Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.507
Filtrar
1.
Anesthesiology ; 134(1): 72-87, 2021 01 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33206131

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Spinal morphine is the mainstay of postcesarean analgesia. Quadratus lumborum block has recently been proposed as an adjunct or alternative to spinal morphine. The authors evaluated the analgesic effectiveness of quadratus lumborum block in cesarean delivery with and without spinal morphine. METHODS: Randomized trials evaluating quadratus lumborum block benefits in elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were sought. Three comparisons were considered: spinal morphine versus spinal morphine and quadratus lumborum block; spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block; and no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block. The two coprimary outcomes were postoperative (1) 24-h cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption and (2) pain at 4 to 6 h. Secondary outcomes included area under the curve pain, time to analgesic request, block complications, and opioid-related side effects. RESULTS: Twelve trials (924 patients) were analyzed. The mean differences (95% CIs) in 24-h morphine consumption and pain at 4 to 6 h for spinal morphine versus spinal morphine and quadratus lumborum block comparison were 0 mg (-2 to 1) and -0.1 cm (-0.7 to 0.4), respectively, indicating no benefit. For spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, these differences were 7 mg (-2 to 15) and 0.6 cm (-0.7 to 1.8), respectively, also indicating no benefit. In contrast, for no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, improvements of -18 mg (-28 to -7) and -1.5 cm (-2.4 to -0.6) were observed, respectively, with quadratus lumborum block. Finally, for no block or spinal morphine versus quadratus lumborum block, quadratus lumborum block improved area under the 48-h pain curve by -4.4 cm · h (-5.0 to -3.8), exceeding the clinically important threshold (3.96 cm · h), but no differences were observed in the other comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests that quadratus lumborum block does not enhance analgesic outcomes when combined with or compared with spinal morphine. However, the block improves postcesarean analgesia in the absence of spinal morphine. The clinical utility of this block seems limited to situations in which spinal morphine is not used.


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Raquianestesia/métodos , Cesárea/métodos , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Dor Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Analgésicos Opioides , Feminino , Humanos , Morfina , Gravidez , Coluna Vertebral
2.
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
3.
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
4.
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
5.
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
6.
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
7.
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
8.
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
9.
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
10.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 39(3): 345-349, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32405520
11.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet ; 150(1): 92-97, 2020 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32364638

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To test for an association between blood loss and time until pushing (TUP) after full cervical dilation in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed at the University Hospital of Zurich between October 2015 and November 2016. Included were 228 nulliparous women with singleton pregnancy, planned vaginal delivery after 36 completed weeks of gestation, epidural analgesia, and guided active pushing. TUP was defined as the interval between full cervical dilation and initiation of active pushing. The primary outcome measure was blood loss, assessed by the postpartum decrease in hemoglobin (ΔHb), estimated blood loss, and rate of ΔHb ≥30 g/L. Associations between TUP and primary and secondary maternal and neonatal delivery outcomes were assessed using Spearman correlation, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: Longer TUP correlated significantly with increased ΔHb (ρ=0.142, P=0.033) and higher rates of ΔHb ≥30 g/l (P=0.002). Composite adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were unaffected. CONCLUSION: On the grounds of increased maternal blood loss, and in contrast to the current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) guideline, delayed active pushing is not recommended in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural/efeitos adversos , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Parto Obstétrico/métodos , Hemorragia Pós-Parto/etiologia , Adulto , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Parto Obstétrico/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Período Pós-Parto , Gravidez , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Adulto Jovem
12.
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol ; 67: 100-112, 2020 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32265134

RESUMO

Neuraxial analgesia provides excellent pain relief in labor. Optimizing initiation and maintenance of neuraxial labor analgesia requires different strategies. Combined spinal-epidurals or dural puncture epidurals may offer advantages over traditional epidurals. Ultrasound is useful in certain patients. Maintenance of analgesia is best achieved with a background regimen (either programmed intermittent boluses or a continuous epidural infusion) supplemented with patient-controlled epidural analgesia and using dilute local anesthetics combined with opioids such as fentanyl. Nitrous oxide and systemic opioids are also used for pain relief. Nitrous oxide may improve satisfaction despite variable effects on pain. Systemic opioids can be administered by healthcare providers or using patient-controlled analgesia. Appropriate choice of drug should take into account the stage and progression of labor, local safety protocols, and maternal and fetal/neonatal side effects. Pain in labor is complex, and women should fully participate in the decision-making process before any one modality is selected.


