The RESPITE trial: remifentanil intravenously administered patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus pethidine intramuscular injection for pain relief in labour: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background The commonest opioid used for pain relief in labour is pethidine (meperidine); however, its effectiveness has long been challenged and the drug has known side effects including maternal sedation, nausea and potential transfer across the placenta to the foetus. Over a third of women receiving pethidine require an epidural due to inadequate pain relief. Epidural analgesia increases the risk of an instrumental vaginal delivery and its associated effects. Therefore, there is a clear need for a safe, effective, alternative analgesic to pethidine. Evidence suggests that remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) reduces epidural conversion rates compared to pethidine; however, no trial has yet investigated this as a primary endpoint. We are, therefore, comparing pethidine intramuscular injection to remifentanil PCA in a randomised controlled trial. Methods/design Women in established labour, requesting systemic opioid pain relief, will be randomised to either intravenously administered remifentanil PCA (intervention) or pethidine intramuscular injection (control) in an unblinded, 1:1 individual randomised trial. Following informed consent, 400 women in established labour, who request systemic opioid pain relief, from NHS Trusts across England will undergo a minimised randomisation by a computer or automated telephone system to either pethidine or remifentanil. In order to balance the groups this minimisation is based on four parameters; parity (nulliparous versus multiparous), maternal age (<20, 20 < 30, 30 < 40, 40+ years), ethnicity (South Asian (Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi) versus Other) and induced versus spontaneous labour. The effectiveness of pain relief provided by each technique will be recorded every 30 min after time zero, until epidural placement, delivery or transfer to theatre, quantified by Visual Analogue Scale. Incidence of maternal side effects including sedation, delivery mode, foetal distress requiring delivery, neonatal status at delivery and rate of initiation of breastfeeding within the first hour of birth will also be recorded. Maternal satisfaction with her childbirth experience will be determined by a postpartum questionnaire prior to discharge from the delivery ward. Discussion The RESPITE trial’s primary outcome is the proportion of women who have an epidural placed for pain relief in labour in each arm. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials registration number: ISRCTN29654603. Registered on 23 July 2013

Randomized controlled trial comparing traditional with two "mobile" epidural techniques: anesthetic and analgesic efficacy

BACKGROUND: The authors recently showed that “mobile” epidural analgesia, using low-dose local anesthetic-opioid mixtures, reduces the impact of epidural analgesia on instrumental vaginal delivery, relative to a traditional technique. The main prespecified assessment of pain relief efficacy, women's postpartum estimates of labor pain after epidural insertion, did not differ. The detailed analgesic efficacy and the anesthetic characteristics of the techniques are reported here. METHODS: A total of 1,054 nulliparous women were randomized, in labor, to receive boluses of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine (traditional), combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia, or low-dose infusion (LDI), the latter groups utilizing 0.1% bupivacaine with 2 µg/ml fentanyl. Visual analog scale pain assessments were collected throughout labor and delivery and 24 h later. Details of the conduct of epidural analgesia, drug utilization, and requirement for anesthesiologist reattendance were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 353 women were randomized to receive traditional epidural analgesia, 351 received CSE, and 350 received LDI. CSE was associated with a more rapid onset of analgesia, lower median visual analog scale pain scores than traditional in the first hour after epidural insertion, and a significant reduction in bupivacaine dose given during labor. Pain scores reported by women receiving LDI were similar to those in the traditional group throughout labor and delivery. Anesthesiologist reattendance was low but greater with each mobile technique. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to traditional epidural analgesia, LDI is at least as effective and CSE provided better pain relief in the early stages after insertion. The proven efficacy of mobile epidurals and their beneficial impact on delivery mode make them the preferred techniques for epidural pain relief in labor