Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus Versus Continuous Epidural Infusion for Labor Analgesia: The Effects on Maternal Motor Function and Labor Outcome. A Randomized Double-Blind Study in Nulliparous Women

BACKGROUND: Programmed intermittent epidural anesthetic bolus (PIEB) technique may result in reduced total local anesthetic consumption, fewer manual boluses, and greater patient satisfaction compared with continuous epidural infusion (CEI). In this randomized, double-blind study, we compared the incidence of motor block and labor outcome in women who received PIEB or CEI for maintenance of labor analgesia. The primary outcome variable was maternal motor function and the secondary outcome was mode of delivery. METHODS: Nulliparous, term women with spontaneous labor and cervical dilation <4 cm were eligible to participate in the study. Epidural analgesia was initiated and maintained with a solution of levobupivacaine 0.0625% with sufentanil 0.5 μg/mL. After an initial epidural loading dose of 20 mL, patients were randomly assigned to receive PIEB (10 mL every hour beginning 60 minutes after the initial dose) or CEI (10 mL/h, beginning immediately after the initial dose) for the maintenance of analgesia. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using a second infusion pump with levobupivacaine 0.125% was used to treat breakthrough pain. The degree of motor block was assessed in both lower extremities using the modified Bromage score at regular intervals throughout labor; the end point was any motor block in either limb. We also evaluated PCEA bolus doses and total analgesic solution consumption. RESULTS: We studied 145 subjects (PIEB = 75; CEI = 70). Motor block was reported in 37% in the CEI group and in 2.7% in the PIEB group (P < 0.001; odds ratio = 21.2; 95% CI: 4.9-129.3); it occurred earlier (P = 0.008) (hazard ratio = 7.8; 95% CI: 1.9-30.8; P = 0.003) and was more frequent at full cervical dilation in the CEI group (P < 0.001). The incidence of instrumental delivery was 20% for the CEI group and 7% for the PIEB group (P = 0.03). Total levobupivacaine consumption, number of patients requiring additional PCEA boluses, and mean number of PCEA boluses per patient were lower in the PIEB group (P < 0.001). No differences in pain scores and duration of labor analgesia were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance of epidural analgesia with PIEB compared with CEI resulted in a lower incidence of maternal motor block and instrumental vaginal delivery

Epidural test dose with levobupivacaine and ropivacaine: determination of ED50 motor block after spinal administration

motor block after spinal administratio

Differentiating False Loss of Resistance from True Loss of Resistance While Performing the Epidural Block with the CompuFlo® Epidural Instrument

Background. The occurrence of false losses of resistance may be one of the reasons for inadequate or failed epidural block. A CompuFlo® epidural instrument has been introduced to measure the pressure of human tissues in real time at the orifice of a needle and has been used as a tool to identify the epidural space. The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity and the specificity of the ability of CompuFlo® to differentiate the false loss of resistance from the true loss of resistance encountered during the epidural space identification procedure. Method. We performed epidural block with the CompuFlo® epidural instrument in 120 healthy women who requested labor epidural analgesia. The epidural needle was considered to have reached the epidural space when an increase in pressure (accompanied by an increase in the pitch of the audible tone) was followed by a sudden and sustained drop in pressure for more than 5 seconds accompanied by a sudden decrease in the pitch of the audible tone, resulting in the formation of a low and stable pressure plateau. We evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the ability of CompuFlo® recordings to correctly identify the true LOR from the false LOR. Results. The drop in pressure associated with the epidural space identification was significantly greater than that recorded after the false loss of resistance (73% vs 33%) (P=0.000001). The sensitivity was 0.83, and the AUC was 0.82. Discussion. We have confirmed the ability of CompuFlo® to differentiate the false loss of resistance from the true loss of resistance and established its specificity and sensitivity. Conclusion. An easier identification of dubious losses of resistance during the epidural procedure is essential to reduce the number of epidural attempts and/or needle reinsertions with the potential of a reduced risk of accidental dural puncture especially in difficult cases or when the procedure is performed by trainees

Il progetto

Traduit en anglai