Comparison between a disposable and an electronic PCA device for labor epidural analgesia

Purpose The aims of the present study were (1) to investigate if a disposable patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device can be used for labor analgesia and (2) to evaluate the device by midwives and parturients.Methods Forty healthy parturients were divided into two groups and received combined spinal epidural analgesia for labor pain relief. Following intrathecal administration of 3mg ropivacaine and 1.5µg sufentanil, either a disposable PCA device (Coopdech Syrinjector; Daiken Medical, Osaka, Japan) or an electronic PCA device (IVAC PCAM PCA Syringe Pump; Alaris, Basingstoke, UK) was connected to the epidural catheter, and 0.15% ropivacaine with sufentanil 0.75µg/ml was used for continuous infusion and PCA. For an electronic PCA device, continuous infusion rate, bolus dose, lockout time, and hourly limit were set at 4ml/h, 3ml, 15min, and 16ml, respectively. For a disposable PCA device, continuous infusion rate, bolus dose, and an hourly limit were set at 4ml/h, 3ml, and 16ml, respectively, but lockout function was not available.Results No differences were observed between the groups concerning demographic data, obstetric data, and outcome of labor. Anesthetic requirements (disposable, 9.7 ± 4.7ml/h; electronic, 8.2 ± 4.0ml/h) and VAS score during the delivery (disposable, 26 ± 25; electronic, 21 ± 22) were similar between the groups. Midwives praised the disposable PCA device as well as the electronic one.Conclusion The present results imply that the disposable PCA device can be an alternative to the electronic PCA device for labor analgesia.