• Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 2017

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Improves Labor Analgesia Quality With Fewer Side Effects Compared With Epidural and Combined Spinal Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

    • Anthony Chau, Carolina Bibbo, Chuan-Chin Huang, Kelly G Elterman, Eric C Cappiello, Julian N Robinson, and Lawrence C Tsen.
    • From the *Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; †Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; ‡Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; §Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and [REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
    • Anesth. Analg. 2017 Feb 1; 124 (2): 560-569.

    BackgroundThe dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is a modification of the combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique, where a dural perforation is created from a spinal needle but intrathecal medication administration is withheld. The DPE technique has been shown to improve caudal spread of analgesia compared with epidural (EPL) technique without the side effects observed with the CSE technique. We hypothesized that the onset of labor analgesia would follow this order: CSE > DPE > EPL techniques.MethodsA total of 120 parturients in early labor were randomly assigned to EPL, DPE, or CSE groups. Initial dosing for EPL and DPE consisted of epidural 20 mL of 0.125% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 2 μg/mL over 5 minutes, and for CSE, intrathecal 0.25% bupivacaine 1.7 mg and fentanyl 17 μg. Upon block completion, a blinded coinvestigator assessed the outcomes. Two blinded obstetricians retrospectively interpreted uterine contractions and fetal heart rate tracings 1 hour before and after the neuraxial technique. The primary outcome was time to numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) ≤ 1 analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary outcomes included block quality, maternal adverse effects, uterine contraction patterns, and fetal outcomes analyzed by using the χ test with Yates continuity correction.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the time to NPRS ≤ 1 between DPE and EPL (hazard ratio 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.4, P = .21). DPE achieved NPRS ≤ 1 significantly slower than CSE (hazard ratio 0.36; 95% CI 0.22-0.59, P = .0001). The median times (interquartile range) to NPRS ≤ 1 were 2 (0.5-6) minutes for CSE, 11 (4-120) minutes for DPE, and 18 (10-120) minutes for EPL. Compared with EPL, DPE had significantly greater incidence of bilateral S2 blockade at 10 minutes (risk ratio [RR] 2.13; 95% CI 1.39-3.28; P < .001), 20 minutes (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.26-2.03; P < .001), and 30 minutes (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.30; P < .034), a lower incidence of asymmetric block after 30 minutes (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; P < .001) and physician top-up intervention (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.86; P = .011). Compared with CSE, DPE had a significantly lower incidence of pruritus (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06-0.38; P < .001), hypotension (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.15-0.98; P = .032), combined uterine tachysystole and hypertonus (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.08-0.60; P < .001), and physician top-up intervention (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.86; p = .011).ConclusionsAnalgesia onset was most rapid with CSE with no difference between DPE and EPL techniques. The DPE technique has improved block quality over the EPL technique with fewer maternal and fetal side effects than the CSE technique for parturients requesting early labor analgesia.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    This article appears in the collection: Is dural-puncture epidural superior to standard epidural labour analgesia?.

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.