Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anaesthesia. 2017 Aug;72(8):1016-1028. doi: 10.1111/anae.13971.
We aimed to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil used as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the pain of labour. We performed a systematic literature search in December 2015 (updated in December 2016). We included randomised, controlled and cluster-randomised trials of women in labour with planned vaginal delivery receiving patient-controlled remifentanil compared principally with other parenteral and patient-controlled opioids, epidural analgesia and continuous remifentanil infusion or placebo. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with pain relief and the occurrence of adverse events for mothers and newborns. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and applied the GRADE approach for the quality of evidence. We included total zero event trials, using a constant continuity correction of 0.01 and a random-effect meta-analysis. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis; within these, 3713 participants were randomised and 3569 analysed. Most of our pre-specified outcomes were not studied in the included trials. However, we found evidence that women using patient-controlled remifentanil were more satisfied with pain relief than women receiving parenteral opioids (four trials, 216 patients, very low quality evidence) with a standardised mean difference ([SMD] 95%CI) of 2.11 (0.72-3.49), but were less satisfied than women receiving epidural analgesia (seven trials, 2135 patients, very low quality evidence), -0.22 (-0.40 to -0.04). Data on adverse events were sparse. However, the relative risk (95%CI) for maternal respiratory depression for patient-controlled remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia (three trials, 687 patients, low-quality evidence) was 0.91 (0.51-1.62). Compared with continuous intravenous infusion of remifentanil (two trials, 135 patients, low-quality evidence) no conclusion could be reached as all study arms showed zero events. The relative risk (95%CI) of Apgar scores less than 7 at 5 min after birth compared with epidural analgesia (five trials, 1322 participants, low-quality evidence) was 1.26 (0.62-2.57).
我们旨在评估瑞芬太尼作为静脉患者自控镇痛用于分娩疼痛的效果。我们于 2015 年 12 月进行了系统文献检索(2016 年 12 月更新)。我们纳入了计划行阴道分娩的产妇接受患者自控瑞芬太尼镇痛的随机对照试验和整群随机对照试验,主要比较了其他的静脉和患者自控阿片类药物、硬膜外镇痛、持续输注瑞芬太尼和安慰剂。主要结局是产妇对疼痛缓解的满意度和母婴不良事件的发生情况。我们评估了每项纳入研究的偏倚风险,并应用 GRADE 方法评估证据质量。我们纳入了总零事件试验,使用常数连续性校正值 0.01 和随机效应荟萃分析。20 项研究纳入了定性分析;其中,3713 名参与者被随机分配,3569 名参与者被分析。我们预先指定的大多数结局在纳入的试验中并未研究。然而,我们发现证据表明,与接受静脉阿片类药物的产妇相比,接受患者自控瑞芬太尼的产妇对疼痛缓解的满意度更高(四项试验,216 名患者,极低质量证据),标准化均数差值(SMD)为 2.11(0.72-3.49),但低于接受硬膜外镇痛的产妇(七项试验,2135 名患者,极低质量证据),-0.22(-0.40 至-0.04)。不良事件数据稀少。然而,与硬膜外镇痛相比,瑞芬太尼患者自控镇痛的产妇呼吸抑制的相对风险(RR)(95%CI)为 0.91(0.51-1.62)(三项试验,687 名患者,低质量证据)。与瑞芬太尼持续静脉输注(两项试验,135 名患者,低质量证据)相比,无法得出结论,因为所有研究组均显示零事件。与硬膜外镇痛相比,出生后 5 分钟 Apgar 评分小于 7 的相对风险(RR)(95%CI)为 1.26(0.62-2.57)(五项试验,1322 名参与者,低质量证据)。