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.

Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury: To prolong or to vacuum?

INTRODUCTION: An awareness of risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) is essential in order to reduce the occurrence of the primary event. These risk factors are demographic, obstetric and intrapartum related. We aimed to identify the risk factors for OASIS and to examine how modifiable risk factors may be used in order to reduce the incidence of OASIS. METHODS: A retrospective, matched case-control study was conducted in the delivery ward of a single university teaching hospital in Israel, using data from January 2004 to July 2012. All singleton vaginal deliveries at term with OASIS were included. The controls included women matched at a ratio of 1:2 based on gestational age and deliveries that occurred immediately before and after the delivery of the women in the study group. RESULTS: Overall, 113 OASIS were identified. Stepwise conditional logistic regression revealed that the first vaginal birth (OR = 7.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.5-16.3; p < 0.001) particularly after a previous caesarean section (OR = 13.6; 95% CI, 4.7-39.3; p < 0.001) and the length of the second stage (OR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1, p = 0.045) were the only risk factors for OASIS. Among 24 primiparous women who already had a prolonged second stage, 15 delivered by vacuum extraction and nine spontaneously; OASIS occurred in eight (53%) and three (33%) women, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that this difference was not significant (OR = 2.3; 95% CI, 0.4-12.7; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: The first vaginal birth particularly after a caesarean delivery and the length of the second stage increased the risk of OASIS. Vacuum extraction performed to shorten a prolonged second stage is not necessarily protective.

[MEDICAL THERAPY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PRETERM LABOR: IS THERE A FIRST LINE AGENT?].

Preterm birth is defined as delivery before 37 weeks. It is the leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Spontaneous preterm birth accounts for approximately 70% of all preterm births. Postponing delivery for 48 hours in order to allow administration of corticosteroids, magnesium for neuroprotection and in order to transfer women to a center with neonatal intensive care unit are the goals of tocolytic therapy. The benefits of tocolytic therapy between 24.0 and 34.0 weeks of gestation outweigh the risk of maternal and fetal complications and it should be initiated provided no contraindications exist. Tocolytic agents that have been used are: prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, calcium channel antagonists, B-adrenergic agonists, magnesium and oxytocin receptor antagonists. All drugs have demonstrated limited benefit that consists mainly of prolonging the gestational age for 48 hours, without a reduction in the incidence of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Additionally, most available tocolytic agents carry inherent risks of adverse effects. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations, there is no clear first line tocolytic drug to manage preterm labor. Other subjects of debate related to the use of tocolytic therapy include: The effectiveness of combination therapy, the use of tocolytic therapy in multiple pregnancies and the use of progesterone as an adjuvant therapy. We will address the efficacy and tolerability of the tocolytic agents available, the issue of maintenance therapy and debates mentioned above, and try to suggest a first line tocolytic agent based on a study performed at our institution.

Nifedipine compared with atosiban for treating preterm labor: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the tocolytic efficacy and tolerability of nifedipine with that of atosiban among pregnant women with preterm labor. METHODS: Pregnant women admitted with preterm labor and intact membranes between 24 and 33 weeks 6 days of gestation, between January 2008 and December 2011, were randomly assigned to either atosiban or nifedipine treatment. Assigned treatment was planned for up to 48 hours. If progress was determined after 1 hour or more, a crossover of the study drugs was performed. The primary outcome was to estimate the tocolytic efficacy and tolerability profile that was assessed in terms of the proportion of women who were not delivered and did not require an alternate tocolytic agent within 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were gestational age at delivery and neonatal morbidity. RESULTS: Seventy-five women in the nifedipine group and 70 in the atosiban group were included and analyzed. Baseline demographic and obstetric characteristics were comparable. Forty-eight (68.6%) women allocated to atosiban and 39 (52%) to nifedipine did not deliver and did not require an alternate agent at 48 hours respectively (P=.03). At 7 days from enrollment, 55 (78.6%) women allocated to atosiban and 67 (89.3%) to nifedipine remained undelivered with or without a rescue agent (P=.02). Mean gestational age at delivery was 35.2 (±3.0) and 36.4 (±2.8) weeks among the atosiban and nifedipine groups, respectively (P=.01). Mean birth weight and neonatal morbidity were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Atosiban has fewer failures within 48 hours. Nifedipine may be associated with a longer postponement of delivery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00599898.