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Anestesia Obstétrica/métodos , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Dor do Parto/terapia , Trabalho de Parto/efeitos dos fármacos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções Espinhais , Óxido Nitroso , Medição da Dor/efeitos dos fármacos , Satisfação do Paciente , Gravidez , Resultado do Tratamento
13.
Anesthesiology ; 132(6): 1382-1391, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32251031

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal opioids are routinely administered during spinal anesthesia for postcesarean analgesia. The effectiveness of intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia is well established, and the use of intrathecal hydromorphone is growing. No prospective studies have compared the effectiveness of equipotent doses of intrathecal morphine versus intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen for postcesarean analgesia. The authors hypothesized that intrathecal morphine would result in superior analgesia compared with intrathecal hydromorphone 24 h after delivery. METHODS: In this single-center, double-blinded, randomized trial, 138 parturients undergoing scheduled cesarean delivery were randomized to receive 150 µg of intrathecal morphine or 75 µg of intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a primary spinal anesthetic and multimodal analgesic regimen; 134 parturients were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale score for pain with movement 24 h after delivery. Static and dynamic pain scores, nausea, pruritus, degree of sedation, and patient satisfaction were assessed every 6 h for 36 h postpartum. Total opioid consumption was recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in pain scores with movement at 24 h (intrathecal hydromorphone median [25th, 75th] 4 [3, 5] and intrathecal morphine 3 [2, 4.5]) or at any time point (estimated difference, 0.5; 95% CI, 0 to 1; P = 0.139). Opioid received in the first 24 h did not differ between groups (median [25th, 75th] oral morphine milligram equivalents for intrathecal hydromorphone 30 [7.5, 45.06] vs. intrathecal morphine 22.5 [14.0, 37.5], P = 0.769). From Kaplan-Meier analysis, the median time to first opioid request was 5.4 h for hydromorphone and 12.1 h for morphine (log-rank test P = 0.200). CONCLUSIONS: Although the hypothesis was that intrathecal morphine would provide superior analgesia to intrathecal hydromorphone, the results did not confirm this. At the doses studied, both intrathecal morphine and intrathecal hydromorphone provide effective postcesarean analgesia when combined with a multimodal analgesia regimen.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Cesárea , Hidromorfona/uso terapêutico , Morfina/uso terapêutico , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Hidromorfona/administração & dosagem , Masculino , Morfina/administração & dosagem , Resultado do Tratamento
14.
Anaesthesia ; 75(7): 913-919, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32115697

RESUMO

Serious neurological lesions such as vertebral canal haematoma are rare after obstetric regional analgesia/anaesthesia, but early detection may be crucial to avoid permanent damage. This may be hampered by the variable and sometimes prolonged recovery following 'normal' neuraxial block, such that an underlying lesion may easily be missed. These guidelines make recommendations for the monitoring of recovery from obstetric neuraxial block, and escalation should recovery be delayed or new symptoms develop, with the aim of preventing serious neurological morbidity.


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Anestesia Obstétrica/métodos , Monitorização Neurofisiológica/métodos , Analgesia Epidural/efeitos adversos , Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Epidural/normas , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Analgesia Obstétrica/normas , Período de Recuperação da Anestesia , Anestesia por Condução/efeitos adversos , Anestesia por Condução/métodos , Anestesia por Condução/normas , Anestesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Anestesia Obstétrica/normas , Feminino , Hematoma Epidural Espinal/diagnóstico , Hematoma Epidural Espinal/etiologia , Humanos , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso/diagnóstico , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso/etiologia , Monitorização Neurofisiológica/normas , Segurança do Paciente , Cuidado Pós-Natal/métodos , Cuidado Pós-Natal/normas , Gravidez , Transtornos Puerperais/diagnóstico , Transtornos Puerperais/etiologia , Fatores de Risco
15.
Arch Gynecol Obstet ; 301(5): 1153-1158, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32219521

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to study the impact of epidural analgesia using low-concentration local anesthetic during the entire labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: The authors enrolled 2310 parturient mothers who underwent vaginal delivery at their hospital since January 1, 2019. The parturients were allocated either into the analgesia or into the non-analgesia groups based on whether they received analgesia during the delivery process. To investigate the effects of epidural analgesia using low-concentration local anesthetic on maternal and neonatal outcomes, the authors assessed between-group differences in the labor duration, newborn Apgar score, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to the non-analgesia group, the first and second labor stage durations in the analgesia group were significantly longer. Similarly, the analgesia group had a higher frequency of oxytocin injections, Category II and III fetal heart rate tracing during labor, and intrapartum fever development. Further, the need for episiotomy and assisted vaginal delivery was higher in the analgesia group than that in the non-analgesia group. Regarding neonatal outcomes, the neonatal hospitalization rate and incidence rate of umbilical cord blood pH < 7.2 were higher in the analgesia group than those in the non-analgesia group. However, there were no significant between-group differences in the incidence rates of stained amniotic fluid, mild neonatal asphyxia, and severe perinatal asphyxia. CONCLUSION: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia using low-concentration local anesthetic during the entire labor did not increase the incidence rate of severe adverse outcomes in neonates born through vaginal delivery; however, it increased the delivery duration, and thus, the chance of possible perinatal interventions.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural/efeitos adversos , Analgesia Obstétrica/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Anestésicos Locais/farmacologia , Feminino , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Gravidez , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
16.
Anaesthesia ; 75(7): 945-961, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32144770

RESUMO

We reviewed the literature on management of general and regional anaesthesia in pregnant women with anticipated airway difficulty. We identified 138 publications comprising 158 cases; these either described equipment or techniques for the provision of general anaesthesia, or the management of women with regional analgesia or anaesthesia, with the aim of avoiding general anaesthesia. Most of the former group described women requiring caesarean section alone, or in combination with other surgery, which was sometimes airway-related. Management techniques were largely similar to those in non-obstetric patients requiring surgery who have airway difficulties, although suggested differences related to physiological changes of pregnancy and avoidance of nasal intubation. In the reports discussing regional anaesthesia, consideration was often given to the possible requirement for urgent out-of-hours anaesthetic intervention, and the predicted difficulty of management of general anaesthesia should it be required. In a number of reported cases, multidisciplinary planning led to the conclusion that elective caesarean section should be performed in order to avoid emergency airway management. Based on this literature review, we advise antenatal planning that includes: assessment of the patient's clinical characteristics; consideration of the equipment and personnel available to provide safe airway management out-of-hours; and elective caesarean section should these be lacking. If general anaesthesia is required, a risk assessment must be made as to the probability of safe airway management after the induction of anaesthesia, and awake tracheal intubation should be used if this cannot be assured. Decision aids are provided to illustrate these points. Online appendices include a comprehensive compendium of case reports on the management of a number of rare syndromes and airway conditions.


Assuntos
Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Anestesia Geral/métodos , Anestesia Obstétrica/métodos , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/normas , Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Cesárea/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/instrumentação , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Intubação Intratraqueal/normas , Gravidez , Traqueostomia/métodos
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD009232, 2020 02 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32032444

