Socio-economic disadvantage and utilisation of labour epidural analgesia in Scotland: a population-based study†.

Socio-economic deprivation is associated with adverse maternal and childhood outcomes. Epidural analgesia, the gold standard for labour analgesia, may improve maternal well-being. We assessed the association of socio-economic status with utilisation of epidural analgesia and whether this differed when epidural analgesia was advisable for maternal safety. This was a population-based study of NHS data for all women in labour in Scotland between 1 January 2007 and 23 October 2020, excluding elective caesarean sections. Socio-economic status deciles were defined using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Medical conditions for which epidural analgesia is advisable for maternal safety (medical indications) and contraindications were defined according to national guidelines. Of 593,230 patients in labour, 131,521 (22.2%) received epidural analgesia. Those from the most deprived areas were 16% less likely to receive epidural analgesia than the most affluent (relative risk 0.84 [95%CI 0.82-0.85]), with the inter-decile mean change in receiving epidural analgesia estimated at -2% ([95%CI -2.2% to -1.7%]). Among the 21,219 deliveries with a documented medical indication for epidural analgesia, the socio-economic gradient persisted (relative risk 0.79 [95%CI 0.75-0.84], inter-decile mean change in receiving epidural analgesia -2.5% [95%CI -3.1% to -2.0%]). Women in the most deprived areas with a medical indication for epidural analgesia were still less likely (absolute risk 0.23 [95%CI 0.22-0.24]) to receive epidural analgesia than women from the most advantaged decile without a medical indication (absolute risk 0.25 [95%CI 0.24-0.25]). Socio-economic deprivation is associated with lower utilisation of epidural analgesia, even when epidural analgesia is advisable for maternal safety. Ensuring equitable access to an intervention that alleviates pain and potentially reduces adverse outcomes is crucial.

Epidural-related maternal fever: incidence, pathophysiology, outcomes, and management.

Epidural-related maternal fever affects 15% to 25% of patients who receive a labor epidural. Two meta-analyses demonstrated that epidural-related maternal fever is a clinical phenomenon, which is unlikely to be caused by selection bias. All commonly used neuraxial techniques, local anesthetics with or without opioids, and maintenance regimens are associated with epidural-related maternal fever, however, the impact of each component is unknown. Two major theories surrounding epidural-related maternal fever development have been proposed. First, labor epidural analgesia may lead to the development of hyperthermia through a sterile (noninfectious) inflammatory process. This process may involve reduced activation of caspase-1 (a protease involved in cell apoptosis and activation of proinflammatory pathways) secondary to bupivacaine, which impairs the release of the antipyrogenic cytokine, interleukin-1-receptor antagonist, from circulating leucocytes. Detailed mechanistic processes of epidural-related maternal fever remain to be determined. Second, thermoregulatory mechanisms secondary to neuraxial blockade have been proposed, which may also contribute to epidural-related maternal fever development. Currently, there is no prophylactic strategy that can safely prevent epidural-related maternal fever from occurring nor can it easily be distinguished clinically from other causes of intrapartum fever, such as chorioamnionitis. Because intrapartum fever (of any etiology) is associated with adverse outcomes for both the mother and baby, it is important that all parturients who develop intrapartum fever are investigated and treated appropriately, irrespective of labor epidural utilization. Institution of treatment with appropriate antimicrobial therapy is recommended if an infectious cause of fever is suspected. There is currently insufficient evidence to warrant a change in recommendations regarding provision of labor epidural analgesia and the benefits of good quality labor analgesia must continue to be reiterated to expectant mothers.

Viscoelastic testing in liver transplantation.

Despite the lack of large randomized clinical studies, viscoelastic tests (VETs) have been a critical armamentarium for hemostatic control in liver transplantation (LT) since the 1960s. Many transplant institutions have adopted VETs in their clinical practice. Several small-size randomized clinical trials on LT patients have suggested that VET-guided hemostatic treatment algorithms have led to decreased indications for and amounts of transfused blood products, especially fresh-frozen plasma, compared to standard laboratory-based hemostatic management. VETs have also been reported to offer insight into the diagnosis and prediction of LT patients' development of hypercoagulability-related morbidity and mortality. There is still a need for VET device-specific hemostatic algorithms in LT, and clinicians must take into account the tendency to underestimate the coagulation capacity of VETs in patients with end-stage liver disease where hemostasis is rebalanced.

