Suppr超能文献

程序化间歇性硬膜外推注方案对医生给予的分娩镇痛补救推注的影响。

Effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus protocol on physician-administered rescue boluses of labor analgesia.

作者信息

Grote Dylan, Zeitz Jack, Sorrels Cole, Russell Ryan C, Raiyani Chandni, Hofkamp Michael P

机构信息

Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine, Temple, Texas, USA.

Department of Anesthesiology, Baylor Scott & White Medical Center -Temple, Temple, Texas, USA.

出版信息

Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2023 Sep 15;36(6):687-691. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2023.2254201. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have shown that programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) boluses, provide better pain relief, reduced motor block, and better patient satisfaction compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) techniques. We hypothesized that patients who had labor epidural analgesia (LEA) maintained with PIEB and PCEA would be less likely to receive a physician-administered rescue analgesia bolus compared to patients who had CEI and PCEA.

METHODS

We searched our electronic medical record for patients who had CEI and PCEA from August 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 and for patients who had PIEB and PCEA from August 2, 2022 to December 31, 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 792 and 665 patients had maintenance of LEA with CEI/PCEA and PIEB/PCEA, respectively. A multivariate logistic regression was performed and, after adjusting for variables of interest, patients who had PIEB and PCEA were less likely to receive one or more physician-administered rescue analgesia boluses (odds ratio 0.504; 95% confidence interval 0.392, 0.649;  < 0.001) compared to patients who had CEI and PCEA.

CONCLUSION

PIEB/PCEA was associated with fewer physician-administered boluses of rescue analgesia compared to CEI/PCEA when used for LEA.

摘要

背景

先前的研究表明,与持续硬膜外输注(CEI)技术相比,采用或不采用患者自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)推注的程序化间歇性硬膜外推注(PIEB)技术能提供更好的疼痛缓解效果、减轻运动阻滞并提高患者满意度。我们假设,与采用CEI和PCEA的患者相比,采用PIEB和PCEA维持分娩期硬膜外镇痛(LEA)的患者接受医生给予的补救镇痛推注的可能性更小。

方法

我们在电子病历中搜索了2021年8月1日至2021年12月31日期间采用CEI和PCEA的患者,以及2022年8月2日至2022年12月31日期间采用PIEB和PCEA的患者。

结果

分别有792例和665例患者采用CEI/PCEA和PIEB/PCEA维持LEA。进行了多因素逻辑回归分析,在对感兴趣的变量进行调整后,与采用CEI和PCEA的患者相比,采用PIEB和PCEA的患者接受一次或多次医生给予的补救镇痛推注的可能性更小(比值比0.504;95%置信区间0.392,0.649;P<0.001)。

结论

用于LEA时,与CEI/PCEA相比,PIEB/PCEA与医生给予的补救镇痛推注次数较少相关。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
Programmed intermittent epidural boluses: Where are we at?程序化间歇性硬膜外推注:我们目前处于什么阶段?
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2023 Sep 18;36(6):692. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2023.2255969. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

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