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined evidence about the use of acupuncture and acupressure for pain management in labour. This is an update of a review last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of acupuncture and acupressure for pain management in labour. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, (25 February 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2019), CINAHL (1980 to February 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platfory (ICTRP) (February 2019) and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture or acupressure with placebo, no treatment or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour. We included all women whether nulliparous or multiparous, and in spontaneous or induced labour. We included studies reported in abstract form if there was sufficient information to permit assessment of risk of bias. Trials using a cluster-RCT design were eligible for inclusion, but quasi-RCTs or cross-over studies were not. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 trials with data reporting on 3960 women. Thirteen trials reported on acupuncture and 15 trials reported on acupressure. No study was at a low risk of bias on all domains. Pain intensity was generally measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10 or 0 to 100 with low scores indicating less pain. Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture Acupuncture may make little or no difference to the intensity of pain felt by women when compared with sham acupuncture (mean difference (MD) -4.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.94 to 4.09, 2 trials, 325 women, low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture may increase satisfaction with pain relief compared to sham acupuncture (risk ratio (RR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.19, 1 trial, 150 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the use of pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.89, 2 trials, 261 women, moderate-certainty evidence). Acupuncture may have no effect on assisted vaginal birth (very low-certainty evidence), and probably little to no effect on caesarean section (low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture compared to usual care We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces pain intensity compared to usual care because the evidence was found to be very low certainty (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.31, 95% CI -2.14 to -0.49, 4 trials, 495 women, I2 = 93%). Acupuncture may have little to no effect on satisfaction with pain relief (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces the use of pharmacological analgesia because the evidence was found to be very low certainty (average RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85, 6 trials, 1059 women, I2 = 70%). Acupuncture probably has little to no effect on assisted vaginal birth (low-certainty evidence) or caesarean section (low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture compared to no treatment One trial compared acupuncture to no treatment. We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces pain intensity (MD -1.16, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.81, 163 women, very low-certainty evidence), assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupuncture compared to sterile water injection We are uncertain if acupuncture has any effect on use of pharmacological analgesia, assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure compared to a sham control We are uncertain if acupressure reduces pain intensity in labour (MD -1.93, 95% CI -3.31 to -0.55, 6 trials, 472 women) or assisted vaginal birth because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure may have little to no effect on use of pharmacological analgesia (low-certainty evidence). Acupressure probably reduces the caesarean section rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71, 4 trials, 313 women, moderate-certainty evidence). Acupressure compared to usual care We are uncertain if acupressure reduces pain intensity in labour (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.69, 8 trials, 620 women) or increases satisfaction with pain relief (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.35, 1 trial, 105 women) because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure may have little to no effect on caesarean section (low-certainty evidence). Acupressure compared to a combined control Acupressure probably slightly reduces the intensity of pain during labour compared with the combined control (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18, 2 trials, 322 women, moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if acupressure has any effect on the use of pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 212 women), satisfaction with childbirth, assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the certainty of the evidence was all very low. No studies were found that reported on sense of control in labour and only one reported on satisfaction with the childbirth experience. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture in comparison to sham acupuncture may increase satisfaction with pain management and reduce use of pharmacological analgesia. Acupressure in comparison to a combined control and usual care may reduce pain intensity. However, for other comparisons of acupuncture and acupressure, we are uncertain about the effects on pain intensity and satisfaction with pain relief due to very low-certainty evidence. Acupuncture may have little to no effect on the rates of caesarean or assisted vaginal birth. Acupressure probably reduces the need for caesarean section in comparison to a sham control. There is a need for further high-quality research that include sham controls and comparisons to usual care and report on the outcomes of sense of control in labour, satisfaction with the childbirth experience or satisfaction with pain relief.


Assuntos
Acupressão/métodos , Terapia por Acupuntura/métodos , Dor do Parto/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
18.
Anesthesiology ; 132(5): 1045-1052, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32108686

