Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options for pain relief during labor: an expert review.

Labor pain is among the most severe types of physical pain that women may experience during their lifetime. Thus, pain relief is an essential part of medical care during childbirth. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most efficient method of pain relief during labor. Nevertheless, patient preferences, contraindications, limited availability, and technical failure may require the use of alternative pain reliving methods during labor including systemic pharmacologic agents, and nonpharmacologic methods. Nonpharmacologic methods for pain alleviation during vaginal birth have become popular over the years, either as a complement to pharmacologic agents or at times as the principal therapy. Methods such as relaxation techniques (ie, yoga, hypnosis, and music), manual techniques (ie, massage, reflexology, and shiatsu), acupuncture, birthing ball, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are considered safe, although the evidence supporting their effectiveness for pain relief is not as robust as it is for pharmacologic agents. Systemic pharmacologic agents are mostly administered by inhalation (nitrous oxide) or through the parenteral route. These agents include opioids such as meperidine, nalbuphine, tramadol, butorphanol, morphine, and remifentanil, and non-opioid agents such as parenteral acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Systemic pharmacologic agents suggest a diverse armamentarium of medication for pain management during labor. Their efficacy in treating pain associated with labor varies, and some continue to be used even though they have not been proven effective for pain relief. In addition, the maternal and perinatal side effects differ markedly among these agents. There is a relative abundance of data regarding the effectiveness of analgesic drugs compared with epidural, but the data regarding comparisons among the different types of alternative analgesic agents are scarce, and there is no consistency regarding the drug of choice for women who do not receive epidural pain management. This review aims to present the available data regarding the effectiveness of the different methods of relieving pain during labor other than epidural. The data presented are mainly based on recent level I evidence regarding pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods for pain relief during labor.

Oral analgesia in fixed-time interval administration versus spinal morphine for post-Cesarean pain: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of fixed-time-interval oral analgesia and spinal-morphine for management of post-Cesarean pain. METHODS: In this open-label, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial, 200 women due to undergo elective Caesarean section with spinal anaesthesia were enrolled between July 2015 and April 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either spinal fentanyl followed by oral doses of tramadol, paracetamol, and diclofenac at predetermined regular intervals of 6 h for the first 48 h, and rescue treatment with percocet (oxycodone and paracetamol; oral analgesia group), or spinal morphine and rescue treatment with oral tramadol, paracetamol, and diclofenac (spinal-morphine group). The primary outcomes were pain intensity during the postoperative 48 h, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale (NRS) and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), and the number of breakthrough events of moderate to severe pain (defined as NRS score ≥ 4). RESULTS: The oral analgesia group compared to the spinal-morphine group had similar mean pain intensity (AUC (120 ± 35 versus 121 ± 31, respectively; p = 0.8) but more events of moderate-to-severe breakthrough pain (4.8 ± 2 versus 3.8 ± 1.7, respectively; p = 0.0002). Higher rates and longer durations of pruritus, nausea, and vomiting were reported among patients receiving spinal morphine, as compared with oral analgesia. Satisfaction scores were high in both groups (8.2 ± 2.4 versus 8.7 ± 1.8 in the oral analgesia and spinal morphine, respectively; p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Both oral analgesia at fixed time intervals and spinal morphine are satisfactory methods for treating post-Caesarean pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02440399, date of registration: 07/05/ 2015. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02440399?term=enav+yefet&rank=7 .

Clinical outcomes after external cephalic version with spinal anesthesia after failure of a first attempt without anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether repeat external cephalic version (ECV) with spinal anesthesia affects clinical outcomes and cesarean delivery rates. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using data collected at one hospital in Israel between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015. Women with non-vertex singleton pregnancies (≥37 weeks) who had a failed ECV attempt without spinal anesthesia were included in the analysis. All women were offered a repeat ECV with spinal anesthesia. Outcomes assessed were rates of vertex presentation at delivery, successful repeat ECV, and cesarean delivery. RESULTS: Overall, 145 of 213 ECV attempts without spinal anesthesia were successful. Of the 68 women with a failed attempt, 5 (7%) experienced spontaneous version and 18 (26%) delivered at another institution or went into spontaneous labor. Among the remaining 45 women, 28 (62%) agreed to a repeat ECV with spinal anesthesia; 11 (39%) of these procedures were successful. All 11 women experienced vertex presentation at delivery versus none of the 17 women who refused repeat ECV (P=0.003). The cesarean delivery rate was 64% (18/28) versus 100% (17/17), respectively (P=0.007). CONCLUSION: Repeat ECV with spinal anesthesia after a failed first attempt without spinal anesthesia increased vertex presentation at birth and decreased the rate of cesarean delivery.

Risk factors and peripartum outcomes of failed epidural: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Awareness to rate, risk factors, and the associated peripartum outcomes of failed epidural analgesia (FEA) may improve expectations and labor management. We aimed to identify risk factors for FEA and to examine peripartum outcomes associated with failure. METHODS: A prospective cohort study conducted between March 2015 and August 2015, at a single university medical center. Laboring women at ≥34 weeks, receiving epidural analgesia, were eligible. Pain was evaluated using a 0-10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS). FEA was defined as VAS score ≥5, 30 min after the loading dose. The primary outcome was to identify risk factors for FEA. In addition, second-stage duration and operative vaginal delivery rate were also examined. Univariate logistic regression and stepwise multivariate logistic regression were performed to estimate the predictors for FEA. RESULTS: Of all 414 women included, 35 (8.5%) had FEA. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression revealed that fetal head station 1 cm above the ischial spines (p = 0.002, adjusted OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.9-16.0), oxytocin use (p = 0.026, adjusted OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-6.8), and seniority of the anesthesiologist (p = 0.046, adjusted OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-0.99) at epidural insertion were found as significant variables associated with FEA. Second-stage duration and operative vaginal delivery rate did not differ significantly between women with failed and successful epidural. CONCLUSION: Higher fetal head station and oxytocin use may be associated with higher failure rate. Labor outcomes related to epidural use, occurred at comparable rates, among women with failed and successful epidural.

Prolonged intravenous eptifibatide infusion for prevention of coronary stent thrombosis.

Coronary bare-metal stent thrombosis usually occurs within a week of angioplasty, and may result in myocardial infarction and death. Thrombosis is effectively prevented by antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. We describe a patient who was unable to ingest oral medication after angioplasty due to gastrointestinal surgery, and was therefore at risk for stent thrombosis. Intravenous eptifibatide was infused for 8 days in order to achieve parenteral platelet inhibition. We suggest a role for long-term intravenous administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors for prevention of stent thrombosis in patients unable to take oral antiplatelet therapy.