Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 4.163
Filtrar
1.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 34(1): 62-68, 2021 Feb 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33315638

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review is based on the latest evidence to provide a good standard of care for COVID-19 parturients and protection to healthcare givers. RECENT FINDINGS: COVID-19 by itself is not an indication for cesarean section. Different publications demonstrated the efficacy of neuraxial analgesia/anesthesia for delivery. Although SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a certain neurotropism, neuraxial block was not associated with neurological damage in COVID-19 parturients, and seems as safe and effective as in normal situations. It permits to avoid a general anesthesia in case of intrapartum cesarean section. Epidural failure is a concern: it may lead to a general anesthesia in case of emergency cesarean section. Local protocols and well-trained anesthesiologists will be helpful. COVID-19 patients require special circuits and every step (transfer to and from theatre, recovery, analgesia, and so on) should be planned in advance. For cesarean section under general anesthesia, personal protection equipment must be enhanced. Postoperative analgesia with neuraxial opioids, NSAIDs, or regional blocks are recommended. COVID-19 and pregnancy increase the risk of thrombosis, so thromboprophylaxis has to be considered and protocolized. SUMMARY: Anesthetic care for delivery in COVID-19 parturients should include neuraxial blocks. Special attention should be paid on the risk of thrombosis.


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica , Cesárea , Obstetrícia , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Anticoagulantes , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Tromboembolia Venosa
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD004908, 2020 10 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33078388

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping pain (often called after-birth pain) associated with uterine involution, where the uterus contracts to reduce blood loss and return the uterus to its non-pregnant size. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief/analgesia for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia versus placebo or analgesia versus no treatment, for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we include 28 studies (involving 2749 women). The evidence identified in this review comes from middle- to high-income countries. Generally the trials were at low risk of selection bias, performance bias and attrition bias, but some trials were at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and lack of blinding. Our GRADE certainty of evidence assessments ranged from moderate to very low certainty, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations, imprecision, and (for one comparison) indirectness. Most studies reported our primary outcome of adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No studies reported data relating to neonatal adverse events, duration of hospital stay, or breastfeeding rates. Almost half of the included studies (11/28) excluded breastfeeding women from participating, making the evidence less generalisable to a broader group of women. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared to placebo NSAIDs are probably better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.91; 11 studies, 946 women; moderate-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33; 4 studies, 375 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be a similar risk of maternal adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; 9 studies, 598 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs compared to opioids NSAIDs are probably better than opioids for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; 5 studies, 560 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of maternal adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; 3 studies, 255 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be better than opioids for the need for additional pain relief, but the wide CIs include the possibility that the two classes of drugs are similarly effective or that opioids are better (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.12; 2 studies, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids compared to placebo Opioids may be better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; 5 studies, 299 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 studies, 273 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may increase the risk of maternal adverse events compared with placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55; 3 studies, 188 women; low-certainty evidence). Paracetamol compared to placebo Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if paracetamol is better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events (2 studies, 123 women). Paracetamol compared to NSAIDs Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there are any differences between paracetamol and NSAIDs for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, or the risk of maternal adverse events. No data were reported about the need for additional pain relief comparing paracetamol and NSAIDs (2 studies, 112 women). NSAIDs compared to herbal analgesia We are uncertain if there are any differences between NSAIDs and herbal analgesia for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events, because the certainty of evidence is very low (4 studies, 394 women). Transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS) compared to no TENS Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if TENS is better than no TENS for adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No other data were reported comparing TENS with no TENS (1 study, 32 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs may be better than placebo and are probably better than opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs and paracetamol may be as effective as each other, whereas opioids may be more effective than placebo. Due to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of other forms of pain relief. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and ensure greater generalisability by including breastfeeding women. In addition, further research is required, including a survey of postpartum women to describe appropriately their experience of uterine cramping and involution. We identified nine ongoing studies, which may help to increase the level of certainty of the evidence around pain relief due to uterine cramping in future updates of this review.


