCEA，N组不给镇痛药物。A组：舒芬太尼0．2．g／L＋0．1％甲磺酸罗哌卡因；B组：芬太尼2μg／L＋0．1％甲磺酸罗哌卡因。观察各组不同时段视觉模拟评分（VAS）和不良反应，同时记录三组产程时间、分娩方式、催产素使用情况、产后出血量、新生儿Apgar评分。结果A、B两组和N组在PCEA15、60min及宫口开全时VAS差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），PCEA5min，A、B两组VAS差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），两组Bromage评分、不良反应差异无统计学意义。三组产程时间、分娩方式、产后出血量、新生儿Apgar评分均差异无统计学意义。结论甲磺酸罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼或芬太尼分娩镇痛效果好，对母婴无明显不良影响。     

Epidural analgesia with 0.15% ropivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 microgram ml-1 versus 0.10% bupivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 microgram ml-1: a double-blind comparison during labour

Background. Ropivacaine has been claimed to produce less motorblock than bupivacaine during epidural analgesia. However, thisadvantage has not been clearly confirmed in obstetric studiesusing low analgesic concentrations in a ratio close to thatsuggested to be equianalgesic. Methods. This double-blind, randomized, prospective study wasperformed in 140 parturients who requested epidural analgesia.After a lumbar epidural catheter had been placed, patients receivedeither 0.10% bupivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 µg ml^–1or 0.15% ropivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 µg ml^–1followed by a continuous infusion. Additional boluses were usedfor inadequate levels of analgesia. Visual analogue pain scores,motor block, level of sensory block, supplementary boluses andmain characteristics of labour were recorded. Results. No differences were observed between the two groupsfor pain scores, total volume of anaesthetic solution used [59(23) and 57 (24) ml in the bupivacaine and ropivacaine groupsrespectively], duration of labour, mode of delivery, side-effectsor satisfaction score. The incidence of motor block was notstatistically different between the groups (54 and 69% in thebupivacaine and ropivacaine groups respectively, P=0.07). However,when motor block occurred, survival analysis showed that itoccurred sooner in the course of labour with ropivacaine comparedwith bupivacaine (log rank test, P=0.012). Conclusion. Combined with sufentanil 0.5 µg ml^–1,0.10% bupivacaine and 0.15% ropivacaine produce effective andequivalent analgesia during labour, with similar incidencesof motor block. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 809–13     

A double-blind comparison of 0.125% ropivacaine with sufentanil and 0.125% bupivacaine with sufentanil for epidural labor analgesia

BACKGROUND: This study intends to evaluate the benefits of the administration of intermittent bolus doses of ropivacaine (0.125%) compared with bupivacaine (0.125%) after addition of sufentanil for analgesia during labor. METHODS: One hundred thirty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 or 2 parturients were studied. The 90 initial patients were assigned randomly to receive 10 ml bupivacaine, 0.125%, plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (initial bupivacaine 0.125% group) or ropivacaine, 0.125%, plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (ropivacaine 0.125% group). Forty additional patients were recruited and received 0.125% bupivacaine plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (additional bupivacaine 0.125% group) or 0.100% bupivacaine plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (additional bupivacaine 0.100% group). The duration of analgesia, visual analogue scores for pain, motor blockade (using a six-point modified Bromage scale), patient satisfaction scores, nausea, pruritus, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded. RESULTS: Bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.125% coadministered with sufentanil provided rapid and complete analgesia. Onset of analgesia occurred after +/-15 min and lasted +/-90 min. After the third epidural injection, patients in the ropivacaine group experienced significantly less severe motor blockade than patients in the initial bupivacaine 0.125% group. At this point, 93% of the patients in the ropivacaine group were free from motor impairment versus 66% in the bupivacaine group (P<0.05). Comparable levels of motor blockade were obtained in both additional groups. Patients' evaluation of their analgesia was worst in the bupivacaine 0.100% group. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil affords reliable analgesia with minimal motor blockade.     

