Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomised controlled trial. Adverse effects of combined spinal-epidural versus traditional epidural analgesia during labor. Comparison of combined spinal-epidural and low dose epidural for labour analgesia. Combined spinal epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section: a randomised comparison of Oxford, lateral and sitting positions. Hypotension following combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia for Caesarean section. Left lateral position vs. tilted supine position. Anaesthetic technique for elective caesarean section and neurobehavioural status of newborns. Prospective, randomized trial comparing general with spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in preeclamptic patients with a nonreassuring fetal heart trace. Prospective, randomized comparison of epidural and combined spinal epidural analgesia during labor. A randomized study of combined spinal-epidural analgesia versus intravenous meperidine during labor: impact on cesarean delivery rate.
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. 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. To compare the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique with the epidural technique with regard to time to initiate and manage, motor block, onset of analgesia and satisfaction during labour.
                Upon requesting analgesia, 50 healthy term parturients were randomized in a prospective, double-blind fashion to receive either CSE analgesia or lumbar epidural analgesia in the labour floor of a university hospital at an academic medical centre. The epidural group (n = 24) received bupivacaine 0.0625%-fentanyl 0.0002% with 0.05 ml in 10 ml local anesthetic sodium bicarbonate 8.4% and epinephrine 1:200,000. The CSE group (n = 26) received intrathecal 25 microg fentanyl and 2.5 mg bupivacaine. Additional analgesia was provided upon maternal request.
                There were no differences (P>0.05) in time to perform either technique, motor blockade, or parturient satisfaction or in the number of times that the anesthesiologist was called to perform any intervention. Although the first sign of analgesia was not different between the two groups, the onset of complete analgesia was more rapid with the CSE technique (Visual Analogue Pain Score (VAPS) at five minutes < three: 26/26 vs. 17/24, P+/-0.001).
                Although epidural analgesia with a low concentration of local anesthetic and opioid mixture takes longer to produce complete analgesia, it is a satisfactory alternative to CSE. Maternal position during induction of intrathecal anaesthesia for caesarean section influences block height and haemodynamic stability. In a randomised study of 90 women presenting for elective caesarean section using combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia, three positions were compared--the Oxford position (group O), the right lateral to supine wedged (group R) and the sitting to supine wedged (group S). Hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg with fentanyl 12.5 microg was injected intrathecally using a needle-through-needle CSE technique. Intravenous ephedrine 6 mg was given every minute that systolic blood pressure fell below 80% of baseline. Time required for block height to reach T5 as assessed by light touch, was similar in the three groups. There were no significant differences in blood pressure although ephedrine requirements were less in group R. There were no significant differences in the incidence of maternal nausea and vomiting or in neonatal outcome as assessed by Apgar scores and umbilical cord blood gas analysis. Although the study failed to show any significant differences in block height between the groups, no women in group O had a block above T2 compared with three in group R and three in group S. Eighty-seven pregnant mothers undergoing elective Caesarean section were randomly allocated either to the full left lateral position (n = 45) or to the supine position with 12 degrees left lateral tilt (n = 42) after a combined spinal-epidural (CSE) in the sitting position and an initial 2 min in the full right lateral position. Fewer mothers were hypotensive while in the study position [29 (64%) in lateral group vs. 38 (90%) in the tilted supine group; p = 0.03]. Mothers in the lateral group tended to become hypotensive after turning them back to the tilted supine position immediately before surgery; hence the number of mothers who were hypotensive from the insertion of the CSE until delivery were similar [36 (80%) vs. 38 (90%)]. Mothers in the lateral group needed a lower dose of ephedrine to treat their hypotension while in their study position (median (interquartile range [range]) 6 (0-12 [0-36]) mg vs. 12 (6-18 [0-36]) mg, respectively; p = 0.04) but ephedrine requirements were similar overall (12 (6-12 [0-36]) mg vs. 12 (6-18 [0-36]) mg), respectively. The full left lateral position reduces the incidence of early hypotension compared with the tilted supine position with tilt, and makes it easier to treat. Ninety healthy parturients undergoing elective caesarean section were randomly allocated to receive either general (n = 30), epidural (n = 30) or spinal (n = 30) anaesthesia. Acid-base status, Apgar score and neurobehavioural status, using the neurologic and adaptive capacity scoring (NACS) system, were studied in the newborn. Apgar scores and acid-base parameters were similar in all the three groups. NACS testing revealed significantly more vigorous babies in the spinal anaesthesia group than in the other two groups at 15 min and 2 h interval after delivery, despite a higher incidence of maternal hypotension. We conclude that newborns tend to have a better neurobehavioural status in the early post-delivery period if their mothers receive spinal anaesthesia rather than general or epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section. There are no randomized studies on neonatal outcome after spinal versus general anesthesia for cesarean delivery in preeclamptic patients with a nonreassuring fetal heart trace. This study examined both markers of neonatal hypoxia and maternal hemodynamics.
                Seventy patients were randomized to general (n = 35) or spinal anesthesia (n = 35). The general anesthesia group received thiopentone, magnesium sulfate, and suxamethonium intravenously before intubation, followed by 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen, 0.75-1.5% isoflurane, and morphine after delivery. The target end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (Pco2) was 30-34 mmHg. The spinal anesthesia group received 1.8 ml hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 10 microg fentanyl at the L3-L4 interspace. Heart rate and blood pressure were measured at specific time points. Hypotension was treated with ephedrine. Maternal arterial and neonatal umbilical arterial blood gas samples were taken at delivery. Resuscitation requirements were recorded.
                In both groups, hemodynamic measures remained within acceptable limits. Spinal anesthesia patients required more ephedrine (13.7 vs. 2.7 mg). Maternal Paco2 was lower in the spinal group (28.9 vs. 32.4 mmHg). One-minute Apgar scores were lower after general anesthesia. Base deficit was greater (7.13 vs. 4.68 mEq/l) and neonatal umbilical arterial pH was lower (7.20 vs. 7.23) after spinal anesthesia. Post hoc analysis showed that if maternal diastolic blood pressure on admission was greater than 110 mmHg, neonatal umbilical arterial base deficit was greater after spinal anesthesia. There was no difference in the number of patients with Apgar scores less than 7 at 1 or 5 min or umbilical arterial pH less than 7.2 or in the requirements for resuscitation.
                In preeclamptic patients with a nonreassuring fetal heart trace, spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery was associated with a greater mean neonatal umbilical arterial base deficit and a lower median umbilical arterial pH. The clinical significance remains to be established. Maternal hemodynamics were similar and acceptable with either anesthetic technique. 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. Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia produces rapid-onset pain relief and allows ambulation in early labor. Epidural local anesthetics may contribute to an increase in operative deliveries by decreasing perineal sensation and causing motor weakness. Operative delivery rates might be reduced with CSE, by avoiding or delaying administration of local anesthetics. This study compares the operative delivery rates associated with a CSE technique and those associated with intravenous meperidine for labor analgesia.
                Healthy parturients at full term were assigned randomly to receive CSE or intravenous meperidine analgesia. The CSE group received 10 microg intrathecal sufentanil, followed by epidural bupivacaine and fentanyl at their next request for analgesia. Parturients receiving intravenous meperidine had 50 mg on demand (maximum, 200 mg in 4 h). Labor and delivery outcomes in both groups were recorded and compared.
                An intent-to-treat analysis of 1,223 women indicated that CSE does not increase the rate of cesarean delivery for dystocia in nulliparous and parous women (CSE, 3.5% vs. intravenous meperidine, 4; P=not significant) or in nulliparous women alone (CSE, 7% vs. intravenous meperidine, 8%; P=not significant). Profound fetal bradycardia that necessitated emergency cesarean delivery within 1 h of the time the mother received sufentanil occurred in 8 of 400 parturients (compared with 0 of 352 who received meperidine; P < 0.01). However, the method of fetal monitoring differed between the two groups. Despite this, neonatal outcomes were similar overall.
                Combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor does not increase the cesarean delivery rate for dystocia in healthy parturient patients at full term, regardless of parity. However, an unexpected increase in the number of cesarean deliveries for profound fetal bradycardia after intrathecal sufentanil was observed. Further investigation is warranted.
There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.