Ropivacaine and Ketorolac Wound Infusion for Post-Cesarean Delivery Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of wound infusion with ropivacaine plus ketorolac compared with placebo for post-cesarean delivery analgesia in women who received a multimodal analgesic regimen including intrathecal morphine. METHODS: In a randomized double-blind study, women undergoing scheduled cesarean delivery under spinal or combined spinal epidural anesthesia were randomized to wound infusion with ropivacaine 0.2% plus ketorolac, or saline placebo using an elastometric pump for 48 hours. The primary outcome was pain score with movement at 24 hours after surgery (0-10 scale, 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain). Secondary outcomes included pain scores at rest at 24 hours, pain scores at rest and with movement at 2 and 48 hours, opioid consumption, and time to first rescue analgesic. A sample size of 35 per group (n=70) was planned. RESULTS: From November 8, 2016, to May 17, 2019, 247 women were screened, and 71 completed the study per protocol: 38 in the placebo group and 33 in the ropivacaine plus ketorolac group. Patient demographics and intraoperative characteristics were comparable between the groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in the primary outcome of pain score with movement at 24 hours (difference in median score 0, 95% CI -1 to 2, P=.94). There were also no significant differences between the placebo and ropivacaine plus ketorolac groups in pain scores at other time points, in total opioid consumption (difference in median consumption -12.5 mg, 95% CI -30 to 5, P=.11), or in time to rescue analgesics (median [interquartile range] 660 [9-1,496] vs 954 [244-1,710] minutes, hazard ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.17, P=.16). CONCLUSION: There was no benefit of wound infusion with ropivacaine and ketorolac in women who received intrathecal morphine and a multimodal analgesic regimen. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02829944. FUNDING SOURCE: The study was supported in part by Avanos Medical Inc.

Comparison of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses With Continuous Epidural Infusion for the Maintenance of Labor Analgesia: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Programmed intermittent epidural boluses may improve the spread of local anesthetics compared to continuous epidural infusion, improving labor analgesia and obstetric outcomes. However, there are limited data from studies using commercially available pumps capable of coadministering programmed intermittent epidural boluses or continuous epidural infusion with patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Therefore, we performed this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the impact of programmed intermittent epidural boluses versus continuous epidural infusion on labor analgesia and maternal/neonatal outcomes. We hypothesized that programmed intermittent epidural boluses will result in lower patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption compared to that with continuous epidural infusion. METHODS: Following standardized initiation of epidural labor analgesia, women were randomized to receive 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 µg/mL fentanyl as 6-mL programmed intermittent epidural boluses every 45 minutes or continuous epidural infusion at 8 mL/h in a double-blind fashion with similar patient-controlled epidural analgesia settings in both groups. The primary outcome was patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption per hour. Secondary outcomes included a need for physician interventions, patterns of patient-controlled epidural analgesia use, motor blockade, number of patients who developed hypotension, pain scores, duration of second stage of labor, mode of delivery, and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: We included 120 patients (61 in programmed intermittent epidural boluses group and 59 in continuous epidural infusion group) in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia volume consumed per hour was not significantly different between the groups: 4.5 mL/h (3.0-8.6 mL/h) for the continuous epidural infusion group and 4.0 mL/h (2.2-7.1 mL/h) for the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group (P = .17). The Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate of the difference (95% CI) from the continuous epidural infusion to the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group is 0.9 mL/h (-0.4 to 2.2 mL/h). There were also no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes except for higher median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia attempts per given ratio per hour in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group (0.17 [0.10-0.30] vs 0.12 [0.08-0.18]; P = .03) and more motor block in the continuous epidural infusion group (those with Bromage score <5, 27.5% vs 50.0%; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of our study, we did not find improved outcomes with programmed intermittent epidural boluses compared to continuous epidural infusion except for less motor block with programmed intermittent epidural boluses. Future studies should assess whether smaller but clinically important differences exist and evaluate different parameters of programmed intermittent epidural boluses to optimize analgesia and outcomes with this mode of analgesia.

Predicting Severity of Acute Pain After Cesarean Delivery: A Narrative Review.

Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States, with over 1.3 million performed annually. One-fifth of women who undergo cesarean delivery will experience severe pain in the acute postoperative period, increasing their risk of developing chronic pain and postpartum depression, and negatively impacting breastfeeding and newborn care. A growing body of research has investigated tools to predict which patients will experience more severe pain and have increased analgesic consumption after cesarean delivery. These include quantitative sensory testing, assessment of wound hyperalgesia, response to local anesthetic infiltration, and preoperative psychometric evaluations such as validated psychological questionnaires and simple screening tools. For this review, we searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, and Google Scholar to identify articles that evaluated the utility of various tools to predict severe pain and/or opioid consumption in the first 48 hours after cesarean delivery. Thirteen articles were included in the final review: 5 utilizing quantitative sensory testing, including patient responses to pressure, electrical, and thermal stimuli; 1 utilizing hyperalgesia testing; 1 using response to local anesthetic wound infiltration; 4 utilizing preoperative psychometric evaluations including the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and simple questionnaires; and 2 utilizing a combination of quantitative sensory tests and psychometric evaluations. A number of modalities demonstrated statistically significant correlations with pain outcomes after cesarean delivery, but most correlations were weak to modest, and many modalities might not be clinically feasible. Response to local anesthetic infiltration and a tool using 3 simple questions enquiring about anxiety and anticipated pain and analgesic needs show potential for clinical use, but further studies are needed to evaluate the utility of these predictive tests in clinical practice.