Obstetric outcome following epidural analgesia with bupivacaine-adrenaline 0.25% or bupivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil - a prospective randomized controlled study in 1000 parturients

Background: Epidural analgesia (EDA) is the most efficient method for pain relief during labour, but there is still a debate as to whether it interferes with the normal process of delivery. Some authors argue that the incidence of instrumental deliveries, Caesarean section, malrotation and protracted labour is increased in parturients receiving EDA.
Methods: 1000 parturients were prospectively randomized to receive EDA either with a high dose of local anaesthetic (0.25% bupivacaine with adrenaline=HD) or with a low dose (0.125% bupivacaine with sufentanil 10 μg=LD).
Results: The incidence of instrumental delivery and Caesarean section and the need for oxytocin was reduced in the LD compared to HD group. The delivery time was similar with HD and LD among primiparous, but decreased significantly among multiparous in the LD group. The incidence of malrotation was low in both groups. The quality of analgesia was equal during the first stage in the 2 groups, but was lower in the LD group during the second stage. More parturients in the LD group ambulated, but this did not affect the incidence of instrumental delivery.
Conclusion: It is concluded that a lower dosage of bupivacaine combined with sufentanil in epidural analgesia significantly improves the obstetric outcome as compared to a higher dosage of bupivacaine with adrenaline using intermittent bolus technique.     

Impact study of the introduction of low-dose epidural (bupivacaine 0.1%/fentanyl 2 microg . mL(-1)) compared with bupivacaine 0.25% for labour analgesia

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the obstetric effects of introducing a low-dose epidural regimen for epidural analgesia in labour. Before this, all women in our unit requesting epidural analgesia for labour received intermittent boluses (10 mL) of 0.25% bupivacaine. After the introduction of the low-dose service in March 2000, intermittent boluses (10 mL) of 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg . mL(-1) were given. The records of 300 women were examined, 150 who had received the standard regimen before the introduction of the new service and 150 women afterwards. The groups were compared for outcome of labour, quality of analgesia and any adverse events related to the epidural analgesia. There was a significant reduction in the low-dose group in the number of women requiring instrumental delivery (41% vs. 29%, P = 0.04). The need for indwelling bladder catheters was also reduced in the patients receiving the low-dose regimen (21.3% vs. 4.7%, P < 0.001). Duration of analgesia was longer in patients receiving bupivacaine 0.25% (mean minimum time between boluses 42.25 +/- 33.8 vs. 24.37 +/- 19.8 min, P < 0.001). The need for further anaesthetic intervention was higher with the low-dose regimen (24% vs. 34%, P = 0.037). Maternal satisfaction was high in both groups (95 and 97%, respectively). We conclude that the introduction of a low-dose regimen of epidural analgesia for labour reduces the incidence of instrumental deliveries. It also decreases the incidence of bladder catheterisation during labour, but the need for anaesthetic intervention may be greater.     

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.     

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)     

Continuous infusion epidural analgesia in labor: the effect of adding sufentanil to 0.125% bupivacaine

The purpose of this study was to determine if the addition of sufentanil would improve the quality of analgesia obtained with 0.125% epidural bupivacaine infusions given to women in active labor. Forty healthy laboring women were randomly assigned to two equal groups. Group 1 had epidural analgesia instituted with the bolus injection of 10-15 ml 0.125% bupivacaine containing sufentanil 2 micrograms/ml, followed 30 minutes later by initiation of an epidural infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine containing sufentanil 1 microgram/ml at a rate of 10 ml/hr. Group 2 had epidural analgesia instituted with 10 or 15 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with an epidural infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine begun 30 minutes later at a rate of 10 ml/hr. Infusion rates were altered as required to maintain an analgesic level to the tenth thoracic dermatome. Analgesia assessed by visual analog pain scores was significantly better in group 1. Significantly fewer epidural injections were required in group 1, and less motor weakness occurred in these patients. The addition of sufentanil to epidural bupivacaine infusions given in labor improves analgesia and reduces "top-up" requirements.     

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.     

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 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, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, versus bupivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, using patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor: a double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND: This study compared the administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil with that of 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil via patient-controlled epidural analgesia route during labor. METHODS: Two hundred healthy pregnant women at term with a single fetus with a vertex fetal presentation were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil or 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia pump (5-ml bolus dose, 10-min locked-out period, no basal infusion). Pain score on a visual analog scale, Bromage score (0-3), level of sensory block, patient-controlled epidural analgesia ratio, drug use, supplemental boluses, and side effects were recorded at 30 min and then hourly. Mode of delivery, duration of first and second stages of labor, umbilical cord pH, Apgar scores of the newborn, and a measure of maternal satisfaction were recorded after delivery. RESULTS: No differences were seen between the two groups for pain scores on a visual analog scale during labor, volume of anesthetic solution used, mode of delivery, or side effects. Motor block during the first stage of labor was significantly less in the ropivacaine group than in the bupivacaine group (no motor block in 97.8 of patients vs. 88.3%, respectively; P < 0.01). Duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (1.3 +/- 1.0 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.2 h [mean +/- SD]; P < 0.05). Maternal satisfaction was greater in the bupivacaine group (91 +/- 13 mm for contraction, 89 +/- 19 mm for delivery on a visual scale: 0 = not satisfied at all, 100 = fully satisfied) than in the ropivacaine group (84 +/- 21 and 80 +/- 25 mm; P < 0.0001). Patients in the ropivacaine group requested more supplemental boluses to achieve analgesia during the second stage of labor than those in the bupivacaine group (29.7 vs. 19.8%, respectively, requested one or more supplemental boluses; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Delivered as patient-controlled epidural analgesia, 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil produce less motor block but are clinically less potent than 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil.     

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.     

A comparison of levobupivacaine 0.125%, fentanyl 4 microg/mL, or their combination for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after major orthopedic surgery

Levobupivacaine, the isolated S(-) isomer of bupivacaine, is less cardiotoxic than racemic bupivacaine in animal studies. We studied the effectiveness of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with either levobupivacaine 0.125% or fentanyl 4 microg/mL alone, or a combination of levobupivacaine and fentanyl in 65 patients after total joint arthroplasty in a prospective, random, double-blinded fashion. Intraoperatively, all patients received 20 mL of 0.75% levobupivacaine. Study medication was infused at an initial rate of 4 mL/h, with additional medication available on patient demand (2 mL/10 min). The combination of levobupivacaine and fentanyl produced better analgesia (longer time to first PCEA request; P = 0.007 combination versus fentanyl and P = 0.006 combination versus levobupivacaine) than either drug alone. Patients in the levobupivacaine groups had appreciable sensory blockade to pinprick with minimal motor impairment. Resting and dynamic visual analog scale pain scores were lower in the combination group than in the plain fentanyl group at 6 (P = 0.022 and 0.036) and 12 h (P = 0.002 and 0.001). The 24-h overall patient- and investigator-rated visual analog scale pain scores were also lower in the combination group (resting P = 0.007, dynamic P = 0.005). There was no significant difference among the groups in the incidence of postoperative nausea (26.2%), pruritus (9.2%), hypotension (23.1%), or sedation (0%). We conclude that the analgesic effects of levobupivacaine 0.125% and fentanyl (4 microg/mL) are additive and beneficial for the management of orthopedic surgical pain by the PCEA method. Patients in this study began demand-dosing later, reported lower pain scores, and had no greater risk of adverse events than those who were given either levobupivacaine or fentanyl alone. IMPLICATIONS: We demonstrated a significant additive effect of the combination of levobupivacaine (0.125%) and fentanyl (4 microg/mL), compared with either drug alone, when using patient-controlled epidural analgesia in patients after total joint arthroplasty.     