[Effects of double-catheter epidural analgesia by lidocaine injection respectively on the delivery outcomes and maternal-infant complications for persistent posterior or lateral occipital position of protracted active phase].

Objective: To evaluate the effect of dual-tube epidural segmental injection of lidocaine analgesia on the delivery outcome and maternal and infant complications of persistent posterior occipital position postpartum or lateral occipital position postpartum patients with protracted active phase. Methods: The full and single-term primiparas (n=216, 37 to 42 weeks gestation, 22 to 35 years) diagnosed as persistent posterior or lateral occipital position during the active period were selected from the Department of Obstetrics of Qingdao Municipal Hospital from January 2015 to October 2019. The subjects were randomly assigned into two groups: double-tube epidural block group (n=108) and single-tube epidural block group (n=108), 1% lidocaine was used for epidural analgesia respectively under ultrasound guidance. Senior midwife or obstetricians implement new partogram, and guide women to perform position management, and push or rotate the fetal head in a timely manner. Observation indicators: general condition, the use of non-pharmacological analgesic measures, analgesia related conditions and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, delivery-related indicator, cesarean section indication, anesthesia-related indicator, maternal and child complications. Results: (1) General condition: the age, weight, height, gestational age, the ratio of persistent lateral or posterior occipital position, cephalic score, and neonatal birth weight between the two groups of women were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). (2) The use of non-pharmacological analgesic measures: the women's Lamaze breathing method, Doula delivery companionship, percutaneous electrical stimulation, and other measures between two groups were compared, and there were not significant differences (all P>0.05). (3) Analgesia related conditions and VAS scores of women undergoing vaginal delivery: compared with the single-tube epidural block group (n=40), the second-partum time of the women in the double-tube epidural block group (n=59) was significantly shortened [(124±44) vs (86±33) minutes, P<0.01]; after 30 minutes of analgesia (4.4±0.5 vs 0.9±0.5, P<0.01), during forced labor in the second stage of labor (5.7±0.6 vs 1.3±0.4, P<0.01), the VAS scores of pain were also significantly reduced (P<0.01). (4) Labor-related indicators: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the natural delivery rate (21.3% vs 49.1%) and the delivery experience satisfaction rate (51.9% vs 98.1%) of women in the double-tube epidural block group were significantly increased (all P<0.01), cesarean section rate (63.0% vs 45.4%), instrument assisted rate (15.7% vs 5.6%) decreased significantly (all P<0.05). (5) Cesarean section indications: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the cesarean section rate caused by prolonged labor or protracted active phase of women in the double-tube epidural block group was significantly reduced (38.0% vs 22.2%； P<0.05), and the fetal distress, intrauterine infection, and social factors caused by cesarean section between the two groups were compared, while the differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05).(6) Anesthesia related indexes: the block planes of the maternal upper tube administration in the double-tube epidural block group were mostly T7, T8, T9-L2 and L3,While,the block planes in the single-tube epidural block group were mostly T10, T11-S1, S2, S3, and the modified Bromage score were all 0. (7) Maternal and child complications: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the postpartum hemorrhage rate (18.5% vs 7.4%), the perineal lateral cut rate (20.4% vs 5.6%), the neonatal asphyxia rate (12.0% vs 3.7%), ICU rate of transferred neonates (13.9% vs 4.6%) in the double-tube epidural block group were significantly reduced (all P<0.05). Soft birth canal injury rate, puerperal disease rate and neonatal birth rate between two groups were compared, and there were not statistically significant differences (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Dual-tube epidural segmental injection of lidocaine analgesia could increase the natural delivery rate of women with posterior occipital or lateral occipital position with active stagnation, reduce the rate of cesarean section and the rate of transvaginal instruments, and reduce the complications of mother and child.

A Contemporary Medicolegal Analysis of Outpatient Interventional Pain Procedures: 2009-2016.

BACKGROUND: Closed malpractice claim studies allow a review of rare but often severe complications, yielding useful insight into improving patient safety and decreasing practitioner liability. METHODS: This retrospective observational study of pain medicine malpractice claims utilizes the Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System database, which contains nearly 400,000 malpractice claims drawn from >400 academic and community medical centers. The Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System database was queried for January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2016, for cases with pain medicine as the primary service. Cases involving outpatient interventional pain management were identified. Controlled Risk Insurance Company-coded data fields and the narrative summaries were reviewed by the study authors. RESULTS: A total of 126 closed claims were identified. Forty-one claims resulted in payments to the plaintiffs, with a median payment of $175,000 (range, $2600-$2,950,000). Lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections were the most common procedures associated with claims (n = 34), followed by cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections (n = 31) and trigger point injections (n = 13). The most common alleged injuring events were an improper performance of a procedure (n = 38); alleged nonsterile technique (n = 17); unintentional dural puncture (n = 13); needle misdirected to the spinal cord (n = 11); and needle misdirected to the lung (n = 10). The most common alleged outcomes were worsening pain (n = 26); spinal cord infarct (n = 16); epidural hematoma (n = 9); soft-tissue infection (n = 9); postdural puncture headache (n = 9); and pneumothorax (n = 9). According to the Controlled Risk Insurance Company proprietary contributing factor system, perceived deficits in technical skill were present in 83% of claims. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural steroid injections are among the most commonly performed interventional pain procedures and, while a familiar procedure to pain management practitioners, may result in significant neurological injury. Trigger point injections, while generally considered safe, may result in pneumothorax or injury to other deep structures. Ultimately, the efforts to minimize practitioner liability and patient harm, like the claims themselves, will be multifactorial. Best outcomes will likely come from continued robust training in procedural skills, attention paid to published best practice recommendations, documentation that includes an inclusive consent discussion, and thoughtful patient selection. Limitations for this study are that closed claim data do not cover all complications that occur and skew toward more severe complications. In addition, the data from Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System cannot be independently verified.

Predictors of breastfeeding exclusivity and duration in a hospital without Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative accreditation: A prospective cohort study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the maternity care factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding duration at three months and six months postpartum in a setting without BFHI accrediation. METHODS: A prospective cohort design. Participants from one tertiary maternity hospital were eligible if they intended to exclusively breastfeed, had birthed a live, term baby; were breastfeeding at recruitment; were rooming-in with their baby; were healthy and well; and understood English. Participants completed an infant feeding survey using 24-h recall questions at three time-points. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis and regression modelling. FINDINGS: We recruited 424 participants of whom 84% (n=355) responded to the survey at 3-months and 79% (n=335) at 6-months. Women who avoided exposure to intrapartum opioid analgesia (e.g. intramuscular, intraveous or epidural) were more likely to be exclusively breastfeeding at 3-months postpartum (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-3.80, probability value (p) 0.016). The only other modifiable predictor of exclusive breastfeeding at 3-months was non-exposure to artificial formula on the postnatal ward (aOR 2.44, 95% CI 1.43-4.18, p<0.001). At 6-months postpartum, the rate of exclusive breastfeeding had reduced to 5% (n=16) which rendered regression modelling untenable. DISCUSSION: Strategies to decrease exposure to opioid analgesia in birth settings and the use of infant formula on the postnatal ward may improve exclusive breastfeeding at three months. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that both intrapartum and postpartum maternity care practices can predict long-term breastfeeding success.

Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality in its most severe forms. Most patients with severe AP require intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, frequently for more than 7 days, which is associated with the worst outcome. Recent increasing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies support the beneficial effects of epidural analgesia (EA) in AP, such as increased gut barrier function and splanchnic, pancreatic and renal perfusion, decreased liver damage and inflammatory response, and reduced mortality. Because recent studies suggest that EA might be a safe procedure in the critically ill, we sought to determine whether EA reduced AP-associated respiratory failure and other major clinical outcomes in patients with AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Epidural Analgesia for Pancreatitis (EPIPAN) trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled two-arm trial with assessor-blinded outcome assessment. The EPIPAN trial will randomise 148 patients with AP requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive EA (with patient-controlled epidural administration of ropivacaine and sufentanil) combined with standard care based on current recommendations on the treatment of AP (interventional group), or standard care alone (reference group). The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days at day 30. Secondary outcomes include main complications of AP (eg, organ failure and mortality, among others), levels of biological markers of systemic inflammation, epithelial lung injury, renal failure, and healthcare-associated costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee (CPP Sud-Est VI). Informed consent is required. If the combined application of EA and standard care proves superior to standard care alone in patients with AP in the ICU, the use of EA may become standard practice in experienced centres, thereby decreasing potential complications related to AP and its burden in critically ill patients. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02126332.

A state-wide assessment of the association between epidural analgesia, maternal fever and neonatal antibiotics in Colorado, 2007-2012.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if an association exists between epidural analgesia, maternal fever and neonatal antibiotic exposure in a state-wide birth cohort. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of the population-based Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment birth certificate database. Data included all reported births in the state of Colorado between 2007 and 2012. Live, non-preterm, vaginal, singleton, in-hospital births were included in analysis. EXPOSURE: Maternal epidural analgesia and maternal fever. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Neonatal antibiotic treatment for suspected sepsis. A stratified analysis was conducted to evaluate whether epidural use was an effect modifier of the association between maternal fever and neonatal antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: The final cohort included 261 457 births. 2.2% of women who received an epidural had a fever, as compared with 0.4% of women who did not receive an epidural (OR: 5.4; 95% CI 4.9 to 6.0), and neonates born to women who received an epidural had 1.26 times increased odds of antibiotic treatment (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4). Stratification by epidural use did not alter the association between maternal fever and neonatal antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Colorado providers treat neonates born to mothers with maternal fever without respect to whether the mother had an epidural. Further research into improved criteria for neonatal sepsis evaluation that accounts for the contribution of maternal epidural fever should be developed to decrease unnecessary neonatal antibiotic exposure.

Epidural analgesia during labour, routinely or on request: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of routine labour epidural analgesia (EA), from a societal perspective, as compared with labour analgesia on request. STUDY DESIGN: Women delivering of a singleton in cephalic presentation beyond 36+0 weeks' gestation were randomly allocated to routine labour EA or analgesia on request in one university and one non-university teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Costs included all medical, non-medical and indirect costs from randomisation to 6 weeks postpartum. Effectiveness was defined as a non-operative, spontaneous vaginal delivery without EA-related maternal adverse effects. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the ratio of the difference in costs and the difference in effectiveness between both groups. Data were analysed according to intention to treat and divided into a base case analysis and a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Total delivery costs in the routine EA group (n=233) were higher than in the labour on request group (n=255) (difference -€ 322, 95% CI -€ 60 to € 355) due to more medication costs (including EA), a longer stay in the labour ward, and more operations including caesarean sections. Total postpartum hospital costs in the routine EA group were lower (difference -€ 344, 95% CI -€ 1338 to € 621) mainly due to less neonatal admissions (difference -€ 472, 95% CI -€ 1297 to € 331), whereas total postpartum home and others costs were comparable (difference -€ 20, 95% CI -€ 267 to € 248, and -€ 1, 95% CI -€ 67 to € 284, respectively). As a result, the overall mean costs per woman were comparable between the routine EA group and the analgesia on request group (€ 8.708 and € 8.710, respectively, mean difference -€ 2, 95% CI -€ 1.012 to € 916). Routine labour EA resulted in more deliveries with maternal adverse effects, nevertheless the ICER remained low (€ 8; bootstrap 95% CI -€ 6.120 to € 8.659). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated a low probability that routine EA is cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Routine labour EA generates comparable costs as analgesia on request, but results in more operative deliveries and more EA-related maternal adverse effects. Based on cost-effectiveness, no preference can be given to routine labour EA as compared with analgesia on request.

