Upright versus recumbent position in the second stage of labour in women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia. A prospective randomised trial on the effect of position in the passive second stage of labour on birth outcome in nulliparous women using epidural analgesia. Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor. A randomized trial of labor analgesia in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension. The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. Cesarean delivery: a randomized trial of epidural versus patient-controlled meperidine analgesia during labor. Continuous infusion epidural analgesia with lidocaine: efficacy and influence during the second stage of labor. Nulliparous active labor, epidural analgesia, and cesarean delivery for dystocia. The influence of epidural analgesia on cesarean delivery rates: a randomized, prospective clinical trial.
Neuraxial blockade is widely used for pain relief in labour. This form of analgesia may be associated with an increase in instrumental delivery rates due to dystocia. 'Traditional' epidurals cause motor blockade and hence immobility. Using a low dose anaesthetic-opioid combination with either epidural or combined spinal-epidural, selective sensory blockade can be achieved, allowing mobility as well as pain relief. In this study, we randomised women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia either to mobilise (upright group n = 25) or to remain recumbent (n = 41) in the second stage of labour. We found women in the upright group had significantly shorter total second stage, (132 vs 109 min,P = 0.019) particularly during the pushing phase (73 vs 51 min, P = 0.011). Although there were fewer instrumental deliveries in the upright group, this was not statistically significant. Women who were randomised to the upright group, did actually mobilise. We conclude that mobilisation in the second stage of labour is possible, and may reduce the length of the second stage. To determine whether the rate of instrumental birth in nulliparous women using epidural analgesia is affected by maternal position in the passive second stage of labour.
                A pragmatic prospective randomised trial.
                Consultant maternity unit in the Midlands.
                One hundred and seven nulliparous women using epidural analgesia and reaching the second stage of labour with no contraindications to spontaneous birth.
                The lateral versus the supported sitting position during the passive second stage of labour.
                Mode of birth, incidence of episiotomy, and perineal suturing.
                Recruitment was lower than anticipated (107 vs. 220 planned). Lateral position was associated with lower rates of instrumental birth rate (lateral group 33%; sitting group 52%; p=0.05, RR 0.64, CI for RR: 0.40-1.01; Number-needed-to-treat (NNT)=5), of episiotomy (45% vs. 64%; p=0.05, RR 0.66, CI for RR: 0.44-1.00, NNT=5), and of perineal suturing (78% vs. 86%; p=0.243, RR 0.75, CI for RR 0.47-1.17). The odds ratio for instrumental birth in the sitting group was 2.2 (CI 1.00-4.6). Logistic regression of potential confounder variables was undertaken, due to a large variation in maternal weight between the randomised groups. Of the nine possible confounders tested, only position of the baby's head at full dilation affected the risk of instrumental birth significantly (p=0.4, OR 2.7 where the fetal head was in the lateral or posterior position). Maternal weight did not appear to have any effect. The odds ratio for instrumental delivery for women randomised to the sitting position was slightly higher within the logistic regression model (adjusted OR 2.3).
                Women randomised to the lateral position had a better chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth than those randomised to the supported sitting position. Position of the babies head at full dilation had an additional effect on mode of birth. These effects are not conclusively generalizable. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The lateral position is likely to be at best beneficial, and at the worst no less harmful than the sitting position for most women and their babies who meet the criteria set for this study. Conclusive evidence for or against the technique should be established using larger trials. 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. 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. 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. Reports indicate that the administration of epidural analgesia for pain relief during labor interferes with labor and increases cesarean deliveries. However, only a few controlled trials have assessed the effect of epidural analgesia on the incidence of cesarean delivery. The authors' primary purpose in this randomized study was to evaluate the effects of epidural analgesia on the rate of cesarean deliveries by providing a suitable alternative: patient-controlled intravenous analgesia.
                Seven hundred fifteen women of mixed parity in spontaneous labor at full term were randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or patient-controlled intravenous meperidine analgesia. Epidural analgesia was maintained with a continuous epidural infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine with 2 microg/ml fentanyl. Patient-controlled analgesia was maintained with 10-15 mg meperidine given every 10 min as needed using a patient-controlled pump. Procedures recorded in a manual that prescribed the intrapartum management were followed for each woman randomized in the study.
                A total of 358 women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 243 (68%) of these women complied with the epidural analgesia protocol. Similarly, 357 women were randomized to receive patient-controlled intravenous meperidine analgesia, and 259 (73%) of these women complied with the patient-controlled intravenous analgesia protocol. Only five women who were randomized and received patient-controlled intravenous meperidine analgesia according to the protocol crossed over to epidural analgesia due to inadequate pain relief. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups using intention-to-treat analysis based on the original randomization (epidural analgesia, 4% [95% CI: 1.9-6.2%] compared with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, 5% [95% CI: 2.6-7.2%]). Similar results were observed for the analysis of the protocol-compliant groups (epidural analgesia, 5% [95% CI: 2.6-8.5%] compared with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, 6% [95% CI: 3-8.9%]). Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared with women who received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia.
                Epidural analgesia was not associated with increased numbers of cesarean delivery when compared with a suitable alternative method of analgesia. A randomized double-blind study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and influence of maintaining a continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine during the second stage of labor in nulliparous women. When the cervix was 8 cm or more dilated, unidentified study solution was substituted for the known 0.75% lidocaine solution and continued until delivery. The study solution for 26 patients was 0.75% lidocaine; 27 subjects received saline. During the first stage of labor, 88% of women in the lidocaine group and 81% of women in the saline group had analgesia of excellent or good quality, a nonsignificant difference. During the second stage, there was a tendency (not statistically significant) toward improved analgesia quality in the lidocaine patients, but there was no significant difference in the frequency of perineal anesthesia (23% lidocaine, 7% saline). There was no difference between the groups in the duration of the second stage of labor (73 +/- 63 versus 76 +/- 48 minutes). Operative delivery frequency was similar (31 and 37%), as were umbilical cord blood acid-base values. It is concluded that maintenance of the continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine did not prolong the second stage of labor, but it also did not significantly differ from saline in quality of second stage analgesia or frequency of perineal anesthesia. Our purpose was to examine the effect of epidural analgesia on dystocia-related cesarean delivery in actively laboring nulliparous women.
                Active labor was confirmed in nulliparous women by uterine contractions, cervical dilatation of 4 cm, effacement of 80%, and fetopelvic engagement. Patients were randomized to one of two groups: epidural analgesia or narcotics. A strict protocol for labor management was in place. Patients recorded the level of pain at randomization and at hourly intervals on a visual analog scale. Elective outlet operative vaginal delivery was permitted.
                One hundred women were randomized. No difference in the rate of cesarean delivery for dystocia was noted between the groups (epidural 8%, narcotic 6%; p = 0.71). No significant differences were noted in the lengths of the first (p = 0.54) or second (p = 0.55) stages of labor or in any other time variable. Women with epidural analgesia underwent operative vaginal delivery more frequently (p = 0.004). Pain scores were equivalent at randomization, but large differences existed at each hour thereafter. The number of patients randomized did not achieve prestudy estimates. A planned interim analysis of the results demonstrated that we were unlikely to find a statistically significant difference in cesarean delivery rates in a trial of reasonable duration.
                With strict criteria for the diagnosis of labor and with use of a rigid protocol for labor management, there was no increase in dystocia-related cesarean delivery with epidural analgesia. 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.
There are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour. Future research should involve large trials of positions that women can maintain and predefined endpoints. One large trial is ongoing.