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic epidural morphine administration after unintentional dural puncture with a large-bore needle has been shown to decrease the incidence of post-dural puncture headache. The authors hypothesized that prophylactic administration of intrathecal morphine would decrease the incidence of post-dural puncture headache and/or need for epidural blood patch after unintentional dural puncture. METHODS: Parturients with an intrathecal catheter in situ after unintentional dural puncture with a 17-g Tuohy needle during intended epidural catheter placement for labor analgesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind trial. After delivery, subjects were randomized to receive intrathecal morphine 150 µg or normal saline. The primary outcome was the incidence of post-dural puncture headache. Secondary outcomes included onset, duration, and severity of post-dural puncture headache, the presence of cranial nerve symptoms and the type of treatment the patient received. RESULTS: Sixty-one women were included in the study. The incidence of post-dural puncture headache was 21 of 27 (78%) in the intrathecal morphine group and 27 of 34 (79%) in the intrathecal saline group (difference, -1%; 95% CI, -25% to 24%). There were no differences between groups in the onset, duration, or severity of headache, or presence of cranial nerve symptoms. Epidural blood patch was administered to 10 of 27 (37%) of subjects in the intrathecal morphine and 11 of 21 (52%) of the intrathecal saline group (difference 15%; 95% CI, -18% to 48%). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that a single prophylactic intrathecal morphine dose of 150 µg administered shortly after delivery does not decrease the incidence or severity of post-dural puncture headache after unintentional dural puncture. This study does not support the clinical usefulness of prophylactic intrathecal morphine after an unintentional dural puncture.


Assuntos
Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Morfina/administração & dosagem , Medição da Dor/efeitos dos fármacos , Cefaleia Pós-Punção Dural/prevenção & controle , Profilaxia Pré-Exposição/métodos , Adulto , Placa de Sangue Epidural/métodos , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Injeções Espinhais , Medição da Dor/métodos , Cefaleia Pós-Punção Dural/diagnóstico , Gravidez
19.
Obstet Gynecol ; 135(2): 427-435, 2020 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31923061

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Cesárea/efeitos adversos , Cetorolaco/administração & dosagem , Dor Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Ropivacaina/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Analgesia Controlada pelo Paciente , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Infusões Parenterais , Modelos Lineares , Morfina/administração & dosagem , Medição da Dor , Dor Pós-Operatória/diagnóstico , Gravidez , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
20.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol ; 76(4): 501-506, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31912188

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of sufentanil versus fentanyl for pain relief in labor involving combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSEA), a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials targeting parturients requesting labor analgesia was conducted. METHODS: The primary outcome measure was visual analog scale scores assessed at 10, 15, 30, and 60 min after intrathecal injection. Secondary outcomes included duration of spinal analgesia, incidence of side effects in parturients, and neonatal Apgar scores. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials, including data from 881 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No clinically meaningful differences in pain reduction after intrathecal injection were found between the two analgesics. Sufentanil extended the duration of spinal analgesia by 25.40 min (95% CI 21.82 to 28.98 min; p < 0.00001) compared with fentanyl. The risk for pruritus, nausea, and vomiting among parturients was 82% for those using sufentanil (relative risk 0.82 [95% CI 0.67-0.99]; p = 0.04) and 48% for those using fentanyl (relative risk 0.48 [95% CI 0.29-0.80]; p = 0.005). Both the synthesis results and sensitivity analysis demonstrated no differences in the risk for respiratory depression between parturients using sufentanil versus fentanyl. The neonates in sufentanil group exhibited higher Apgar scores than the fentanyl group 5 min after delivery (weighted mean difference 0.10 [95% CI 0.05-0.16]; p = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Existing evidence suggests that compared with fentanyl, sufentanil used for analgesia in combined spinal-epidural during labor is more effective in extending the duration of spinal analgesia, and may be safer for the infant. There was overall low clinical and statistical heterogeneity among the included studies. For all outcomes, variations caused by heterogeneity across trials were acceptable. Thus the findings of this meta-analysis may provide additional evidence for future clinical practices of pain relief in labor involving CSEA. Stronger evidence supporting this conclusion will require data from more high-quality and multicenter randomized controlled trials.


Assuntos
Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Fentanila/uso terapêutico , Trabalho de Parto/efeitos dos fármacos , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Sufentanil/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Índice de Apgar , Feminino , Fentanila/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Injeções Espinhais , Gravidez , Sufentanil/administração & dosagem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA