The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. Upright versus recumbent position in the second stage of labour in women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor. The influence of epidural analgesia on cesarean delivery rates: a randomized, prospective clinical trial. Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomised controlled trial. Epidural block or parenteral pethidine as analgesic in labour; a randomized study concerning progress in labour and instrumental deliveries. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing patient-controlled epidural with intravenous analgesia for pain relief in labor. Labor analgesia: a comparative study between combined spinal-epidural anesthesia versus continuous epidural anesthesia. Adverse effects of combined spinal-epidural versus traditional epidural analgesia during labor.
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. 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 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 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. Epidural analgesia is the most effective labour pain relief but is associated with increased rates of instrumental vaginal delivery and other effects, which might be related to the poor motor function associated with traditional epidural. New techniques that preserve motor function could reduce obstetric intervention. We did a randomised controlled trial to compare low-dose combined spinal epidural and low-dose infusion (mobile) techniques with traditional epidural technique.
                Between Feb 1, 1999, and April 30, 2000, we randomly assigned 1054 nulliparous women requesting epidural pain relief to traditional (n=353), low-dose combined spinal epidural (n=351), or low-dose infusion epidural (n=350). Primary outcome was mode of delivery, and secondary outcomes were progress of labour, efficacy of procedure, and effect on neonates. We obtained data during labour and interviewed women postnatally.
                The normal vaginal delivery rate was 35.1% in the traditional epidural group, 42.7% in the low-dose combined spinal group (odds ratio 1.38 [95% CI 1.01-1.89]; p=0.04); and 42.9% in the low-dose infusion group (1.39 [1.01-1.90]; p=0.04). These differences were accounted for by a reduction in instrumental vaginal delivery. Overall, 5 min APGAR scores of 7 or less were more frequent with low-dose technique. High-level resuscitation was more frequent in the low-dose infusion group.
                The use of low-dose epidural techniques for labour analgesia has benefits for delivery outcome. Continued routine use of traditional epidurals might not be justified. A prospective randomized study was performed to evaluate the influence of epidural analgesia compared to parenteral pethidine in parturients with pain in the first stage of labour on the progress of labour and the frequency of instrumental deliveries. There was no significant difference in the two groups in the duration of either the first or second stage of labour. The overall instrumental delivery rate was 25%, with no difference between the groups. The analgesic efficacy of the epidural blockade was significantly better than that of parenteral pethidine. We conclude that epidural bupivacaine with our technique and obstetric practice did neither prolong labour nor increase the frequency of instrumental delivery. In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we sought to determine whether patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labor affected the incidence of cesarean delivery when compared with patient-controlled IV opioid analgesia (PCIA). Healthy, term nulliparous patients in 4 Canadian institutions were randomly assigned to receive PCIA with fentanyl (n = 118) or PCEA with 0.08% bupivacaine and fentanyl 1.6 microg/mL (n = 124). There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery-10.2% (12 of 118) versus 9.7% (12 of 124)-or instrumental vaginal delivery-21.2% (25 of 118) versus 29% (36 of 124)-between groups. The duration of the second stage of labor was increased in the PCEA group by a median of 23 min (P = 0.02). Fifty-one patients (43%) in the PCIA group received epidural analgesia: 39 (33%) because of inadequate pain relief and 12 (10%) to facilitate operative delivery. Patients in the PCIA group required more antiemetic therapy (17% versus 6.4%; P = 0.01) and had more sedation (39% versus 5%; P < 0.001). Maternal mean pain and satisfaction with analgesia scores were better in the PCEA group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). More neonates in the PCIA group required active resuscitation (52% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and naloxone (17% versus 3%; P < 0.001). These observations support the hypothesis that PCEA does not result in an increased incidence of obstetrical intervention compared with PCIA. PCEA provides superior analgesia and less maternal and neonatal sedation compared with PCIA. 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 two neuraxial block techniques during labor for maternal and fetal effects.
                Women in labor at term with cephalic singleton fetuses were randomized (nonblinded) to receive either labor epidural (EPI) or combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia. Primary outcome was prolonged deceleration (PD) of fetal heart rate. Outcomes also included hypotension, mode of delivery, and efficacy of analgesia by visual analog pain scale (VAPS) before and after block placement.
                Randomization occurred in 127 patients: 63 received EPI, 64 received CSE. There was no difference in the rate of PD in the EPI group compared with the CSE group (3.2% vs 6.2% respectively; P=0.43, RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.4-9.3), rate of cesarean delivery, or mean epidural duration. VAPS ratings were significantly lower in the CSE group.
                There were no differences in the rate of PD or other adverse outcomes. Hypotension occurred more frequently with CSE during labor at term. The study supports both EPI and CSE during labor as safe and effective techniques for neuraxial analgesia.
There is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that discontinuing epidural analgesia late in labour reduces the rate of instrumental delivery. There is evidence that it increases the rate of inadequate pain relief in the second stage of labour. The practice of discontinuing epidurals is widespread and the size of the reduction in instrumental delivery rate could be clinically important; therefore, we recommend a larger study than those included in this review be undertaken to determine whether this effect is real or has occurred by chance, and to provide stronger evidence about the safety aspects.