Comparison of 0.25% S(-)-bupivacaine with 0.25% RS-bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labour

We have compared the efficacy of 0.25% S(-)-bupivacaine with 0.25% RS- bupivacaine in providing epidural analgesia for labour in a randomized, multicentre, double-blind study. Analgesia was initiated with 10 ml of the study solution and maintained with 10-ml top-ups. We studied 137 women and treatments were found to be equivalent for onset, duration and quality of block. Median onset of pain relief was 12 min for both drugs and median duration was 49 (range 3-129) min and 51 (7-157) min for S(-)-bupivacaine and RS bupivacaine, respectively. The estimated treatment difference for duration of pain relief was -4 (90% CI -13, 6) min. Thirty patients failed to achieve pain relief after the first injection (20 patients after S(-)-bupivacaine and 10 after RS- bupivacaine; P = 0.039). However, median duration of pain relief from the first top-up was 82 (range 3-164) min for S(-)-bupivacaine and 76 (22-221) min for RS-bupivacaine. There were no significant differences in the quality of analgesia, as assessed by the investigators. There were no significant differences in the extent of sensory block, percentage of patients with motor block or incidence of adverse events.      

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.     

Randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled epidural analgesia after orthopaedic surgery with sufentanil and ropivacaine 0.165% or levobupivacaine 0.125%

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine, and to a lesser extent also levobupivacaine, is commonly used for postoperative epidural analgesia. Despite ED50 data suggesting a potency difference between these drugs, clinically they can be difficult to distinguish. As a consequence, it is unclear which concentration of each drug to use when comparing them for long-term analgesia. METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement were selected to participate in a double-blind randomized study comparing ropivacaine 0.165% with levobupivacaine 0.125% to which was added sufentanil 1 microg ml(-1) for postoperative analgesia by the epidural route. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was offered for 48 h. After the first 24 h, the basal infusion was omitted. RESULTS: Pain scores both at rest and on mobilization were similar between both groups. The volume of local anaesthetic solution consumed during the first 48 h after surgery was 25% higher in those patients receiving ropivacaine (P=0.02). Patients receiving ropivacaine made a mean (SD) of 38.5 (16) PCEA demands in the first 48 h after surgery compared with 28 (13) in the levobupivacaine group (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Both local anaesthetics provided effective postoperative analgesia but, even in a 25% weaker concentration, a small volume of levobupivacaine and opiate substance was consumed. These differences may be explained by a potency difference or by the duration of action of levobupivacaine.     

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     

Patient-controlled thoracic epidural infusion with ropivacaine 0.375% provides comparable pain relief as bupivacaine 0.125% plus sufentanil after major abdominal gynecologic tumor surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that an opioid-free local anesthetic alone is able to provide comparable analgesia to the opioid supplemented epidural application of local anesthetics using thoracic epidural catheters after major abdominal surgery. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, and double-blind study, we have compared the analgesic efficacy and side effects of ropivacaine 0.375% (group R) versus bupivacaine 0.125% in combination with sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL(-1) (group B/S) via a thoracic epidural catheter for a duration of 96 hours after major abdominal surgery in 30 gynecologic tumor patients. Piritramide was given for breakthrough pain. Assessments were performed every 12 hours after start of the epidural infusion using continuous (first 24 hours) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) (24 to 96 hours). RESULTS: No differences were seen in demographic and perioperative data. Dynamic pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS] values) were comparable between groups during mobilization (group R v group B/S: 24 hours: 40 +/- 30 v 36 +/- 14, P =.9; 48 hours: 46 +/- 33 v 42 +/- 25, P =.93; 72 hours: 42 +/- 24 v 48 +/- 26, P =.78; 96 hours: 42 +/- 25 v 29 +/- 28, P =.49) and on coughing during the whole study period. Hemodynamics, intensity of motor block (Bromage scale), and side effects like nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and bladder disfunction also did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that thoracic epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.375% provides comparable pain relief and incidence of side effects after major abdominal gynecologic surgery as bupivacaine 0.125% in combination with 0.5 microg/mL(-1) sufentanil and may therefore represent an alternative in epidural pain management.     

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.