JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 2008; 107:1968-1972
© 2008 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181887ffb
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lim, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Sia, A. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lim, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Sia, A. T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Obstetrics
Right arrow Pain Medicine
Right arrow Regional Anesthesia
Right arrow Pain


OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIOLOGY

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia Regimens for Labor

Yvonne Lim, MMED, Cecilia E. Ocampo, MD, Mia Supandji, MD, Wendy H. L. Teoh, FANZCA, and Alex T. Sia, MMED

From the Department of Woman Anesthesia, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Mia Supandji, MD, Department of Woman Anesthesia, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, 100 Bukit Timah Rd, Singapore 229899. Address e-mail to miasupandji{at}gmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is a safe and effective mode of maintaining labor analgesia; however, the ideal PCEA regimen is controversial.

METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we examined the analgesic efficacy of demand-only PCEA and PCEA with background infusion. We recruited 300 nulliparous parturients. Analgesia was initiated with intrathecal ropivacaine 2 mg and fentanyl 15 µg and maintained with epidural ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 µg/mL. Parturients were randomized to one of three groups. Group 0: demand-only PCEA, bolus of 5 mL, lockout interval of 15 min. Group 5: background infusion of 5 mL/h, bolus of 5 mL, lockout interval of 12 min. Group 10: background infusion of 10 mL/h, bolus of 5 mL, lockout interval of 10 min. The maximum dose of all groups was 20 mL/h. The primary outcome was incidence of breakthrough pain. Secondary outcomes included intrapartum pain scores, neuraxial blockade characteristics, side effects, the total and hourly volume of ropivacaine, neonatal outcomes, and obstetric outcomes.

RESULTS: The incidence of breakthrough pain and the maximum visual analog scale (0–100 mm scale) pain scores were higher in Group 0 versus Groups 5 and 10 (43% vs 17% and 11%, P < 0.001 and 37 ± 28 vs 22 ± 26 and 16 ± 25 [mean ± sd], P < 0.001), respectively. Group 10 had a longer duration of effective analgesia compared with Group 0 (mean 895 min, 95% CI 823–966 vs 565 min, 95% CI 454–677, P < 0.001) and increased ropivacaine consumption, and was associated with a longer duration of the second stage of labor.

CONCLUSION: Demand-only PCEA (5-mL bolus, 15-min lockout interval) resulted in less local anesthetic consumption but an increased incidence of breakthrough pain, higher pain scores, shorter duration of effective analgesia, and lower maternal satisfaction, when compared with PCEA with background infusion (5-mL bolus, 10–12-min lockout interval, and 5–10 mL/h infusion).




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. P. Turkstra and P. M. Jones
Is There Evidence for Improved Maternal Satisfaction with Patient-Controlled Epidural Anesthesia?
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2009; 109(4): 1344 - 1344.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
Y. Lim, M. Supandji, W. Teoh, C. Ocampo, and A. T. Sia
In Response:
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2009; 109(4): 1345 - 1346.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
N. Koopmans, G. J. K. Wietasch, and M. M. R. F. Struys
Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia Regimens for Labor Analgesia: Background Infusion or Demand-Only?
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2009; 109(1): 284 - 284.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
Y. Lim, C. E. Ocampo, M. Supandji, W. H. L. Teoh, and A. T. Sia
Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia Regimens for Labor Analgesia: Background Infusion or Demand-Only?
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2009; 109(1): 284 - 285.
[Full Text] [PDF]




Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.