Analgesic efficacy of remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia versus combined spinal-epidural technique in multiparous women during labour

Objectives: To compare the analgesic profile of remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) and combined spinal-epidural analgesia technique (CSEA) in multiparous women during the entire labour. We hypothesized that CSEA would provide a better and more sustained pain reduction than RPCA.Material and methods: A prospective observational trial under ID NCT02963337 at a university hospital in Slovenia 2017–2018. Analgesic efficacy, satisfaction with pain-relief, adverse effects, labour progress, and outcomes between RPCA (80) and CSEA (81) were compared.Results: CSEA provided significantly lower pain scores during the entire labour. Compared to baseline, significant pain reduction was recorded in both groups after 15 min. No difference was recorded compared to baseline with RPCA and CSEA after 45 and 90 mins, respectively. CSEA provided higher satisfaction than RPCA (5 [5–5] vs 5 [4–5], p < 0.0001). More patients with CSEA opted for the same technique for the next labour [CSEA; 77 (95%) vs RPCA; 65 (81%), p = 0.003]. No crossovers were observed. RPCA was associated with desaturation (34%), bradypnea (21%) and apnoea (25%), which were transitional and easily managed. None had severe sedation. No differences were recorded in labour progress and outcomes. Apgar scores were reassuring in all neonates (> 8). None had umbilical artery pH < 7.0.Conclusions: In multiparas, CSEA provided superior analgesia and satisfaction than RPCA. Nevertheless, RPCA provided a satisfactory experience, suggesting it could be used when neuraxial analgesia is not available, preferred, or contraindicated. In that case, constant presence of midwife is mandatory for management of clinically significant hypoventilation

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics: a prospective, international, cohort study

© 2020 British Journal of AnaesthesiaBackground: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19–1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score≤3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics : a prospective, international, cohort study

Background: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score <= 3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP