Patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor: the effects of the increase in bolus and lockout interval

Most studies use a bolus size of <6 mL of 0.125% bu- pivacaine for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) during labor. In this double-blinded, randomized study, we compared the efficacy of a larger bolus injected via a PCEA pump to a conventional PCEA setting. By using a combination of 0.125% bupivacaine with 1:800,000 epinephrine and 0.625 microg/mL sufentanil, the first PCEA setting was typical (4 mL/8 min), whereas the other combined a 12-mL bolus dose and a 25-min lockout interval, i.e., similar maximal hourly dose. Rescue analgesia was provided with 6 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine. Patient satisfaction and pain were scored on verbal and visual analog scales. Data were analyzed from 103 parturients in the 12-mL/25-min group and 100 in the 4-mL/8-min group. In the 12-mL/25-min group, the median pain score on a 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale was lower at 6-cm cervical dilation (1 [range = 0-8] vs 3 [0-8]) and at delivery (1 [0-10] vs 2 [0-10]). Satisfaction was also better (70% vs 38% "excellent" opinions, at 6-cm cervical dilation). Use of the pump (ratio of successful and total demands) was high and similar in both groups. Rescue analgesia was comparable. Doses of analgesics were greater in the 12-mL/25-min group (hourly bupivacaine dose = 13.9 +/- 5.3 [mean+/- SD] vs 9.4 +/- 4.1 mg). No differences were noted between groups for the severity of hypotension, ephedrine requirement, outcome of the delivery, and Apgar scores. IMPLICATIONS: A patient-controlled epidural analgesia setting that allows a parturient to receive an increased analgesic dose improves satisfaction with patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labour: in practice

OBJECTIVES: Update on patient controlled epidural analgesia for labour. STUDY DESIGN: Literature review of the recent data on local anaesthetics, additional analgesics and of publications on the various protocols used. DATA COLLECTION: Pubmed database was checked with the following key words: PCEA, labour, opioids, clonidine. The abstracts of the ASA meetings from 2000 to 2005 were also examined. RESULTS: Patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is the method of choice for optimal labour pain management. The advantages of this technique are numerous. Some of them are established: consistent reduction in overall local anathetic requirement, less motor blockade, safety of the technique and team workload reduction. A better adequacy with the analgesic requirements and an increase in overall patient satisfaction are frequently retrieved, provided that the choice of the analgesics and the PCEA parameters are adequately chosen. CONCLUSION: The use of PCEA improves the quality of analgesic management offered to the parturients who are more and more willing to have a "more natural" childbirth. The PCEA gives them more autonomy and, in fine, enables them to better enjoy this unique event. The main barrier to a more widespread diffusion of PCEA in many institutions remains the financial issue, although a well-selected device and low cost disposables allow a reduction of indirect costs by decreasing care giver workload.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus continuous infusion for labour analgesia: a meta-analysis

Background. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) isa relatively new method of maintaining labour analgesia. Therehave been many studies performed that have compared the efficacyof PCEA with continuous epidural infusion (CEI). The purposeof this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safetyof PCEA and CEI. Methods. All randomized controlled trials that compared PCEA,without background infusion, with CEI were sought from the literature.These were rated for quality using a validated, five-point scale.The primary outcome was the number of patients who receivedanaesthetic interventions. Secondary outcomes included the doseof local anaesthetic, incidence of motor block, quality of analgesia,obstetric and safety outcomes. Where feasible, the data werecombined using meta-analytical techniques. For dichotomous data,the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) werecalculated. For continuous data, the weighted mean differences(WMD) were calculated. The differences were statistically significantwhen the 95% CI excluded 0. Results. Nine studies comprised of 640 patients were found.There were fewer anaesthetic interventions in the PCEA group(RD, 27%; 95% CI, 18–36%; P<0.00001). This group alsoreceived less local anaesthetic (WMD, –3.92; 95% CI, –5.38to –2.42; P<00001) and less motor block (RD, 18%; 95%CI, 6–31%; P=0.003). Both methods were safe for motherand newborn. Conclusion. Patients who receive PCEA are less likely to requireanaesthetic interventions, require lower doses of local anaestheticand have less motor block than those who receive CEI. Futureresearch should be directed at determining differences in maternalsatisfaction and obstetric outcome. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 459–65     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia following combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour: the effects of adding a continuous epidural infusion

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is used to maintain epidural analgesia following initial intrathecal analgesia. This trial investigated whether a continuous background infusion with PCEA provides superior analgesia to PCEA alone among patients who received combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia during labour Eighty parturients were randomized to either PCEA alone (PCEA) or PCEA with a background infusion of ropivacaine 0.15% with sufentanil 0.75 microg/ml at 2 ml/h (PCEA + CEI). PCEA settings were a bolus of 4 ml of the same analgesic solution with a lockout interval of 15 minutes. Significantly more patients in the PCEA group required at least one anaesthetist intervention for breakthrough pain (27 [71%] vs 10 [25%] in the PCEA + CEI group, P<0.05). Consumption of local anaesthetic (excluding manually administered boluses) was similar between the groups. If anaesthetist-administered boluses were included, more local anaesthetic was consumed by the PCEA group (47.1 +/- 19.4 mg vs 35.6 +/- 12.0 mg in the PCEA + CEI group, P<0.05). We conclude that PCEA with a background infusion provides effective analgesia with less anaesthetist workload and reduced local anaesthetic consumption as compared with PCEA without a background infusion.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia or continuous infusion: advantages and disadvantages of different modes of delivering epidural analgesia for labour

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia, intermittent top-up and continuous infusion are equally effective in providing epidural pain relief during labour. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia is associated with a significant reduction in hourly dose requirements when compared with continuous infusion, and by transferring the responsibility for epidural top-up, it offers the parturient the psychological benefit of being in control. For these reasons, patient-controlled epidural analgesia may become the method of choice for epidural pain relief during labour. However, the safety of the method needs to be documented more extensively, and the advantage of a reduction in hourly dose requirements needs to be visualized in terms of an improvement in labour or neonatal outcome. Moreover, the optimal dose, drug combination and settings still remain to be determined.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia in obstetrics

PCEA is an attractive concept with special benefits in the obstetric population. It provides a safe and valuable alternative to other approaches to labour analgesia, with demonstrable advantages when used appropriately by motivated women. It also appears to be useful for management of pain after caesarean section. It may occasionally be of benefit in other acute and chronic pain settings in the obstetric population. Despite promising initial results, the full potential of PCEA remains to be explored, and this may be encouraged by ongoing developments in PCA pump technology. Comprehensive comparative studies and large prospective clinical series, further defining its role and safety in various settings, are awaited.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia: demand dosing

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy of demand-dose patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with continuous epidural infusion (CEI) for treatment of pain during labor and delivery. Forty patients were randomized to receive 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl (2 micrograms/mL) through CEI at 12 mL/h or through demand-dose PCEA. Patients using PCEA could demand 3 mL every 10 min without restriction. Analgesia in both groups was comparable. However, there was a significant reduction in total bupivacaine consumption (in milligrams) associated with the use of PCEA (mean +/- SEM: CEI = 76.1 +/- 8.5 mg; PCEA = 42.2 +/- 5.9 mg; 45% reduction). The hourly bupivacaine consumption during the first (CEI = 15.8 +/- 0.6 mg/h; PCEA = 8.8 +/- 1.1 mg/h) and second (CEI = 17.2 +/- 1.2 mg/h; PCEA = 6.8 +/- 1.2 mg/h) stages of labor was also reduced. Overall, this represented a 47% "sparing" of bupivacaine use per hour with PCEA. Similar reductions occurred in the use of fentanyl. The reductions in analgesic requirement, however, were not associated with a reduction in the degree of motor blockade or in the cephalad extent of sensory blockade. A significant dose-sparing effect was associated with the use of demand-dose PCEA as compared with standard CEI for analgesia during labor and delivery.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labor

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labor was first described in 1988. The technique has a number of advantages when compared with intermittent clinician top-ups or continuous epidural infusion. The main advantage of PCEA is that patients tend to receive less local anesthetic and therefore are less likely to experience motor block, even after prolonged administration. This often leads to higher maternal satisfaction scores and may impact positively on obstetric outcome. Finally, PCEA may reduce the number of clinician interventions, thereby reducing workload. When compared with other modalities of analgesia maintenance, PCEA seems to be equally safe for both mother and baby. The primary drawback of PCEA devices is the cost associated with the equipment. Success of the technique depends on adequate education for both the patient and staff. Some patients prefer not to participate in administration of their own medications and should not be offered PCEA. PCEA is a very versatile option for labor analgesia. The drug concentrations, lockout intervals, size of the bolus dose, and the background rate of infusion must be specified. Some of the practical aspects of the technique are outlined. Copyright © 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company     

瑞芬太尼用于产妇静脉自控镇痛分娩进展

瑞芬太尼具有起效快、时量半衰期短而恒定的药动学特点,是短时间、间断性分娩镇痛的理想药物.现在已有一些关于瑞芬太尼分娩镇痛的报道,报道认为瑞芬太尼静脉自控镇痛能够提供有效的镇痛,具有副作用小、产妇满意度高的特点.     

High-volume patient-controlled epidural vs. programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labour analgesia: a randomised controlled study

The aim of neuraxial analgesia is to achieve excellent pain relief with the fewest adverse effects. The most recently introduced technique for epidural analgesia maintenance is the programmed intermittent epidural bolus. In a recent study, we compared this with patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion and found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus was associated with less breakthrough pain, lower pain scores, higher local anaesthetic consumption and comparable motor block. However, we had compared 10 ml programmed intermittent epidural boluses with 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. To overcome this potential limitation, we designed a randomised, multicentre non-inferiority trial using 10 ml boluses in each group. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain and total analgesic intake. Secondary outcomes included motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. The trial was considered positive if two endpoints were met: non-inferiority of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with respect to breakthrough pain; and superiority of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with respect to local anaesthetic consumption. A total of 360 nulliparous women were allocated randomly to patient-controlled epidural analgesia-only or programmed intermittent epidural bolus groups. The patient-controlled group received 10 ml boluses of ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 μg.ml^-1; the programmed intermittent group received 10 ml boluses supplemented by 5 ml patient-controlled boluses. The lockout period was 30 min in each group and the maximum allowed hourly local anaesthetic/opioid consumption was identical between the groups. Breakthrough pain was similar between groups (11.2% patient controlled vs. 10.8% programmed intermittent, p = 0.003 for non-inferiority). Total ropivacaine consumption was lower in the PCEA–group (mean difference 15.3 mg, p < 0.001). Motor block, patient satisfaction scores and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar across both groups. In conclusion, patient-controlled epidural analgesia is non-inferior to programmed intermittent epidural bolus if equal volumes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia are used to maintain labour analgesia and superior with respect to local anaesthetic consumption.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has been found to be an effective method for pain relief during labour and after surgery. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of bupivacaine-fentanyl PCEA and continuous epidural infusion with the same mixture for treatment of pain after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Fifty-four patients under spinal anaesthesia were allocated to two groups in this randomized, double-blind study: the PCEA group could demand a bolus of 0.05 ml/kg of the bupivacaine 1.1 mg/ml and fentanyl 5 microg/ml solution, with a lockout interval of 10 min and total dose limit of three bolus doses per hour. The EPI group received a continuous infusion of 0.1 ml kg(-1) h(-1) of the same bupivacaine-fentanyl solution, and only a minimal extra bolus dose of 0.2 ml with the same lockout interval. All the patients received also paracetamol 1 g, orally, three times a day. In addition to pain scores at rest and during leg lifting, the 20-h analgesic consumption and the incidence of side effects were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients completed the study. The bupivacaine and fentanyl consumption during 20 h was smaller in the PCEA group (P<0.001). Analgesia and the need for rescue-opioid medication were similar in both groups. There were no differences between the PCEA and EPI groups regarding the incidence of side effects. Five patients were confused about how to operate the PCEA apparatus. CONCLUSION: The amount of bupivacaine-fentanyl solution consumed was significantly less with PCEA than with continuous infusion of bupivacaine-fentanyl solution without affecting the quality of postoperative analgesia after total knee arthroplasty. Several of the elderly patients had difficulties in operating the PCEA apparatus.     

Comparison of combined spinal-epidural and low dose epidural for labour analgesia

PURPOSE: To compare the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique with the epidural technique with regard to time to initiate and manage, motor block, onset of analgesia and satisfaction during labour. METHODS: Upon requesting analgesia, 50 healthy term parturients were randomized in a prospective, double-blind fashion to receive either CSE analgesia or lumbar epidural analgesia in the labour floor of a university hospital at an academic medical centre. The epidural group (n = 24) received bupivacaine 0.0625%-fentanyl 0.0002% with 0.05 ml in 10 ml local anesthetic sodium bicarbonate 8.4% and epinephrine 1:200,000. The CSE group (n = 26) received intrathecal 25 microg fentanyl and 2.5 mg bupivacaine. Additional analgesia was provided upon maternal request. RESULTS: There were no differences (P>0.05) in time to perform either technique, motor blockade, or parturient satisfaction or in the number of times that the anesthesiologist was called to perform any intervention. Although the first sign of analgesia was not different between the two groups, the onset of complete analgesia was more rapid with the CSE technique (Visual Analogue Pain Score (VAPS) at five minutes < three: 26/26 vs. 17/24, P+/-0.001). CONCLUSION: Although epidural analgesia with a low concentration of local anesthetic and opioid mixture takes longer to produce complete analgesia, it is a satisfactory alternative to CSE.     

雷米芬太尼静脉自控镇痛在产科的应用

目的 探讨雷米芬太尼静脉自控镇痛(PCIA)用于产科分娩镇痛的临床有效性和安全性.方法 60例健康初产妇随机分为雷米芬太尼PCIA镇痛组(Ⅰ组)和未予镇痛对照组(Ⅱ组),每组30例.观察分娩VAS评分、镇静评分、术后满意度评分及各产程时间、分娩方式、催产素使用及第一产程活跃期时间和官口扩张进程.并记录新生儿出生后1、5 min Apgar评分、胎心率(FHR)及不良反应.结果 与镇痛前和Ⅱ组相比,Ⅰ组镇痛后15 min、1 h、宫口开全和胎儿娩出时VAS评分降低、镇静评分升高(P<0.05).与Ⅱ组相比,Ⅰ组产后24 h满意度评分较高(P<0.05).两组FHR和新生儿出生后1、5 min Apgar评分均在正常范围.Ⅰ组产妇镇痛期眩晕发生率高于Ⅱ组(P<0.05).结论 雷米芬太尼PCIA用于分娩镇痛有效且无明显不良反应.