Epidural Local Anesthetics Versus Opioid-Based Analgesic Regimens for Postoperative Gastrointestinal Paralysis, Vomiting, and Pain After Abdominal Surgery: A Cochrane Review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to compare the effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anesthetics to postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, hospital length of stay, and cost after abdominal surgery. METHODS: Trials were identified by computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (from 1950 to December, 2014) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of postoperative epidural local anesthetic with regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted data. We judged the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group scale. RESULTS: Based on 22 trials including 1138 participants, an epidural containing a local anesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time required to observe the first flatus after an abdominal surgery standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used. Based on 28 trials including 1559 participants, we also found a decrease in time to first feces (stool): SMD -0.67 (95% CI, -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Based on 35 trials including 2731 participants, pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery is also reduced: SMD -0.89 (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10). Based on 22 trials including 1154 participants, we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours: risk ratio 0.84 (95% CI, 0.57-1.23); low quality of evidence. Based on 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak: risk ratio 0.74 (95% CI, 0.41-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on 30 trials including 2598 participants, epidural analgesia reduces length of hospital stay for an open surgery: SMD -0.20 (95% CI, -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to 1 day). Data on cost were very limited. CONCLUSIONS: An epidural containing a local anesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of the gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after an abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic does not affect the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For an open surgery, an epidural containing a local anesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy: an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials. METHODS: The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used. RESULTS: A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374%) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03%; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1%; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3%; p = 0.942). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.

Improved peri-operative outcomes with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing a pancreatectomy: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: In spite of limited evidence demonstrating a benefit, epidural analgesia (EA) is often used for patients undergoing a pancreatectomy. In the present study, the impact of epidural analgesia on post-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy is examined. METHODS: Utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the effect of EA on peri-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy was examined. Multivariable logistic and linear regression with propensity score matching were utilized for risk adjustment. RESULTS: From 2008-2011, 12,440 patients underwent a pancreatectomy. Of these, 1130 (9.1%) patients received epidural analgesia. Using univariate comparison, patients receiving EA had a significantly decreased length of stay (LOS), hospital charges and post-operative inpatient mortality. In multivariate analyses, EA was independently associated with a decreased post-operative LOS (adjusted mean difference = -1.19 days, P < 0.001), decreased hospital charges (adjusted mean difference = -$16,814, P = 0.002) and decreased post-operative inpatient mortality [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, P < 0.001]. Using 1:1 propensity score matching, patients who received an EA (n = 1070) had significantly decreased post-operative LOS (11.0 versus 12.1 days, P = 0.011), lower hospital charges ($112,086 versus $128,939, P = 0.001) and decreased post-operative inpatient mortality (1.5% versus 3.6%, P = 0.002) compared with matched controls without EA (n = 1070). CONCLUSION: Analysis of a large hospital database reveals that EA is associated with improved peri-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy. Additional studies are required to understand fully if this relationship is causal.

Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis.

AIM: Neuraxial blockade (epidural or spinal anesthesia/analgesia) with external cephalic version increases the external cephalic version success rate. Hospitals and insurers may affect access to neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version, but the costs to these institutions remain largely unstudied. The objective of this study was to perform a cost analysis of neuraxial blockade use during external cephalic version from hospital and insurance payer perspectives. Secondarily, we estimated the effect of neuraxial blockade on cesarean delivery rates. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed using costs and probabilities occurring prenatally through the delivery hospital admission. Model inputs were derived from the literature, national databases, and local supply costs. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess model robustness. RESULTS: Neuraxial blockade was cost saving to both hospitals ($30 per delivery) and insurers ($539 per delivery) using baseline estimates. From both perspectives, however, the model was sensitive to multiple variables. Monte Carlo simulation indicated neuraxial blockade to be more costly in approximately 50% of scenarios. The model demonstrated that routine use of neuraxial blockade during external cephalic version, compared to no neuraxial blockade, prevented 17 cesarean deliveries for every 100 external cephalic versions attempted. CONCLUSIONS: Neuraxial blockade is associated with minimal hospital and insurer cost changes in the setting of external cephalic version, while reducing the cesarean delivery rate.

Thoracic Epidural analgesia versus Rectus Sheath Catheters for open midline incisions in major abdominal surgery within an enhanced recovery programme (TERSC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is recommended for post-operative pain relief in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery via a midline incision. However, the effectiveness of TEA is variable with high failure rates reported post-operatively. Common side effects such as low blood pressure and motor block can reduce mobility and hinder recovery, and a number of rare but serious complications can also occur following their use.Rectus sheath catheters (RSC) may provide a novel alternative approach to somatic analgesia without the associated adverse effects of TEA. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of both techniques in terms of pain relief, patient experience, post-operative functional recovery, safety and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single-centre randomised controlled non-blinded trial, which also includes a nested qualitative study. Over a two-year period, 132 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery via a midline incision will be randomised to receive either TEA or RSC for post-operative analgesia. The primary outcome measures pain scores on moving from a supine to a sitting position at 24 hours post wound closure, and the patient experience between groups evaluated through in-depth interviews. Secondary outcomes include pain scores at rest and on movement at other time points, opiate consumption, functional recovery, morbidity and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This will be the first randomised controlled trial comparing thoracic epidurals to ultrasound-guided rectus sheath catheters in adults undergoing elective midline laparotomy. The standardised care provided by an Enhanced Recovery Programme makes this a comparison between two complex pain packages and not simply two analgesic techniques, in order to ascertain if RSC is a viable alternative to TEA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81223298 (16 January 2014).

Epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia following minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair (MIPER) is a painful procedure. The ideal approach to postoperative analgesia is debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia compared to intravenous Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) following MIPER. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1946-2012) and the Cochrane Library (inception-2012) for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies comparing epidural analgesia to PCA for postoperative pain management in children following MIPER. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for numeric pain scores and summarized secondary outcomes qualitatively. RESULTS: Of 699 studies, 3 RCTs and 3 retrospective cohorts met inclusion criteria. Compared to PCA, mean pain scores were modestly lower with epidural immediately (WMD -1.04, 95% CI -2.11 to 0.03, p=0.06), 12 hours (WMD -1.12; 95% CI -1.61 to -0.62, p<0.001), 24 hours (WMD -0.51, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.02, p=0.06), and 48 hours (WMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.07, p=0.03) after surgery. We found no statistically significant differences between secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia may provide superior pain control but was comparable with PCA for secondary outcomes. Better designed studies are needed. Currently the analgesic technique should be based on patient preference and institutional resources.

Epidural catheterization in cardiac surgery: the 2012 risk assessment.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The risk assessment of epidural hematoma due to catheter placement in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is essential since its benefits have to be weighed against risks, such as the risk of paraplegia. We determined the risk of the catheter-related epidural hematoma in cardiac surgery based on the cases reported in the literature up to September 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included all reported cases of epidural catheter placement for cardiac surgery in web and in literature from 1966 to September 2012. Risks of other medical and non-medical activities were retrieved from recent reviews or national statistical reports. RESULTS: Based on our analysis the risk of catheter-related epidural hematoma is 1 in 5493 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1/970-1/31114. The risk of catheter-related epidural hematoma in cardiac surgery is similar to the risk in the general surgery population at 1 in 6,628 (95% CI 1/1,170-1/37,552). CONCLUSIONS: The present risk calculation does not justify not offering epidural analgesia as part of a multimodal analgesia protocol in cardiac surgery.

A nationwide analysis of the use and outcomes of epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Epidural analgesia has demonstrated superiority over conventional analgesia in controlling pain following open colorectal resections. Controversy exists regarding cost-effectiveness and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2002-2010) was retrospectively reviewed for elective open colorectal surgeries performed for benign and malignant conditions with or without the use of epidural analgesia. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between epidural and conventional analgesia. RESULTS: A total 888,135 patients underwent open colorectal resections. Epidural analgesia was only used in 39,345 (4.4 %) cases. Epidurals were more likely to be used in teaching hospitals and rectal cancer cases. On multivariate analysis, in colonic cases, epidural analgesia lowered hospital charges by US$4,450 (p < 0.001) but was associated with longer length of stay by 0.16 day (p < 0.05) and a higher incidence of ileus (OR = 1.17; p < 0.01). In rectal cases, epidural analgesia was again associated with lower hospital charges by US$4,340 (p < 0.001) but had no effect on ileus and length of stay. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, anastomotic leak, urinary tract infection, and retention were unaffected by the use of epidurals. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery is safe but does not add major clinical benefits over conventional analgesia. It appears however to lower hospital charges.

Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia versus epidural analgesia in labour. A multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief during labour is a topic of major interest in the Netherlands. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most effective method of pain relief and recommended as first choice. However its uptake by pregnant women is limited compared to other western countries, partly as a result of non-availability due to logistic problems. Remifentanil, a synthetic opioid, is very suitable for patient controlled analgesia. Recent studies show that epidural analgesia is superior to remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in terms of pain intensity score; however there was no difference in satisfaction with pain relief between both treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled study that assesses the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil patient controlled analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is as effective in improving pain appreciation scores as epidural analgesia, with lower costs and easier achievement of 24 hours availability of pain relief for women in labour and efficient pain relief for those with a contraindication for epidural analgesia.Eligible women will be informed about the study and randomized before active labour has started. Women will be randomly allocated to a strategy based on epidural analgesia or on remifentanil patient controlled analgesia when they request pain relief during labour. Primary outcome is the pain appreciation score, i.e. satisfaction with pain relief.Secondary outcome parameters are costs, patient satisfaction, pain scores (pain-intensity), mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal side effects.The economic analysis will be performed from a short-term healthcare perspective. For both strategies the cost of perinatal care for mother and child, starting at the onset of labour and ending ten days after delivery, will be registered and compared. DISCUSSION: This study, considering cost effectiveness of remifentanil as first choice analgesia versus epidural analgesia, could strongly improve the care for 180.000 women, giving birth in the Netherlands yearly by giving them access to pain relief during labour, 24 hours a day. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR2551, http://www.trialregister.nl.

[Procedural pain assessment after spinal injections of corticosteroid]. / Douleur induite: complication méconnue des infiltrations péridurales aux corticoïdes chez l'adulte.

BACKGROUND: Spinal injections of corticosteroid are commonly performed by rheumatologists in their daily practice but little is known about the frequency, the intensity and the management of procedural pain observed in these osteoarticular injections in daily practice. AIM: To evaluate the prevalence and intensity of pain caused by spinal injections. METHODS: In this observational prospective study, data were collected over 6 months, for up to 44 procedures (corticosteroid spinal injection). Evaluation of the pain was evaluated immediately before and after the injection using Huskisson's visual analogue scale (VAS). Statistical analysis was carried out in order to compare patients who had suffered from pain whilst undergoing the procedure to those who had not. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 17 patients (12 female, mean age 53.6 ± 10.5 years). Over 50% of patients experienced procedural pain. Significant predictive factors of genesis of the procedural pain were the young age (p=0.022) and the intensity of the initial pain (p < 0.001), while the existence of a co morbidity is rather a protective factor (p = 0.006). Others factors such us sex, origin, level of studies, socioeconomic conditions, didn't seem to have of effect on the procedural pain. CONCLUSION: Most patients undergoing spinal injections suffer from procedural pain. Specific research and guidelines for the management of procedural pain related to rheumatologic care should be established to improve the quality of care provided by physicians.