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Cãibra Muscular/complicações , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Contração Uterina/fisiologia , Doenças Uterinas/tratamento farmacológico , Acetaminofen/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Viés , Feminino , Humanos , Miométrio , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Período Pós-Parto , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea , Útero/fisiologia
3.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 33(6): 793-799, 2020 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33002958

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recognition of the increasing maternal mortality rate in the United States has been accompanied by intense efforts to improve maternal safety. This article reviews recent advances in maternal safety, highlighting those of particular relevance to anesthesiologists. RECENT FINDINGS: Cardiovascular and other chronic medical conditions contribute to an increasing number of maternal deaths. Anesthetic complications associated with general anesthesia are decreasing, but complications associated with neuraxial techniques persist. Obstetric early warning systems are evolving and hold promise in identifying women at risk for adverse intrapartum events. Postpartum hemorrhage rates are rising, and rigorous evaluation of existing protocols may reveal unrecognized deficiencies. Development of regionalized centers for high-risk maternity care is a promising strategy to match women at risk for adverse events with appropriate resources. Opioids are a growing threat to maternal safety. There is growing evidence for racial inequities and health disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality. SUMMARY: Anesthesiologists play an essential role in ensuring maternal safety. While continued intrapartum vigilance is appropriate, addressing the full spectrum of contributors to maternal mortality, including those with larger roles beyond the immediate peripartum time period, will be essential to ongoing efforts to improve maternal safety.


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica/tendências , Anestesia Obstétrica/tendências , Anestesiologistas/psicologia , Parto Obstétrico/tendências , Mortalidade Materna/tendências , Hemorragia Pós-Parto/prevenção & controle , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Anestesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Anestesia Obstétrica/métodos , Parto Obstétrico/efeitos adversos , Parto Obstétrico/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Serviços de Saúde Materna/normas , Erros Médicos/prevenção & controle , Gravidez , Complicações na Gravidez , Estados Unidos
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD011216, 2020 Sep 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32871021

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her ability with her newborn. Conventional pain-relieving strategies are often underused because of concerns about the adverse maternal and neonatal effects. Complementary alternative therapies (CAM) may offer an alternative for post-CS pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CAM for post-caesarean pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, LILACS, PEDro, CAMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 September 2019), and checked the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing CAM, alone or associated with other forms of pain relief, versus other treatments or placebo or no treatment, for the treatment of post-CS pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 studies (3076 women) which investigated eight different CAM therapies for post-CS pain relief. There is substantial heterogeneity among the trials. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to small numbers of women participating in the trials and to risk of bias related to lack of blinding and inadequate reporting of randomisation processes. None of the trials reported pain at six weeks after discharge. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects, reported per intervention below. Secondary outcomes included vital signs, rescue analgesic requirement at six weeks after discharge; all of which were poorly reported, not reported, or we are uncertain as to the effect Acupuncture or acupressure We are very uncertain if acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) has any effect on pain because the quality of evidence is very low. Acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) may reduce pain at 12 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to 0.07; 130 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.26; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on the risk of adverse effects because the quality of evidence is very low. Aromatherapy Aromatherapy plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (mean difference (MD) -2.63 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% CI -3.48 to -1.77; 3 studies; 360 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -3.38 VAS, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.91; 1 study; 200 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if aromatherapy plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety) compared with placebo plus analgesia. Electromagnetic therapy Electromagnetic therapy may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (MD -8.00, 95% CI -11.65 to -4.35; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -13.00 VAS, 95% CI -17.13 to -8.87; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence). Massage We identified six studies (651 women), five of which were quasi-RCTs, comparing massage (foot and hand) plus analgesia versus analgesia. All the evidence relating to pain, adverse effects (anxiety), vital signs and rescue analgesic requirement was very low-certainty. Music Music plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.46; participants = 115; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), 24 hours (MD -1.79, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.91; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence), and also when compared with analgesia at one hour (MD -2.11, 95% CI -3.11 to -1.10; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -2.69, 95% CI -3.67 to -1.70; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether music plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety), when compared with placebo plus analgesia because the quality of evidence is very low. Reiki We are uncertain if Reiki plus analgesia compared with analgesia alone has any effect on pain, adverse effects, vital signs or rescue analgesic requirement because the quality of evidence is very low (one study, 90 women). Relaxation Relaxation may reduce pain compared with standard care at 24 hours (MD -0.53 VAS, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.01; 1 study; 60 women; low-certainty evidence). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation TENS (versus no treatment) may reduce pain at one hour (MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.35 to -1.17; 1 study; 40 women; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -1.10 VAS, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.82; 3 studies; 238 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -0.70 VAS, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce heart rate (MD -7.00 bpm, 95% CI -7.63 to -6.37; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and respiratory rate (MD -1.10 brpm, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.94; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if TENS plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on pain at six hours or 24 hours, or vital signs because the quality of evidence is very low (two studies, 92 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some CAM therapies may help reduce post-CS pain for up to 24 hours. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety and we have no evidence about the longer-term effects on pain. Since pain control is the most relevant outcome for post-CS women and their clinicians, it is important that future studies of CAM for post-CS pain measure pain as a primary outcome, preferably as the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. Measuring pain as a dichotomous variable would improve the certainty of evidence and it is easy to understand for non-specialists. Future trials also need to be large enough to detect effects on clinical outcomes; measure other important outcomes as listed lin this review, and use validated scales.