Continuous infusion epidural analgesia during labor: a randomized, double-blind comparison of 0.0625% bupivacaine/0.0002% fentanyl versus 0.125% bupivacaine

The analgesic efficacy of the continuous epidural infusion of 0.0625% bupivacaine/0.0002% fentanyl was compared with the infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine alone in a randomized, double-blind study of nulliparous women. Each patient received, in sequence: 1) 3 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine; 2) 6 ml of study solution 1 (bupivacaine-fentanyl group: 0.125% bupivacaine/0.0008% fentanyl; bupivacaine-only group: 0.25% bupivacaine alone); and 3) a continuous epidural infusion of study solution 2 at a rate of 12.5 ml/h (bupivacaine-fentanyl group: 0.0625% bupivacaine/0.0002% fentanyl; bupivacaine-only group: 0.125% bupivacaine alone). The epidural infusion was discontinued at full cervical dilatation, but patients who lacked perineal anesthesia received one or two 5-ml boluses of study solution 3 (bupivacaine-fentanyl group: 0.0625% bupivacaine alone; bupivacaine-only group: 0.125% bupivacaine alone). During the first stage of labor, 36 of 41 (88%) women in the bupivacaine-fentanyl group, and 37 of 39 (95%) women in the bupivacaine-only group, had analgesia of excellent or good quality (P = NS). During the second stage, 22 of 37 (59%) women in the bupivacaine-fentanyl group, and 23 of 35 (66%) women in the bupivacaine-only group, rated their analgesia as excellent or good (P = NS). Women in the bupivacaine-only group were more likely to have motor block at full cervical dilatation (P less than .001). There was no significant difference between groups in duration of the second stage of labor, duration of pushing, position of the vertex before delivery, method of delivery, Apgar scores, or umbilical cord blood gas and acid-base values.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Bupivacaine 2.5 mg/ml versus bupivacaine 0.625 mg/ml and sufentanil l microg/ml with or without epinephrine 1 microg/ml for epidural analgesia in labour

We have compared three different methods of epidural analgesia in labour, bupivacaine 2.5 mg/ml (group B), bupivacaine 0.625 mg/ml + sufentanil 1 microg/ml (group BS) and bupivacaine 0.625 mg/ml + sufentanil 1 microg/ml + epinephrine 1 microg/ml (group BSE). One hundred and forty parturients with a singleton fetus with cephalic presentation were randomly allocated to one of the three groups. Group BSE had significantly less pain than groups B and BS. Group B had a significantly higher degree of motor blockade assessed on the Bromage scale. Significantly, more women in group B required urinary bladder catheterization than in the two other groups and they also had significantly less urge to push during active delivery. The incidence of mild pruritus was 18% in group BS and 36% in group BSE. The frequency of instrumental delivery and caesarean section was low (12% and 6.4%, respectively) with no significant differences between the groups. All women were highly satisfied with the method of analgesia and 97% would prefer the same kind of pain alleviation at the next delivery. We conclude that epidural analgesia with low-dose bupivacaine and sufentanil is as good an analgesic method as high-dose bupivacaine. Addition of low-dose epinephrine improves the analgesia.     

Ropivacaine 0.075% and bupivacaine 0.075% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL are equivalent for labor epidural analgesia.

Fifty percent effective dose estimates for ropivacaine and bupivacaine suggest that ropivacaine is 40% less potent than bupivacaine to initiate labor analgesia. At clinically used concentrations, however, the drugs seem indistinguishable for initiating and maintaining labor analgesia. We designed this study to evaluate a concentration near the reported 50% effective dose values for ropivacaine and bupivacaine in an attempt to detect differences between the drugs during routine clinical use. Fifty-nine nulliparous women in labor were randomized to receive 0.075% ropivacaine or bupivacaine, each with fentanyl 2 microg/mL. After epidural placement and the administration of a lidocaine/epinephrine test dose, 20 mL of study solution was administered and a patient-controlled epidural infusion was initiated with the following settings: 6 mL/h basal rate, 5 mL bolus, 10 min lockout, and 30 mL/h limit. Breakthrough pain was treated with 10-mL boluses of study solution. By using a study design to detect a 40% difference in hourly drug use between groups, we found no statistically significant differences in the amount of local anesthetic used, verbal pain scores, sensory levels, motor blockade, labor duration, mode of delivery, side effects, or patient satisfaction. We conclude that 0.075% ropivacaine and bupivacaine, with fentanyl, are equally effective for labor analgesia using the patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique. IMPLICATIONS: At small concentrations, ropivacaine and bupivacaine when combined with fentanyl are equally effective for labor analgesia. Patients self-administered similar volumes of 0.075% ropivacaine or bupivacaine solutions containing fentanyl (2 microg/mL) suggesting that at this concentration, and with the addition of fentanyl, ropivacaine and bupivacaine can be used interchangeably.     

Ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl: a double blind comparison for analgesia during labour

We have performed a randomized, double-blind comparison of twoepidural drug regimens for analgesia in labour. In the bupivacainegroup (BUPIV), 101 healthy parturients received 0.1% bupivacainewith fentanyl 2 µg ml^–1. In the ropivacaine group(ROPIV), 102 women received 0.2% ropivacaine. Both groups receivedan initial loading dose of 15 ml, a continuous infusion of 8ml h^–1, and top-ups of 10 ml. Breakthrough pain not respondingto a routine top-up was treated with an ‘escape’top-up of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine. The two groups were comparedfor complete analgesia at 30 min, routine and ‘escape’top-up requirements, midwife assessment of analgesic efficacy,delivery mode, patient visual analogue scores (VAS) for firstand second stage analgesia, overall satisfaction, and patientassessment of motor blockade. Patients receiving ropivacainereceived fewer routine top-ups (median 1.0 vs. 2.0, P=0.001)and fewer escape top-ups (9.8% vs. 21.8%, P=0.02). The ropivacainegroup was more likely to be pain free in the first stage (51%vs. 33.7%, P=0.01). There were no significant differences inpatients’ assessment of motor block or mode of deliverybetween the groups. Pain relief and satisfaction scores frommidwives and patients were consistently better in the ropivacainegroup, but did not reach statistical significance. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 826–9     

Postoperative epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty with sufentanil 1 microg/ml combined with ropivacaine 0.2%, ropivacaine 0.125%, or levobupivacaine 0.125%: a randomized, double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total knee replacement is associated with severe postoperative pain that, if treated insufficiently, interferes with early rehabilitation. The purpose of the present study is to compare the efficacy of ropivacaine (0.2% and 0.125%) and levobupivacaine (0.125%), all in combination with sufentanil 1 microg/mL with regard to postoperative pain relief and absence of motor block in a patient-controlled epidural analgesia setting. METHODS: The study design was randomized and double-blind. Sixty-three patients scheduled for total knee replacement under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive ropivacaine 0.2%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 1), ropivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 2), or levobupivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 3) for postoperative epidural pain relief. Primary endpoints were numerical rating scores for pain and patient satisfaction, motor block scores, time to first demand of the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device and average hourly consumption of local anesthetic and sufentanil. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 3 groups regarding numerical rating scores for pain, patient satisfaction, and motor block scores at any of the time intervals; time to first demand and average hourly sufentanil consumption were similar. Patients in group 1 used significantly more local anesthetic than patients in groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 solutions provided adequate analgesia and minimal motor block. The higher concentration of ropivacaine 0.2% was associated with a higher consumption of local anesthetic and did not result in a decrease in the consumption of sufentanil. Under the conditions of this study, patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption of the epidural mixture was predominantly determined by sufentanil.     

