The impact of epidural analgesia on delivery mode in Robson class 1 women: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of epidural analgesia represents the gold standard for pain management during labor, but the influence of the use of epidural analgesia on delivery mode is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the impact of epidural analgesia on the delivery mode, namely, cesarean delivery, vaginal delivery, and operative vaginal delivery rates, in Robson class 1 women. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all Robson class 1 women who delivered from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, in the University Hospital of Modena. The primary outcome was the delivery mode (cesarean delivery, vaginal delivery, and operative vaginal delivery rates), and the secondary outcomes were maternal, anesthesiologic, and neonatal effects of epidural analgesia (duration of labor, duration of the second stage of labor, Apgar score, and neonatal intensive care unit admission). RESULTS: A total of 744 women were included in the final analysis, of which 198 (26.6%) underwent epidural analgesia on request and 546 (73.4%) did not. In women with and without epidural analgesia, the cesarean delivery rate was 8.1% vs 7%, the vaginal delivery rate was 79.3% vs 81.1%, and the operative vaginal delivery rate was 12.6% vs 11.9%, respectively. A significant increase in both the first stage of labor (66.3±38.5 vs 43.8±38.8 minutes; P<.0001) and total duration of labor (328.0±206.7 vs 201.7±168.3 minutes; P<.0001) was found in women receiving epidural analgesia. No change was recorded in the second stage of labor. A shorter duration of labor was observed (P<.0001) when epidural analgesia was started earlier (dilation: 2-4 cm vs >4 cm). No significant difference in Apgar score and neonatal intensive care unit admission was found. CONCLUSION: The use of epidural analgesia was not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery or operative vaginal delivery in Robson class 1 women. Further investigations are needed to evaluate its impact on the duration of labor, namely the duration of the first stage of labor, and on the possible advantages of starting epidural analgesia at an early stage.

Pain management during labor: use of intermittent drug delivery devices for improvement of obstetric and neonatal outcome and reduction of healthcare burden: A large non-inferiority randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Automated continuous epidural administration of local anesthetics provides a more stable analgesic block with decreasing of healthcare staff compared to manual boluses administration (TOP-UP) but is associated to high rate of operative vaginal delivery. We hypothesized that the use of programmed intermittent automated boluses (PIEB) is able to provide a good quality of analgesia and decreasing of anesthesiologic workload without increasing the rate of instrumental vaginal birth in comparison with TOP-UP technique. Laboring nulliparous woman aged between 18 and 46 years were randomized to epidural analgesia with 0.0625% levobupivacaine and sufentanil administered by PIEB or by TOP-UP techniques. Primary outcome was instrumental vaginal delivery rate and secondary outcomes were quality of analgesia, total and time-related drugs doses used, motor block, newborn outcome, and anesthesiologic workload. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-nine were randomized, and 628 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The rate of instrumental vaginal delivery was similar in the PIEB and TOP-UP groups (13.2% vs 9.7%, OR 1.4 95% CI 0.8 to 2.5; p 0.21). There was no difference between groups regarding mode of delivery (cesarean section vs vaginal birth), newborn outcome, and motor block. Patients in the PIEB group received more total and time-related drugs doses and a better quality of analgesia. Anesthesiological workload was significantly reduced in the PIEB group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that epidural anesthesia with programmed intermittent epidural boluses by an automated device provides an effective and safe management of labor analgesia with improvement of pain control and sparing of man workload compared to manual top-up protocols.

Effects on management and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock patients admitted to the intensive care unit after implementation of a sepsis program: a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: The application in clinical practice of evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock is still poor in the emergency department, while little data are available for patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an in-hospital sepsis program on the adherence to evidence-based guidelines and outcome of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted to the ICU. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included 67 patients with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted to a multidisciplinary ICU at a University Hospital from January 2005 to June 2007. Compliance to 5 resuscitation and 4 management sepsis interventions and in-hospital mortality were measured following an educational program on sepsis for physician and nurses of all hospital departments and hospital implementation of a specific protocol for recognition and management of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock, including an early consultation by a skilled 'sepsis team'. RESULTS: During the study period, the compliance to all 9 interventions increased from 8% to 35% of the patients (P < 0.01). The implementation of resuscitation and management interventions was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (23% vs 68% and 27% vs 68%, P < 0.01). In the latter 2 semesters, after activation of the 'sepsis team', in-hospital mortality of ICU septic shock patients decreased by about 40% compared with the previous period (32% vs 79%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, an in-hospital sepsis program, including education of health-care personnel and process-changes, improved the adherence to guidelines and the survival rate of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted to the ICU.

Use of activated protein C in liver transplantation patients with septic shock.

Recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) has been approved for use in patients with severe sepsis at high risk of death. Because of the high risk of bleeding, liver transplantation (LT) patients have been excluded from the randomized control trials that evaluated efficacy and safety of rhAPC and, thus, few data are available on the use of this drug in LT patients with severe sepsis. We describe our experience with 5 LT recipients treated for septic shock with the best conventional therapy and rhAPC. Before rhAPC therapy, all the patients showed septic shock, with > or =3 organ dysfunctions and thrombocytopenia with impairment of coagulation. rhAPC therapy started within 30 hours after septic shock onset in all the patients who recovered from sepsis-induced circulatory failure, improved organ dysfunction, and completed the 96 hours of rhAPC therapy. During rhAPC infusion, 4 patients received fresh frozen plasma and/or platelet concentrates because of thrombocytopenia and severe hemostasis dysfunction. No major bleeding occurred and only 1 patient presented with minor bleeding events.

Effectiveness of sepsis bundle application in cirrhotic patients with septic shock: a single-center experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of adherence to evidence-based guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) on the outcome of cirrhotic patients with septic shock admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included 38 patients with documented liver cirrhosis and septic shock admitted to a multidisciplinary intensive care unit at a University Hospital from January 2005 to June 2009. In each patient, the compliance to 4 resuscitation (ie, 6-hour bundle) and to 3 management (i.e. 24-hour bundle) interventions recommended by the SSC guidelines and the 30-day mortality were measured. RESULTS: The 6-hour, 24-hour, and all bundles were completed in 50 %, 52%, and 39% of the patients, respectively. The characteristics at admission and the 30-day mortality of patients with all-bundle compliance (n = 15; mortality 86.6%) were similar to those of patients without bundle compliance (n = 23; mortality 78.2%), except for central venous O2 saturation. Unadjusted and adjusted regression analysis showed that none of the single sepsis interventions and bundles were independently associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In our observational study, the adherence to the interventions recommended by the SSC evidence-based guidelines did not provide an improvement in the survival rate of cirrhotic patients with septic shock.