Assuntos
Cesárea/efeitos adversos , Terapias Complementares/métodos , Dor Pós-Operatória/terapia , Acupressão , Analgesia por Acupuntura , Adolescente , Adulto , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Aromaterapia , Viés , Terapia Combinada/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Massagem , Musicoterapia , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Terapia de Relaxamento , Toque Terapêutico , Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea , Adulto Jovem
6.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(36): e22113, 2020 Sep 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32899094

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Effective analgesia during delivery can not only decrease pain, but also have a significant function in ensuring the safety of baby and mother. Sufentanil is generally used opioid with ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in labor pain management; however it can cause some adverse reaction. Dexmedetomidine is an a2-adrenoceptor agonist with high selectivity. It possesses opioid-sparing and analgesic effects and it is suitable for the long-term and short-term intraoperative sedation. The purpose of this present study is to compare the analgesic effect of ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine against ropivacaine with sufentanyl in epidural labor. METHODS: This is a single center, placebo-controlled randomized trial which will be performed from May 2020 to May 2021. It was authorized via the Institutional Review Committee in the first medical center of Chinese PLA General Hospital (S2018-211-0). One hundred sixty full-term protozoa are included in this work. They are randomly divided into four groups (n = 40 per group): the RD1 group (with the epidural administration of 0.125% ropivacaine + dexmedetomidine of 0.5 µg/mL), and the RD2 group (with the epidural administration of 0.08% ropivacaine + dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/mL), the RS1 group (with the epidural administration of 0.125% ropivacaine + sufentanil of 0.5 µg/mL), as well as RS2 group (with the epidural administration of 0.08% ropivacaine + sufentanil of 0.5 µg/mL). Clinical outcomes are pain score, a modified Bromage scale, the Ramsay Sedation Scale, and adverse reactions during analgesia. All the needed analyses are implemented through utilizing SPSS for Windows Version 20.0. RESULTS: The first table shows the clinical outcomes between these four groups. CONCLUSION: This current work can provide a primary evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of dexmedetomidine versus sufentanil for labor epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5877).


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Dexmedetomidina/uso terapêutico , Ropivacaina/uso terapêutico , Sufentanil/uso terapêutico , Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Analgésicos/efeitos adversos , Analgésicos não Entorpecentes/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Anestésicos Locais/efeitos adversos , Dexmedetomidina/administração & dosagem , Dexmedetomidina/efeitos adversos , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Ropivacaina/administração & dosagem , Ropivacaina/efeitos adversos , Sufentanil/administração & dosagem , Sufentanil/efeitos adversos
7.
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi ; 55(7): 457-464, 2020 Jul 25.
Artigo em Chinês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32842249

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Epidural/estatística & dados numéricos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/estatística & dados numéricos , Anestesia Epidural/métodos , Cesárea/estatística & dados numéricos , Parto Obstétrico/estatística & dados numéricos , Trabalho de Parto/efeitos dos fármacos , Lidocaína/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Analgesia Epidural/efeitos adversos , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Dor , Gravidez , Resultado da Gravidez , Resultado do Tratamento
8.
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim ; 67(8): 438-445, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês, Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32814634

RESUMO

COVID-19 infection also affects obstetric patients. Regular obstetric care has continued despite the pandemic. Case series of obstetric patients have been published. Neuroaxial techniques appear to be safe and it is important to obtain the highest possible rate of success of the blocks before a cesarean section. For this reason, it is recommended that the blocks be carried out by senior anesthesiologists. The protection and safety of professionals is a key point and in case of general anesthesia, so it is also recommended to call to the most expert anesthesiologist. Seriously ill patients should be recognized quickly and early, in order to provide them with the appropriate treatment as soon as possible. Susceptibility to thrombosis makes prophylactic anticoagulation a priority.