Ropivacaine 2 mg/mL vs. bupivacaine 1.25 mg/mL with sufentanil using patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND: In recent studies, minimum local analgesic concentrations have been defined as 0.93 mg/mL for bupivacaine and 1.56 mg/mL for ropivacaine for epidural analgesia for the first stage of labour, resulting in an analgesic potency ratio of 1 : 0.6. In the current study we compared ropivacaine and bupivacaine in a PCEA system (combined with sufentanil) taking this potency ratio into account but administering drug doses providing sufficient analgesia for all stages of labour. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blinded study 114 parturients were randomised to receive either ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL or bupivacaine 1.25 mg/with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL. After epidural catheter placement, PCEA was available with boluses of 4 mL, a lock-out time of 20 min and no basal infusion rate. We evaluated pain intensity during contractions, sensory and motor function, duration of labour, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Consumption of local anaesthetic and opioid drugs and PCEA system variables were recorded. RESULTS: Mean total consumption as well as mean hourly drug consumption was significantly increased in the ropivacaine-sufentanil group. No differences in analgesic quality, sensory or motor blocking potencies or neonatal outcome variables between groups were detected. Frequency of instrumental deliveries was significantly increased in the ropivacaine-sufentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the findings of previously published studies postulating ropivacaine to be 40-50% less potent for labour epidural analgesia compared to bupivacaine. However, we observed an increased frequency of instrumental deliveries with ropivacaine. To evaluate the clinical relevance of these findings, further investigations are warranted.     

Comparison of fentanyl and sufentanil in combination with bupivacaine for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of fentanyl plus bupivacaine with sufentanil plus bupivacaine for treatment of pain during labor and delivery using patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, clinical investigation. SETTINGS: University-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: 226 ASA physical status I and II laboring patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl (2 micro g.ml(-1)) or 0.125% bupivacaine with sufentanil (0.25 micro g.ml(-1)) through PCEA. MEASUREMENTS: Maternal analgesia assessed by visual analog scale was recorded before epidural block, 1 and 3 hours after epidural block, at full cervical dilation, and at delivery. Motor blockade assessed by Bromage scale was recorded at delivery. MAIN RESULTS: Nine patients in group fentanyl, and 11 in group sufentanil were excluded from the study. Overall analgesia was good and no difference was observed between the two groups. Total boluses of 4 mL bupivacaine-opioid administered and the number of supplementary top-up injections of 5 mL 0.25% bupivacaine were similar in both groups. In group sufentanil, motor blockade and pruritus were significantly lower than in group fentanyl. Nausea was not recorded in any patients. Mode of delivery was similar in both groups, i.e., cesarean section, vacuum or forceps, or spontaneous vaginal delivery. No difference was observed in Apgar scores. CONCLUSIONS: Sufentanil is preferable to fentanyl during bupivacaine PCEA as there is less incidence of motor blockade and pruritus.     

A multicentre trial comparing different concentrations of ropivacaine plus sufentanil with bupivacaine plus sufentanil for patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal concentration of ropivacaine for bolus-only patient-controlled epidural labour analgesia, three different doses of ropivacaine were evaluated in comparison with bupivacaine in a double-blinded multicentre study. METHODS: Four hundred-and-fifty labouring parturients at term in three different academic institutions were randomized to four groups receiving bupivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL(-1), ropivacaine 0.125% or 0.175% with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL(-1), or ropivacaine 0.2%. After an initial bolus of 10 mL of the study solution, and once visual analogue scores (VAS) were below 30 mm, patient-controlled epidural analgesia was initiated with a bolus of 4 mL, a lockout interval of 15 min and without a background infusion. Variables studied were the quality of analgesia, incidence of side-effects, the degree of motor blockade, and the mode of delivery. RESULTS: Bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil proved equally effective in providing labour analgesia without a difference in local anaesthetic consumption (48.6 +/- 23 mg bupivacaine vs. 52.1 +/- 38 mg ropivacaine), motor blockade or mode of delivery. Ropivacaine 0.175% plus sufentanil enhanced the quality of analgesia of the initial loading dose, whereas ropivacaine 0.2% without sufentanil increased the consumption of local anaesthetics (80.2 +/- 34 mg; P < 0.05) and the degree of motor blockade. CONCLUSION: Despite recent studies indicating that bupivacaine and ropivacaine may not be equipotent, both local anaesthetics provided equi-effective analgesia at equal doses without a difference in side-effects.     

The dose-range effects of sufentanil added to 0.125% bupivacaine on the quality of patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor

To determine the minimal sufentanil concentration required to improve the quality of patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor, we compared the efficacy of a combination of 0.125% bupivacaine with 1:800,000 epinephrine and different concentrations of sufentanil in a double-blinded randomized study. Concentrations were no sufentanil (n = 66), 0.078 microg/mL sufentanil (n = 65), 0.156 microg/mL sufentanil (n = 65), 0.312 microg/mL sufentanil (n = 65), and 0.468 microg/mL sufentanil (n = 67). The patient-controlled epidural analgesia setting was a 12-mL bolus dose and a 25-min lockout interval. Pain was scored at 5-6 cm, 7-8 cm, and full cervical dilation by using a 10-cm visual analog scale. At full cervical dilation, the pain scores were lower in the groups receiving a solution of at least 0.156 microg/mL sufentanil. Few differences were observed when using the larger concentrations, except for increased pruritus intensity. The duration of labor and the mode of delivery were similar in each group. Rescue analgesia, which consisted of 6 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine, was infrequent and comparable between groups. The use of the pump did not differ between groups. Adding a small concentration of sufentanil to 0.125% bupivacaine for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor improved the quality of analgesia but did not modify the bupivacaine requirement. Reducing the sufentanil concentrations to 0.156 microg/mL decreased the pruritus intensity without reducing analgesia. Implications: Adding a small concentration of sufentanil to 0.125% bupivacaine for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor improved the quality of analgesia but did not modify the bupivacaine requirement. Reducing the sufentanil concentrations to 0.156 microg/mL decreased the pruritus intensity without reducing analgesia.     

A comparison of 0.0625% bupivacaine with fentanyl and 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl for continuous epidural labor analgesia

We compared the analgesic efficacy and the degree of motor block achieved with epidural infusion of 0.0625% bupivacaine (Group B) versus 0.1% ropivacaine (Group R), both with 0.0002% fentanyl (2 microg/mL) in laboring patients. A prospective, double-blinded study was performed in 98 ASA physical status I-II parturients who were divided randomly into two groups to receive either bupivacaine or ropivacaine after catheter location had been tested with an initial bolus of lidocaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was 15 mL/h in every case. When pain was perceived, 5-mL boluses of the assigned epidural analgesic were administered every 10 min until analgesia was achieved. We recorded pain intensity, level of sensory block, degree of motor block, hemodynamic variables, secondary effects, mode of delivery, neonatal outcome, and patient satisfaction. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the factors analyzed. Highly effective analgesia was achieved in both groups with a small incidence of motor block. These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be more potent than ropivacaine. IMPLICATIONS: We compared different concentrations of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine thought to be equipotent. Both solutions were equally efficient in providing highly effective epidural analgesia for labor with minimal motor block. These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be more potent than ropivacaine.     

Continuous epidural analgesia with bupivacaine 0.125% or bupivacaine 0.0625% plus sufentanil 0.25 microg.mL(-1): a study in singleton breech presentation

Epidural analgesia is the most efficient technique for labor pain relief. However, its resultant motor block might impair the mode of delivery, particularly in breech presentation where the risk of dystocia is high. In this trial, we compared bupivacaine 0.125% with a combination of a low concentration of bupivacaine (0.0625%) and sufentanil (0.25 microg.mL(-1)) both administered by continuous infusion. Analgesia, maternal and fetal/neonatal side effects and obstetric outcome were compared between group bupivacaine (n = 23) and group bupivacaine-sufentanil (n = 35). A greater number of patients in the bupivacaine 0.125% group required more than two top-ups (32 vs. 8% of patients, P = 0.03) while pain scores were similar. Motor block at delivery was more pronounced in the bupivacaine 0.125% group. Nausea and pruritus were more often encountered in the bupivacaine-sufentanil group. There was a trend toward a decreased rate of assisted or operative delivery in the bupivacaine-sufentanil group (92% vs. 74%, P = 0.09). Fetal/neonatal data did not differ between groups. Epidural analgesia with bupivacaine-sufentanil required fewer additional top-ups and produced less motor block than did bupivacaine 0.125%. However, there was no significant difference in mode of delivery between the two analgesic regimens.     

A randomized controlled trial using patient-controlled epidural analgesia with 0.25% versus 0.0625% bupivacaine in nulliparous labor: effect on analgesia requirement and maternal satisfaction

BackgroundThe effect of epidural local anesthetic concentration on analgesic action is still the subject of debate. This study compared the effect of a four-fold change in concentration of bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labor.MethodsNulliparous women in early active labor were recruited. All women received analgesic drugs via a lumbar epidural catheter, and all received fentanyl 1 μg/kg with the epidural induction dose and no further opioids throughout the study. Patients were randomized to receive either a 5-mL bolus followed by a 5-mL/h infusion of concentrated (0.25%) bupivacaine or a 20-mL bolus followed by a 20-mL/h infusion of dilute (0.0625%) bupivacaine. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia of the study solution was then used to assess additional analgesia requirements. Analgesic requirement, maternal satisfaction and obstetric outcome were compared.ResultsFor subjects receiving 0.25% bupivacaine, the median total dose of drug administered was greater (117 vs. 90 mg, P = 0.0008), and the mean maternal satisfaction score was less (82 vs. 93, P = 0.04) than with the 0.0625% solution.ConclusionsLarger volumes of more dilute solutions may result in dose sparing and provide more effective labor analgesia. This study supports the continued trend towards dilute local anesthetic mixtures for labor epidural analgesia.     

Ambulatory labor epidural analgesia: bupivacaine versus ropivacaine

Dilute concentrations of bupivacaine combined with fentanyl have recently been used to initiate labor epidural analgesia in an attempt to balance adequate analgesia and minimal maternal motor blockade. Similar concentrations of ropivacaine have not been evaluated. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was designed to compare the efficacy of 20 mL of either 0.08% bupivacaine plus 2 microg/mL fentanyl or 0.08% ropivacaine plus 2 microg/mL fentanyl to initiate ambulatory labor epidural analgesia. Forty nulliparous women in early ( 0 but < 20 at 20 min. The time (mean +/- SD) to visual analog scale score = 0 was BF (n = 18): 12.0 +/- 4.5 min and RF (n = 19): 12.4 +/- 4.0 min (P > 0.05). Spontaneous micturition was observed in 65% (13 of 20) BF compared with 100% (20 of 20) RF (P < 0.01), and ambulation was demonstrated in 75% (15 of 20) BF compared with 100% (20 of 20) RF (P < 0.03). The incidence of forceps delivery was 35% (7 of 20) BF compared with 10% (2 of 20) RF (P < 0.04). The results of this study indicate that dilute ropivacaine combined with fentanyl effectively initiates epidural analgesia while concurrently preserving maternal ability to void and ambulate. Implications: As compared with a similar dilute concentration of bupivacaine, 20 mL of dilute (0.08%) ropivacaine combined with fentanyl (2 microg/mL) effectively initiates epidural analgesia in nulliparous women in early, established labor while preserving their ability to micturate and ambulate. Of importance, it appears that a true ambulatory epidural analgesic for women in labor is now possible.     

Ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) by epidural infusion for labour analgesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) via epidural for analgesia in labour. METHODS: In a randomized study, 80 nulliparous parturients in labour had epidural analgesia initiated with 0.2% ropivacaine and fentanyl and were then randomized to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 10mL h(-1) (Group R1, n = 38) or 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 8 ml h(-1) (Group R2, n = 39) as epidural infusions. Supplementary analgesia was provided on request with ropivacaine 0.2% 5 mL as an epidural bolus. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the visual analogue pain scores either with respect to motor block or sensory block. The amount of local anaesthetic used was lower in the 0.1% ropivacaine group than in the 0.2% ropivacaine group (P = 0.001). Side-effects, patient satisfaction, labour outcome and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: An epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 10 mL h(-1) provided adequate analgesia in the first stage of labour. The level of analgesia was similar to that obtained using 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) and with no differences with regard to motor or sensory block.