A randomized trial of labor analgesia in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension. Labor analgesia: a comparative study between combined spinal-epidural anesthesia versus continuous epidural anesthesia. Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor. A randomised controlled trial of epidural compared with non-epidural analgesia in labour. Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. The influence of epidural analgesia on cesarean delivery rates: a randomized, prospective clinical trial. Prospective, randomized comparison of epidural and combined spinal epidural analgesia during labor. Effects of epidural lidocaine analgesia on labor and delivery: a randomized, prospective, controlled trial.
The purpose of this study was to compare the peripartum and perinatal effects of epidural with intravenous labor analgesia in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension.
                Women with pregnancy-induced hypertension who had consented to participate were randomized to receive either epidural or intravenous analgesia for labor pain. Both methods were given according to standardized protocols. All women received magnesium sulfate seizure prophylaxis. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared according to intent-to-treat allocation.
                Seven hundred thirty-eight women were randomized: 372 women were given epidural analgesia, and 366 women were given intravenous analgesia. Maternal characteristics were similar, including the severity of hypertension. Epidural analgesia was associated with a significantly prolonged second-stage labor, an increase in forceps deliveries, and an increase in chorioamnionitis. Cesarean delivery rates and neonatal outcomes were similar. Pain relief was superior with the epidural method. Hypotension required treatment in 11% of women in the epidural group.
                Epidural labor analgesia provides superior pain relief but no additional therapeutic benefit to women with pregnancy-induced hypertension. Pain relief during labor is a permanent concern, aiming at the maternal well being, decreasing the stress secondary to pain, and reducing its consequences on the fetus. Several analgesia techniques can be used during labor. The aim of this study was to compare continuous and combined epidural analgesia, both of them using 0.25% bupivacaine with 50% enantiomeric excess and fentanyl.
                Forty pregnant women, in labor, with cervical dilation between 4 and 5 cm, were randomly divided in two groups. Group I received continuous epidural anesthesia. Group II received combined anesthesia. The following parameters were evaluated: anthropometric measurements, gestational age, cervical dilation, length of time between the blockade and absence of pain according to the visual analogic scale, ability to walk, length of time between analgesia and complete cervical dilation, duration of the expulsive phase, maternal hemodynamic parameters, and vitality of the newborn. Possible complications, such as respiratory depression, maternal hypotension, pruritus, nausea, and vomiting were also evaluated. The Student t test was used to compare the means and the Chi-square test was used to compare the number of pregnancies and type of labor.
                There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding the length of time between the beginning of analgesia and complete cervical dilation, as well as regarding the duration of the expulsive phase, incidence of cesarean section related to the analgesia, maternal hemodynamic parameters, and vitality of the newborn.
                Both techniques are effective and safe for labor analgesia, although the combined technique provided fast and immediate pain relief. Clinical studies with a larger number of patients are necessary to evaluate the differences in the incidence of cesarean sections. To compare the effects of epidural analgesia with intravenous (IV) analgesia on the outcome of labor.
                Thirteen hundred thirty women with uncomplicated term pregnancies and in spontaneous labor were randomized to be offered epidural bupivacaine-fentanyl or IV meperidine analgesia during labor.
                Comparison of the allocation groups by intent to treat revealed a significant association between epidural allocation and operative delivery for dystocia. However, only 65% of each randomization group accepted the allocated treatment. Four hundred thirty-seven women accepted and received meperidine as allocated, and they were compared with 432 women accepting epidural allocation. Significant associations resulted between epidural administration and prolongation of labor, increased rate of oxytocin administration, chorioamnionitis, low forceps, and cesarean delivery. Because of the high rate of noncompliance with treatment allocation, a multifactorial regression analysis was performed on the entire cohort, and a twofold relative risk of cesarean delivery persisted in association with epidural treatment. The impact of epidural treatment on cesarean delivery was significant for both nulliparous and parous women (risk ratios 2.55 and 3.81, respectively). Epidural analgesia provided significantly better pain relief in labor than did parenteral meperidine.
                Although labor epidural analgesia is superior to meperidine for pain relief, labor is prolonged, uterine infection is increased, and the number of operative deliveries are increased. A two- to fourfold increased risk of cesarean delivery is associated with epidural treatment in both nulliparous and parous women. To investigate possible short and long term side effects of epidural analgesia, compared with non-epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour.
                Randomised controlled study, with long term follow up by questionnaire. Analysis by intention-to-treat.
                Busy maternity unit within a district general hospital in England.
                Three hundred and sixty nine primigravid women in labour were included (randomised allocation: epidural n = 184, non-epidural n = 185).
                Backache at three and twelve months after delivery, instrumental delivery rates and maternal opinion of pain relief in labour.
                No significant differences were found in the reported incidence of backache between the groups at three months: middle backache [22% vs 20%, chi2 = 0.057, P = 0.81; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]; low backache [35% vs 34%, chi2 = 0.009, P = 0.92; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.6-1.6)]. Nor were there significant differences at 12 months: [middle backache 16% vs 16%, chi2 = 0.013, P = 0.91; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.5-1.8)]; or low backache [35% vs 27%, chi2 = 1.91, P = 0.17; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]. The incidence of instrumental delivery was somewhat higher in the epidural group [30% vs 19%, odds ratio (95% CI) 1.77(1.09-2.86)]. Maternal satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups.
                This study provided no evidence to support the suggestion of a direct association between the use of epidural anaesthesia in labour and the incidence of long term backache. Despite a significant proportion of women in each group not receiving their allocated analgesia, a significant difference in terms of instrumental delivery rates remained. Satisfaction in both groups of women was high. Among nulliparous women, there appears to be an association between the use of epidural analgesia during labor and an increased risk of dystocia. We tested the hypothesis that combined spinal-epidural analgesia, which permits ambulation during labor, is associated with a lower incidence of dystocia than continuous lumbar epidural analgesia.
                Between July 1995 and September 1996, we randomly assigned 761 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term who requested epidural analgesia to receive either continuous lumbar epidural analgesia or a combination of spinal and epidural analgesia. Among the women who received combined spinal-epidural analgesia, some were discouraged from walking and others were encouraged to walk. Maternal and neonatal outcomes, the incidence of dystocia necessitating cesarean section, and measures of patients' satisfaction were compared in the two groups.
                There were no significant differences in the overall rate of cesarean section, the incidence of dystocia, the frequency of maternal or fetal complications, the patients' or nursing staff's assessment of the adequacy of analgesia, or the degree of overall satisfaction between the two groups. Significantly more women receiving combined spinal-epidural analgesia had pruritus (P<0.001) and requested additional epidural bolus doses of local anesthetic (P=0.01). For all the women, dystocia necessitating cesarean section was significantly more likely when analgesia was administered with the fetal vertex at a negative station (odds ratio, 2.5; P<0.001) or at less than 4 cm of cervical dilatation (odds ratio, 2.2; P<0.001).
                As compared with continuous lumbar epidural analgesia, the combination of spinal and epidural analgesia is not associated with an overall decrease in the incidence of cesarean delivery. Our purpose was to determine the effect of epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor and delivery.
                Normal term nulliparous women in early spontaneous labor were randomized to receive either narcotic or epidural analgesia.
                When compared with the group receiving narcotic analgesia (n = 45), the group receiving epidural analgesia (n = 48) had a significant prolongation in the first and second stages of labor, an increased requirement for oxytocin augmentation, and a significant slowing in the rate of cervical dilatation. Epidural analgesia was associated with a significant increase in malposition (4.4% vs 18.8%, p < 0.05). Cesarean delivery occurred more frequently in the epidural group (2.2% vs 25%, p < 0.05), primarily related to an increase in cesarean section for dystocia (2.2% vs 16.7%, p < 0.05).
                In a randomized, controlled, prospective trial epidural analgesia resulted in a significant prolongation in the first and second stages of labor and a significant increase in the frequency of cesarean delivery, primarily related to dystocia. The effects of epidural analgesia on the progress of labor are controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of epidural analgesia on cesarean delivery rates in a population of patients randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous opioids for intrapartum pain relief.
                From January 1995 to May 1996, 318 spontaneously laboring, term, nulliparous patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous opioids or epidural analgesia for pain relief. Labor was managed according to the principles of active management of labor. Cesarean delivery was performed for obstetric indications. Data analysis was conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. A subanalysis was subsequently performed on patients who were compliant with the allocated form of treatment.
                One hundred sixty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous meperidine and 156 were randomly assigned to receive epidural analgesia. Maternal age, gravidity, race, gestational age, and cervical dilatation at admission and at first analgesic dose did not differ between the groups. Intent-to-treat data analysis revealed no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate between the 2 groups, being 13.6% in the opioid group and 9.6% in the epidural group (relative risk 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.31, P >.05). Cesarean delivery rates for the indication of dystocia also did not differ, being 10.5% in the opioid group and 5.8% in the epidural group (relative risk 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.21, P >.05). Subanalysis of the data from patients who were compliant with the allocated form of treatment revealed that patients in the epidural group (n = 147) were 3 times more likely to have an active phase duration >/=8 hours and were 10 times more likely to require >/=2 hours in the second stage of labor than were those in the opioid group (n = 78). There were no significant differences in cesarean delivery rates in this subanalysis, being 7.7% in the opioid group and 8.8% in the epidural group (relative risk 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.45-2.91, P >. 05). The cesarean delivery rates for dystocia were also similar in the subanalysis, being 3.8% in the opioid group and 5.5% in the epidural group (relative risk 1.42, 95% confidence interval 0.39-5. 22, P >.05).
                Epidural analgesia provides safe and effective intrapartum pain control and may be administered without undesirable effects on labor outcome. The analgesic efficacy and incidence of maternal, fetal and neonatal side-effects of combined spinal epidural (CSE) and epidural (EPI) analgesia, using a mixture of bupivacaine 0.125%, epinephrine (1.25 micrograms.ml-1) and sufentanil (0.75 microgram.ml-1) for the relief of labor pain, were randomly and prospectively compared in 110 parturients. A 29 gauge Whitacre tip spinal needle was used to perforate the dura in CSE patients. Compared to EPI, CSE resulted in rapid (326 +/- 22 vs 766 +/- 79 sec, p < 0.05), excellent analgesia, using less bupivacaine (23.5 +/- 2.3 vs 33.9 +/- 2.9 mg, p < 0.05) and sufentanil (12.5 +/- 1.0 vs 16.5 +/- .7 micrograms, p < 0.05). A tendency to improved patient satisfaction in the CSE group was observed. The incidence of maternal or neonatal side effects was similar in both groups. No PDPH was observed. We conclude that CSE analgesia results in excellent pain relief during labor with immediate gratification as compared to epidural analgesia. Whether epidural analgesia for labor prolongs the active-first and second labor stages and increases the risk of vacuum-assisted delivery is a controversial topic. Our study was conducted to answer the question: does lumbar epidural analgesia with lidocaine affect the progress of labor in our obstetric population?
                395 healthy, nulliparous women, at term, presented in spontaneous labor with a singleton vertex presentation. These patients were randomized to receive analgesia either, epidural with bolus doses of 1% lidocaine or intravenous, with meperidine 25 to 50 mg when their cervix was dilated to 4 centimeters. The duration of the active-first and second stages of labor and the neonatal apgar scores were recorded, in each patient. The total number of vacuum-assisted and cesarean deliveries were also measured.
                197 women were randomized to the epidural group. 198 women were randomized to the single-dose intravenous meperidine group. There was no statistical difference in rates of vacuum-assisted delivery rate. Cesarean deliveries, as a consequence of fetal bradycardia or dystocia, did not differ significantly between the groups. Differences in the duration of the active-first and the second stages of labor were not statistically significant. The number of newborns with 1-min and 5-min Apgar scores less than 7, did not differ significantly between both analgesia groups.
                Epidural analgesia with 1% lidocaine does not prolong the active-first and second stages of labor and does not increase vacuum-assisted or cesarean delivery rate.
Epidural analgesia appears to be effective in reducing pain during labour. However, women who use this form of pain relief are at increased risk of having an instrumental delivery. Epidural analgesia had no statistically significant impact on the risk of caesarean section, maternal satisfaction with pain relief and long-term backache and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.