Suppr超能文献

硬膜外麻醉、硬膜穿刺硬膜外麻醉和腰麻-硬膜外联合麻醉(不使用鞘内阿片类药物)用于分娩镇痛的随机对照研究。

A randomized comparison of epidural, dural puncture epidural, and combined spinal-epidural without intrathecal opioids for labor analgesia.

作者信息

Bakhet Wahba Z

机构信息

Anesthesia Departments, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

出版信息

J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Apr-Jun;37(2):231-236. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_347_19. Epub 2021 Jul 15.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Dural puncture epidural (DPE) has been shown to improve labor analgesia over epidural (EPL), with fewer side effects than a combined spinal-epidural (CSE). However, there is some debate regarding the superiority of DPE over EPL and CSE. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of EPL, DPE, and CSE without intrathecal opioids on the epidural local anesthetic (LA) consumption and occurrence of side effects in early labor.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We randomly assigned parturient to one of the 3 groups; EPL, DPE, or CSE. EPL and DPE groups received a 10 mL loading dose of 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg/mL. CSE group received intrathecal 2.5 mg bupivacaine (without opioids). Labor analgesia was maintained in all patients via patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). The primary outcome was the mean hourly consumption of epidural LA.

RESULTS

The mean hourly consumption of epidural LA anesthetic was significantly lower in CSE (9.55 mL), compared with the EPL (11 mL), and DPE (10.5 mL), < 0.01; but no significant difference was seen between EPL and DPE. Compared with EPL and DPE, CSE achieved faster time to complete analgesia defined as a numeric rating pain scale (NRPS) ≤1 and sensory block, lower NRPS in the first hour and higher frequencies of complete analgesia. There were no differences between groups in terms of physician top-up boluses, the occurrence of side-effects, mode of delivery, Apgar scores, and maternal satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Compared with EPL and DPE, CSE without intrathecal opioids, had a less epidural LA consumption, faster onset of analgesia, with no difference in the incidence of side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03980951).

摘要

背景与目的

硬膜穿破硬膜外阻滞(DPE)已被证明比硬膜外阻滞(EPL)能更好地改善分娩镇痛,且副作用比腰麻-硬膜外联合阻滞(CSE)少。然而,关于DPE相对于EPL和CSE的优越性存在一些争议。因此,我们旨在比较EPL、DPE和不使用鞘内阿片类药物的CSE对分娩早期硬膜外局部麻醉药(LA)消耗量和副作用发生情况的影响。

材料与方法

我们将产妇随机分为3组之一:EPL、DPE或CSE。EPL组和DPE组接受10 mL负荷剂量的0.1%布比卡因加2 μg/mL芬太尼。CSE组接受鞘内注射2.5 mg布比卡因(不含阿片类药物)。所有患者均通过患者自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)维持分娩镇痛。主要结局是硬膜外LA的平均每小时消耗量。

结果

与EPL组(11 mL)和DPE组(10.5 mL)相比,CSE组硬膜外LA麻醉药的平均每小时消耗量显著更低(9.55 mL),P<0.01;但EPL组和DPE组之间未见显著差异。与EPL组和DPE组相比,CSE组达到完全镇痛(定义为数字疼痛评分量表(NRPS)≤1)和感觉阻滞的时间更快,第一小时的NRPS更低,完全镇痛的频率更高。各组在医生追加推注量、副作用发生情况、分娩方式、阿氏评分和产妇满意度方面无差异。

结论

与EPL组和DPE组相比,不使用鞘内阿片类药物的CSE组硬膜外LA消耗量更少,镇痛起效更快,副作用发生率无差异。

试验注册

本研究在www.clinicaltrials.gov(NCT03980951)注册。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9a72/8289667/6cb481c23610/JOACP-37-231-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验