Assuntos
Anestesiologistas , Betacoronavirus , Cesárea/normas , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez , Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Epidural/normas , Analgesia Obstétrica/normas , Anestesia Geral , Anestesia Obstétrica/normas , Cesárea/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Infecção Hospitalar/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Humanos , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Monitorização Fisiológica/métodos , Monitorização Fisiológica/normas , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Isolamento de Pacientes/normas , Equipamento de Proteção Individual , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Cuidados Pós-Operatórios/métodos , Cuidados Pós-Operatórios/normas , Gravidez , Índice de Gravidade de Doença
9.
Br J Anaesth ; 125(4): 580-587, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32736825

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Data on UK obstetric anaesthetic practice between 2009 and 2014 were collected by the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association's National Obstetric Anaesthetic Database. This database provides information on workload, variation in practice, and complication rates. METHODS: During 2009-14, data were submitted by 190 UK hospitals. The number of hospitals that submitted data each year ranged between 114 and 145. During this 6 yr period, between 27 and 35 data items were requested, although not all hospitals submitted information on all data items. The dataset was assessed for quality and only those data items with acceptable quality were analysed. RESULTS: The dataset contains information on 3 030 493 deliveries, 770 545 Caesarean sections, 623 050 women with labour neuraxial analgesia, and 61 121 general anaesthetics for Caesarean section. There was increased use of patient-controlled regimens for labour neuraxial analgesia over the 6 yr period. The mean rate of general anaesthesia used for Caesarean section was 8.75% (95% confidence interval, 8.26-9.24%). The rate of failed intubation for general anaesthesia for Caesarean section was one in 379. Inadvertent dural puncture rates varied between hospitals with a mean of 1.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.37%). The rate of a high neuraxial block causing unconsciousness was one in 6667 for all blocks. CONCLUSIONS: This unique large dataset provides a valuable insight of obstetric anaesthetic activity in the UK. Although missing data may place limitations on interpretation, it provides comparative estimates for the rates of rare complications and highlights variations in practice in time and place.


Assuntos
Anestesia Obstétrica , Analgesia Obstétrica , Anestesia Geral , Anestesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Anestesia Obstétrica/métodos , Cesárea , Análise de Dados , Bases de Dados Factuais , Conjuntos de Dados como Assunto , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Bloqueio Nervoso/efeitos adversos , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Gravidez , Reino Unido
10.
Br J Anaesth ; 125(4): 560-579, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32703549

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Continuous epidural infusion (CEI) is commonly used for labour analgesia, but concerns over potential motor block, second-stage labour complications, and ineffective analgesia in late labour have prompted examining intermittent epidural bolus (IEB) as an alternative. However, evidence comparing these modalities is conflicting. The meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic efficacy of CEI vs IEB. METHODS: Databases were searched for trials comparing CEI to IEB for labour analgesia. The two co-primary outcomes were risk of breakthrough pain and difference in area under the curve (AUC) for pain scores during the first 4 h post-epidural initiation. Local anaesthetic consumption, maternal outcomes (i.e. delivery mode, labour duration, and maternal satisfaction), and side-effects of epidural analgesia were also evaluated. Results were pooled using random-effects modelling. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to evaluate evidence reliability. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies (3133 patients) were analysed. Compared with CEI, IEB decreased risk of breakthrough pain by 38% (risk ratio [95% confidence interval {CI}] of 0.62 [0.48, 0.81]; P=0.0004; I2=47%; 1164 patients) and reduced AUC of pain during the 4 h interval by 32.9% (mean difference [95% CI] of -16.7 mm h-1 [-18.9, -14.4]; P<0.0001; 1638 patients). Intermittent epidural bolus enhanced maternal satisfaction, shortened labour duration, decreased motor block, and reduced local anaesthetic consumption. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant for epidural side-effects or mode of delivery. The TSA indicated adequate power for reliable inferences. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent epidural bolus provides improved labour pain control during the first 4 h after epidural initiation with less breakthrough pain. Moderate- to high-quality evidence of intermittent epidural bolus superiority support its use as a safe and effective continuous epidural infusion alternative for labour analgesia.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Anestésicos Locais/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Locais/farmacologia , Feminino , Humanos , Trabalho de Parto , Satisfação do Paciente , Gravidez
11.
Anaesthesia ; 75(12): 1635-1642, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32530518

