Suppr超能文献

连续脊麻-硬膜外麻醉(CSE)后与传统硬膜外麻醉后放置分娩镇痛硬膜外导管,哪一种更可靠?一项 9153 例分娩镇痛硬膜外导管的回顾性研究。

Are labor epidural catheters after a combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique more reliable than after a traditional epidural? A retrospective review of 9153 labor epidural catheters.

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

HUS Data Services, Data, AI and Analytics, HUS (Helsinki University Hospital) IT Management, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

出版信息

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2025 Jan;69(1):e14542. doi: 10.1111/aas.14542. Epub 2024 Oct 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique may associate with a lower failure rate of epidural catheters compared to traditional epidural catheters. This may be significant for the parturients as failure of neuraxial analgesia has been associated with a negative impact on birth experience.

METHODS

In this one-year retrospective study, the failure rate of epidural catheters was compared between 3201 and 5952 epidural catheters after initiation of neuraxial analgesia by the CSE or traditional epidural technique, respectively. Parturient background information, labor parameters, and neuraxial interventions were collected from 9153 parturients. Failure was defined as replacement of a used epidural catheter by new regional analgesia procedures or general anesthesia during intrapartum cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was the failure rate of epidural catheters. The secondary outcome was the time from the initial analgesia intervention to the epidural catheter replacement and progression of labor during this time.

RESULTS

The CSE method was used at an earlier stage of labor, and the parturients were more often primiparous and undergoing induced labor. Earlier onset of analgesia, obesity, induced labor, anesthesiologist experience, and cesarean delivery were found to be significant cofactors for catheter failure. The unadjusted failure rate was 168/3201 (5.2%) and 223/5952 (3.7%) (OR 1.42 [1.16-1.75]) after initiation of analgesia by CSE or traditional epidural method. After controlling for the stage of labor, body mass index, induction of labor, and anesthesiologist's experience level, the adjusted OR for epidural catheter replacement was 1.04 (0.83-1.29) p = .736. The mean (SD) time until epidural catheter failure was 6.3 (4.4) and 4.0 (4.1) hours following initiation of analgesia by CSE or traditional epidural technique, respectively (p < .001). Cervical dilatation progressed from 4.3 (1.4) to 6.4 (2.1) cm and 5.1 (1.5) to 6.7 (1.7) cm between primary neuraxial analgesia and epidural catheter replacement.

CONCLUSION

CSE technique was not associated with a better survival rate of epidural catheters for provision of analgesia or epidural top-up anesthesia for intrapartum CD. In addition, the time to replacement of the catheter was significantly longer when analgesia was initiated with the CSE technique. Maternal satisfaction scores were lower if catheters required replacement.

摘要

背景

与传统硬膜外导管相比,联合脊麻-硬膜外(CSE)技术可能与硬膜外导管失败率较低相关。这对产妇来说可能很重要,因为椎管内镇痛失败与分娩体验的负面影响有关。

方法

在这项为期一年的回顾性研究中,分别通过 CSE 或传统硬膜外技术启动椎管内镇痛后,比较了 3201 根和 5952 根硬膜外导管的失败率。从 9153 名产妇中收集产妇背景信息、分娩参数和椎管内干预措施。失败的定义为在分娩期间椎管内剖宫产时,用新的区域镇痛程序或全身麻醉更换用过的硬膜外导管。主要结局是硬膜外导管的失败率。次要结局是从初始镇痛干预到硬膜外导管更换的时间以及在此期间分娩的进展。

结果

CSE 方法在分娩早期使用,产妇更多为初产妇且接受诱导分娩。更早的镇痛开始时间、肥胖、诱导分娩、麻醉师经验和剖宫产被认为是导管失败的重要相关因素。CSE 或传统硬膜外方法启动镇痛后,未调整的失败率分别为 168/3201(5.2%)和 223/5952(3.7%)(OR 1.42 [1.16-1.75])。在控制分娩阶段、体重指数、诱导分娩和麻醉师经验水平后,硬膜外导管更换的调整后 OR 为 1.04(0.83-1.29)p=0.736。CSE 或传统硬膜外技术启动镇痛后,硬膜外导管失败的平均(SD)时间分别为 6.3(4.4)和 4.0(4.1)小时(p<0.001)。宫颈扩张从初次神经轴镇痛时的 4.3(1.4)cm 进展至 6.4(2.1)cm 和 5.1(1.5)cm 至 6.7(1.7)cm 在更换硬膜外导管时。

结论

CSE 技术与椎管内镇痛或分娩期间硬膜外导管追加麻醉的硬膜外导管存活率提高无关。此外,使用 CSE 技术启动镇痛时,导管更换时间明显延长。如果需要更换导管,产妇满意度评分较低。

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