Medline ® Abstracts for References 10-12

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using ropivacaine and fentanyl provides better maternal satisfaction and less anesthetic requirement than conventional continuous epidural infusion (CEI) during labor, we studied 58 uncomplicated parturients (singleton, vertex presentation).

METHODS: After establishing effective epidural analgesia with 11 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine, all parturients were randomly divided into one of two groups: the PCEA group (n = 29) or the CEI group (n = 29). In the PCEA group, the pump was initiated to deliver a basal infusion at 6 ml x h(-1) and a demand dose of 5 ml; the lockout interval was 10 min, and there was a 31 ml x h(-1) limit. The drugs used were 0.1% ropivacaine + fentanyl 2 microg x ml(-1). In the CEI group, epidural analgesia was maintained with the same solution as the PCEA group at a constant rate of 10 ml x h(-1). If parturients requested additional analgesia in the CEI group, we added 8 ml of epidural 0.2% ropivacaine without fentanyl.

RESULTS: Parturients'demographic data, such as duration of labor, mode of delivery, Apgar score, and umbilical arterial pH did not differ between the two groups. However, the hourly requirement of ropivacaine was significantly less in the PCEA group than in the CEI group (9.3 +/- 2.5 vs. 17.6 +/- 7.6 mg x h(-1); P<0.05). Parturients' satisfaction assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale tended to be higher in the PCEA group than in the CEI group. Side effects such as nausea, hypotension, and itching were similar for the two groups.

CONCLUSION: We found that PCEA was an effective means of providing optimal analgesia, with better satisfaction during labor and less local anesthetic requirement.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is a relatively new method of maintaining labour analgesia. There have been many studies performed that have compared the efficacy of PCEA with continuous epidural infusion (CEI). The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of PCEA and CEI.

METHODS: All randomized controlled trials that compared PCEA, without background infusion, with CEI were sought from the literature. These were rated for quality using a validated, five-point scale. The primary outcome was the number of patients who received anaesthetic interventions. Secondary outcomes included the dose of local anaesthetic, incidence of motor block, quality of analgesia, obstetric and safety outcomes. Where feasible, the data were combined using meta-analytical techniques. For dichotomous data, the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. For continuous data, the weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated. The differences were statistically significant when the 95% CI excluded 0.

RESULTS: Nine studies comprised of 640 patients were found. There were fewer anaesthetic interventions in the PCEA group (RD, 27%; 95% CI, 18-36%; P<0.00001). This group also received less local anaesthetic (WMD, -3.92; 95% CI, -5.38 to -2.42; P<00001) and less motor block (RD, 18%; 95% CI, 6-31%; P = 0.003). Both methods were safe for mother and newborn.

CONCLUSION: Patients who receive PCEA are less likely to require anaesthetic interventions, require lower doses of local anaesthetic and have less motor block than those who receive CEI. Future research should be directed at determining differences in maternal satisfaction and obstetric outcome.