RESUMO

The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia for pain relief, reduced motor block and patient satisfaction. Many institutions still use patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion, and a comparative study between programmed intermittent epidural bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion has not yet been performed. We performed a randomised, two-centre, double-blind, controlled trial of these two techniques. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain requiring a top-up dose by an anaesthetist. Secondary outcomes included: motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; local anaesthetic consumption; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. We recruited 130 nulliparous women who received initial spinal analgesia, and then epidural analgesia was initiated and maintained with either programmed intermittent epidural bolus or patient-controlled epidural analgesia using ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 µg·ml-1 . The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had a programmed bolus of 10 ml every hour, with on-demand patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses of 5 ml with a 20 min lockout, and the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group had a 5 ml bolus with a 12 min lockout interval; the potential maximum volume per hour was the same in both groups. The patients in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had less frequent breakthrough pain compared with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group, 7 (10.9%) vs. 38 (62.3%; p < 0.0001), respectively. There was a significant difference in motor block (modified Bromage score ≤ 4) frequency between groups, programmed intermittent epidural bolus group 1 (1.6%) vs. patient-controlled epidural analgesia group 8 (13.1%); p = 0.015. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had greater local anaesthetic consumption with fewer patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. Patient satisfaction scores and obstetric or neonatal outcomes were not different between groups. In conclusion, we found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique using 10 ml programmed boluses and 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses was superior to a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique using 5 ml boluses and no background infusion.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Analgesia Controlada pelo Paciente/métodos , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez
12.
PLoS One ; 15(6): e0234353, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32530935

RESUMO

There are inconsistent results regarding the efficacy and safety of intermittent epidural bolus (IPB) versus continuous epidural infusions (CPI) for labor analgesia. This study used a meta-analytic approach to assess the safety and treatment efficacy of IPB versus CPI for labor analgesia based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four electronic databases were used to identify eligible RCTs. Pooled effect estimates at 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Twenty-two RCTs with 2,573 parturients were selected for final analysis. The findings revealed no significant differences between IPB and CPI for the incidences of cesarean and instrumental delivery. IPB was shown to be associated with shorter total duration of labor [weighted mean difference (WMD): -21.46; 95% CI: -25.07 to -17.85; P < 0.001], duration of the first of stage of labor (WMD: -13.41; 95% CI: -21.01 to -5.81; P = 0.001), and duration of the second stage of labor (WMD: -4.98; 95% CI: -9.32 to -0.63; P = 0.025). Furthermore, IPB significantly reduced the incidences of required anesthetic interventions compared with CPI [relative risk (RR): 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.95; P = 0.030], whereas there was no significant difference between IPB and CPI for the time required in the first anesthetic intervention (WMD: 7.73; 95% CI: -33.68-49.15; P = 0.714). The local anesthetic IPB (bupivacaine equivalents) was associated with lower milligrams per hour of local anesthetic (WMD: -0.89; 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.36; P = 0.001) and better maternal satisfaction (WMD: 8.76; 95% CI: 4.18-13.35; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between IPB and CPI for the risk of adverse events. This study found that parturients with IPB have short total duration of labor and duration of the first and second stage of labor, reduced requirements for additional anesthetic interventions, and improved maternal satisfaction.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Dor do Parto/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Analgesia Epidural/efeitos adversos , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Bupivacaína/administração & dosagem , Parto Obstétrico/métodos , Esquema de Medicação , Feminino , Humanos , Infusão Espinal/métodos , Injeções Espinhais/métodos , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Segurança , Resultado do Tratamento
13.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD013013, 2020 06 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32529658

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias. The included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events. The study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL. We are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). The included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta. The quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals). There is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review.


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica , Anestesia Obstétrica , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Dor Processual/prevenção & controle , Placenta Retida/cirurgia , Feminino , Humanos , Satisfação no Emprego , Satisfação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Gravidez
14.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 39(3): 345-349, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32405520

Assuntos
Anestesia Obstétrica/métodos , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Anestesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Cesárea , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Infecção Hospitalar/prevenção & controle , Infecção Hospitalar/transmissão , Parto Obstétrico/métodos , Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa/prevenção & controle , Doulas , Feminino , Monitorização Fetal , Pessoal de Saúde/educação , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Transmissão Vertical de Doença Infecciosa/prevenção & controle , Trabalho de Parto Induzido , Doenças Profissionais/prevenção & controle , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente , Equipamento de Proteção Individual , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Gravidez , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez/epidemiologia , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez/terapia , Gravidez de Alto Risco , Cuidado Pré-Natal/métodos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório do Adulto/epidemiologia , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório do Adulto/terapia , Telemedicina , Trombofilia/tratamento farmacológico , Trombofilia/etiologia
16.
J Fam Pract ; 69(4): 207-208, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32437485

RESUMO

Is there any advantage to delaying pushing in the second stage of labor for nulliparous women receiving epidural analgesia?


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural , Analgesia Obstétrica , Parto Obstétrico , Feminino , Humanos , Segunda Fase do Trabalho de Parto , Gravidez , Fatores de Tempo
18.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 33(3): 284-290, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32371639

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Even if its use is scarce in most countries, many articles concerning combined spinal epidural (CSE) were published. In this review, we present the latest advances concerning CSE in obstetrics. RECENT FINDINGS: During labour, CSE improves epidural analgesia quality. Epidural with intradural opioids can produce maternal hypotension and foetal heart rate abnormalities (FHR-Ab), without increasing the caesarean section rate. For caesarean section, CSE decreases the neuraxial block failure rate, with no significant increase of complications. Epidural volume extension (EVE) after CSE for caesarean section could be an interesting option even though more evidence is needed. SUMMARY: For labour analgesia, CSE has the fastest onset time of analgesia. Its side effects have no consequences on maternal, labour or foetal outcomes. It provides better analgesia than epidural analgesia and can be used for external cephalic version and high-risk patients. For caesarean section, CSE has become the reference neuraxial technique for low-dose spinal anaesthesia, with higher success rate compared with regular spinal anaesthesia. Recent systematic revisions did not confirm this superiority. CSE offers the advantage of EVE, intraoperative top-ups, postoperative administration of neuraxial opioids and local anaesthetics. The risk of complications is balanced by the benefits of the technique.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural , Analgesia Obstétrica , Raquianestesia , Anestésicos Combinados/administração & dosagem , Analgesia Epidural/efeitos adversos , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Anestesia Obstétrica , Raquianestesia/efeitos adversos , Cesárea , Espaço Epidural , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez
20.
PLoS One ; 15(5): e0230704, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32357152

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cortisol has been used to capture psychophysiological stress during childbirth and postpartum wellbeing. We explored the effect of a brief antenatal training course in self-hypnosis on salivary cortisol during childbirth and 6 weeks postpartum. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial conducted at Aarhus University Hospital Skejby Denmark during the period January 2010 until October 2010, a total of 349 healthy nulliparous women were included. They were randomly allocated to a hypnosis group (n = 136) receiving three one-hour lessons in self-hypnosis with additional audio-recordings, a relaxation group (n = 134) receiving three one-hour lessons in various relaxation methods with audio-recordings for additional training, and a usual care group (n = 79) receiving ordinary antenatal care only. Salivary cortisol samples were collected during childbirth (at the beginning of the pushing state, 30 minutes, and 2 hours after childbirth), and 6 weeks postpartum (at wake up, 30 minutes after wake up, and evening). Cortisol concentrations were compared using a linear mixed-effects model. Correlations between cortisol concentrations and length of birth, experienced pain and calmness during birth were examined by a Spearman rank correlation test. FINDINGS: During childbirth, week correlations were found between cortisol concentrations 30 minutes after childbirth and length of birth. In the beginning of the pushing state and 2 hours after childbirth, we found a tendency towards higher cortisol concentrations in the hypnosis group compared to the other two groups (hypnosis versus relaxation p = 0.02 and 0.03, hypnosis versus usual care p = 0.08 and 0.05). No differences were observed in cortisol concentrations between the groups 30 minutes after childbirth (hypnosis versus relaxation p = 0.08, hypnosis versus usual care 0.10) or 6 weeks postpartum (hypnosis versus relaxation: p = 0.85, 0.51, and 0.68, hypnosis versus usual care: p = 0.85, 0.93, and 0.96). CONCLUSION: Antenatal hypnosis training may increase the release of cortisol during childbirth with no long-term consequences. Further research is needed to help interpret these findings.


Assuntos
Hipnose/métodos , Dor do Parto/terapia , Parto/metabolismo , Terapia de Relaxamento , Adulto , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Parto Obstétrico , Feminino , Humanos , Hidrocortisona/metabolismo , Dor do Parto/metabolismo , Dor do Parto/fisiopatologia , Trabalho de Parto/fisiologia , Parto/fisiologia , Satisfação do Paciente , Período Pós-Parto/metabolismo , Período Pós-Parto/fisiologia , Gravidez , Cuidado Pré-Natal , Saliva/metabolismo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA