Search

In this randomized, blinded study, we evaluated the effects of different programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) volumes for labor analgesia on the incidence of breakthrough pain and other analgesic outcomes.Nulliparous women with term cephalic singleton pregnancies who requested labor analgesia had epidural analgesia initiated with 10 mL 0.1% ropivacaine with sufentanil 0.3 μg/mL. The pump was programmed to deliver a 4, 6 or 8 mL bolus every 45 min (groups 4, 6 or 8, respectively). The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain, defined as inadequate analgesia after two patient-controlled epidural analgesia administrations in a 20-min period. Secondary outcomes included ropivacaine consumption, time of the first patient-controlled epidural analgesia request, duration of the second stage of labor, and incidence of motor block.Among 210 women randomly allocated the incidence of breakthrough pain was 34.9%, 19.7%, and 13.1%, for groups 4, 6 and 8, respectively (P=0.011). The incidence of breakthrough pain in group 8 was lower than in group 4 (P=0.006). The median (interquartile range) hourly ropivacaine consumption was 8.2 mg/h (7.1-11.3), 10.4 mg/h (9.2-13.0), and 12.0 mg/h (11.2-13.8) in groups 4, 6 and 8, respectively (P 0.001). Group 8 had a longer duration of effective analgesia and longer second stage of labor than group 4. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of motor block.The larger PIEB volumes were preferred for epidural labor analgesia compared with a smaller volume because of improved analgesia without clinically significant increases in adverse effects.

Recent trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of sterile water injections to provide relief from labour back pain. While four injections is the most common approach variations in technique, such as employing two injections, are also used.To determine if the analgesic effect of two sterile water injections is clinically equivalent to four.238 women in labour with a Visual Analogue Scale pain score (VAS) of 70 millimetres (mm) (0 = no pain; 100 = worst pain imaginable) were randomised to two or four sterile water injections. The primary outcome was pain measured on a VAS at 30 min post treatment. A priori margin of equivalence was set at ±10 mm. Secondary outcomes included the likelihood of achieving an at least 30% and 50% reduction in pain, birth and neonatal outcomes.At 30 min post-injection the difference in VAS scores between the techniques was -5.97 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] -13.18-1.22). As the lower end of the CI exceeds the margin of -10 mm equivalence was not demonstrated. Both techniques achieved an at least 30% reduction in pain in over 75% of participants though duration of effect was longer in the four injection group. There was no difference in other birth related secondary outcomes.Four injections provided a margin of benefit over two injections in level and duration of analgesia.Four injections remains the technique of choice though two injections still provided significant pain relief and would be suitable where it was not possible or desirable to provide four.

This study aimed to explore the potential association between remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) or epidural analgesia (EA), and caesarean section (CS) rate, operative vaginal delivery rate (OVD), operative delivery (OD) rate (CS or OVD) with pathological cardiotocography (CTG) tracing, Apgar score 7 at 5 min after birth, incidence of perinatal asphyxia and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission within four groups of the Ten Groups Classification System (TGCS) labour types; group 1: nulliparous, singleton cephalic, ≥37 weeks, spontaneous onset of labour; group 2a: nulliparous, singleton cephalic, ≥37 weeks, induction of labour; group 3: multiparous, singleton cephalic, ≥37 weeks, spontaneous onset of labour; group 4a: multipara, singleton cephalic, ≥37 weeks, induction of labour). We hypothesized that labour and delivery outcomes between RPCA and EA would differ within the different TGCS labour types.10,561 deliveries (4876 with RPCA, 5685 with EA) at the University Clinical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia, from 2015 through 2019 were analysed using the Slovenian National Perinatal Information System data.Compared to EA, RPCA was associated with lower CS and OVD rates in nulliparous women with spontaneous onset of labour (group 1) (CS: 9.9 % vs14.3 %; P 0.001) (OVD: 5.1 % vs 8.4 %; P 0.001), in nulliparous women with induced labour (group 2a) (CS: 14.8 % vs 24.2 %; P 0.001) (OVD: 6.5 % vs 8.9 %; P = 0.036) and in multiparous women with spontaneous onset of labour (group 3) (CS: 1.1 % vs 2.4 %; P = 0.021) (OVD: 0.1 % vs 0.8 %; P = 0.007), respectively. RPCA was associated with a lower incidence of OD with pathologic CTG in all four studied groups (groups 1, 2a, 3, 4a). No differences in APGAR 7 at 5 min, neonatal asphyxia, and NICU admission were recorded between the two analgesic techniques within any of the TGCS groups.Compared to EA, RPCA was not associated with worse delivery and neonatal outcomes within any of the four studied TGCS groups. RPCA could be used for labour analgesia routinely if strict adherence to protocols is ensured and regular staff training is provided.

To investigate the correlation between epidural analgesia (EA) administered during labour and the risk of requiring an operative delivery (caesarean section or operative vaginal delivery).This was a retrospective, multicentric cohort study. All singleton births of viable foetuses in cephalic presentation with a gestational age ≥ 37 weeks delivered between 2016 and2019 were included. A propensity score (PS) matching analysis was used to obtain comparable groups, balancing the maternal and pregnancy characteristics that required epidural analgesia during labour. The risk of operative delivery in women with and without epidural analgesia was estimated following PS-matching analysis (1:1 ratio).As per the unmatched analysis, the occurrence of Caesarean section (CS) was significantly higher in women administered EA compared with the non-EA group (14.0 % vs 5.0 %; p 0.001). The incidence of operative vaginal delivery (OVD) (9.1 % vs 4.0 %; p 0.001) showed a similar pattern. The PS algorithm matched 16.301 cases who were administered EA with 16.301 cases not administered EA and found a significantly increased risk of CS (OR, 1.6; 95 %CI 1.5-1.7) and OVD (OR, 1.2; 95 % CI 1.1-1.2) in the former group.The risk of operative delivery almost halved in the EA group compared with the non-EA group, compared with the baseline risk of the unmatched subjects.

Disparities in access to pain management have been identified in several care settings, such as emergency departments and intensive care units, but with regard to labour analgesia, it remains poorly explored.To determine the proportion of women without pain management during labour and its individual and organisational determinants.Secondary analysis of a nationwide cross-sectional population-based study, the 2016 French National Perinatal Survey.All maternity units in France.Ten thousand and eleven women who attempted vaginal delivery with a labour duration at least 15 min.Absence of pain management, defined as absence of any pharmacological or nonpharmacological analgesic method during labour.Among the 10 011 women included, 542 (5.4%) had no labour pain management: 318 (3.7%) of the 8526 women who initially preferred to use neuraxial analgesia and 222 (15.8%) of the 1402 who did not. Using generalised estimating equations stratified according to the maternal antenatal preference for neuraxial analgesia, the common determinants of no labour pain management in both groups were no attendance at childbirth education classes and admission to a delivery unit during the night. Among women who initially preferred to use neuraxial analgesia, those who delivered in units with1500 annual deliveries compared with units with 2000 to 3499 annual deliveries, were more likely to do without pain management [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.39 to 2.78]; among those who did not prefer to use it, women born abroad were more likely to do without labour pain management (adjusted OR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.40).In France, 1 : 20 women had no labour pain management, and this proportion was three times higher among women who preferred not to use neuraxial analgesia. Enhancing maternal information on labour pain and its management, especially nonpharmacological methods, and rethinking care organisation, could improve access to analgesia of any kind.

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil is usually reserved for patients for whom other forms of pain relief are contraindicated. However, remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia reduces the likelihood of needing an epidural and therefore the risk associated with it, provides good pain relief compared to other options, and the risks can be mitigated with appropriate management.

Since the advent of neuraxial analgesia for labor, approaches to maintaining intrapartum pain relief have seen significant advancement. Through pharmacologic innovations and improved drug delivery mechanisms, current neuraxial labor analgesia maintenance techniques have been shaped by efforts to maximize patient comfort during the birthing process, while minimizing undesirable side effects and promoting the unimpeded progress of labor. To these ends, a modern anesthesiologist may avail themselves of several techniques, including programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and dilute concentration local anesthetic + opioid epidural solutions. We explore the historical development and the evidential underpinnings of these techniques, in addition to several contemporary neuraxial labor analgesia practices. We also summarize current understanding of the effects these interventions have on maternal/fetal health and the labor course, as well as several important aspects of analgesic safety and monitoring.

Labor creates an intense pain experienced by women across the world. Although neuraxial analgesia is the most effective treatment of labor pain, in many cases, it may not be undesired, not available, or have contraindications. In addition, satisfaction with labor analgesia is not only determined by the efficacy of analgesia but a woman's sense of agency and involvement in the childbirth experience are also key contributors. Providing safe choices for labor analgesia and support is central to creating a tailored, safe, and effective analgesic treatment plan with high maternal satisfaction. Healthcare provider knowledge of various nonneuraxial analgesic options, including efficacy, contraindications, safe clinical implementation, and side effects of various techniques is needed for optimal patient care and satisfaction. Future rigorous scientific studies addressing all of these labor analgesia options are needed to improve our understanding. This review summarizes the current published literature for commonly available non-neuraxial labor analgesic options.

Dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is a modification of the conventional epidural (EP) technique in that the dura is intentionally punctured with a spinal needle but without any spinal injection. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks associated with the DPE technique for labor analgesia. Randomized trials comparing DPE analgesia with EP analgesia for labor pain relief were systematically searched in the database of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine till 1

Assessment of sensory block level during labour epidural analgesia is an essential component of clinical practice and patient safety. Nevertheless, the methods and direction of testing are not standardized. In our hospital, sensory block testing to ice is routinely used, but while some anesthesiologists test the block from a nonanesthetized to an anesthetized area, some do it in the opposite direction. It is unknown how these two different practices affect identification of the sensory block level. The objective of this study was to determine the agreement between these two practices.We enrolled 31 patients admitted to the labour and delivery unit in a prospective cohort study. At their request, labour epidural analgesia was performed as per institutional routine. Sensory block level to ice was assessed using opposite directions by two randomly assigned independent investigators, one and two hours after the loading dose was administered.Sensory block levels to ice assessed from an anesthetized area to a nonanesthetized area were lower than those when assessed with the stimulus applied in the opposite direction, typically one segment lower.Given the small difference detected with both methods, it may be acceptable to use either in clinical practice. Nevertheless, the lack of standardization may have a significant impact when comparing studies involving assessment of sensory block to ice.www.gov (NCT03572439); registered 28 June 2018.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L’évaluation du niveau de bloc sensoriel pendant l’analgésie péridurale obstétricale est une composante essentielle de la pratique clinique et de la sécurité des patientes. Néanmoins, les méthodes et l’orientation des tests ne sont pas standardisées. Dans notre hôpital, les tests à la glace des blocs sensoriels sont couramment utilisés, mais alors que certains anesthésiologistes testent le bloc d’une zone non anesthésiée à une zone anesthésiée, certains le font dans la direction opposée. Nous ne savons pas dans quelle mesure ces deux pratiques différentes affectent l’identification du niveau du bloc sensoriel. L’objectif de cette étude était de déterminer la concordance entre ces deux pratiques. MéTHODE: Nous avons recruté 31 patientes admises à l’unité obstétricale dans une étude de cohorte prospective. À leur demande, l’analgésie péridurale obstétricale a été réalisée conformément à la routine institutionnelle. Le niveau du bloc sensoriel tel que mesuré par un test à la glace a été évalué dans les deux directions par deux chercheurs indépendants assignés au hasard, une et deux heures après l’administration de la dose de charge. RéSULTATS: Les niveaux de blocs sensoriels tels que mesurés par un test à la glace évalués d’une zone anesthésiée à une zone non anesthésiée étaient inférieurs à ceux évalués lorsque le stimulus était appliqué dans la direction opposée, habituellement un segment plus bas. DISCUSSION: Compte tenu de la petite différence détectée entre les deux méthodes, il peut être acceptable d’utiliser l’une ou l’autre dans la pratique clinique. Néanmoins, le manque de standardisation peut avoir un impact significatif lors de la comparaison d’études impliquant l’évaluation du bloc sensoriel à l’aide d’un test à la glace. ENREGISTREMENT DE L’éTUDE: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03572439); enregistrée le 28 juin 2018.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have reported anaesthetic outcomes in parturients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We reviewed the labour analgesic and anaesthetic interventions utilised in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients who had a confirmed positive test for SARS-CoV-2 across 10 hospitals in the north-west of England between 1 April 2020 and 31 May 2021. Primary outcomes analysed included the analgesic/anaesthetic technique utilised for labour and caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of maternal characteristics, caesarean birth rate, maternal critical care admission rate along with adverse composite neonatal outcomes. A positive SARS-CoV-2 test was recorded in 836 parturients with 263 (31.4%) reported to have symptoms of COVID-19. Neuraxial labour analgesia was utilised in 104 (20.4%) of the 509 parturients who went on to have a vaginal birth. No differences in epidural analgesia rates were observed between symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.64-1.67; p = 0.90). The neuraxial anaesthesia rate in 310 parturients who underwent caesarean delivery was 94.2% (95%CI 90.6-96.0%). The rates of general anaesthesia were similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients (6% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.52). Symptomatic parturients were more likely to be multiparous (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.19-2.22; p = 0.002); of Asian ethnicity (OR 1.54, 1.04-2.28; p = 0.03); to deliver prematurely (OR 2.16, 95%CI 1.47-3.19; p = 0.001); have a higher caesarean birth rate (44.5% vs. 33.7%; OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.16-2.12; p = 0.008); and a higher critical care utilisation rate both pre- (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.001) and post-delivery (11% vs. 3.5%; OR 3.43, 95%CI 1.83-6.52; p = 0.001). Eight neonates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 while no differences in adverse composite neonatal outcomes were observed between those born to symptomatic and asymptomatic mothers (25.8% vs. 23.8%; OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.78-1.57; p = 0.55). In women with COVID-19, non-neuraxial analgesic regimens were commonly utilised for labour while neuraxial anaesthesia was employed for the majority of caesarean births. Symptomatic women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of significant maternal morbidity including preterm birth, caesarean birth and peripartum critical care admission.

The Affordable Care Act has been associated with increased Medicaid coverage for childbirth among low-income US women. We hypothesized that Medicaid expansion was associated with increased use of labor neuraxial analgesia.We performed a cross-sectional analysis of US women with singleton live births who underwent vaginal delivery or intrapartum cesarean delivery between 2009 and 2017. Data were sourced from births in 26 US states that used the 2003 Revised US Birth Certificate. Difference-in-difference linear probability models were used to compare changes in the prevalence of neuraxial labor analgesia in 15 expansion and 11 nonexpansion states before and after Medicaid expansion. Models were adjusted for potential maternal and obstetric confounders with standard errors clustered at the state level.The study sample included 5,703,371 births from 15 expansion states and 5,582,689 births from 11 nonexpansion states. In the preexpansion period, the overall rate of neuraxial analgesia in expansion and nonexpansion states was 73.2% vs 76.3%. Compared with the preexpansion period, the rate of neuraxial analgesia increased in the postexpansion period by 1.7% in expansion states (95% CI, 1.6-1.8) and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.9-1.0) in nonexpansion states. The adjusted difference-in-difference estimate comparing expansion and nonexpansion states was 0.47% points (95% CI, -0.63 to 1.57; P = .39).Medicaid expansion was not associated with an increase in the rate of neuraxial labor analgesia in expansion states compared to the change in nonexpansion states over the same time period. Increasing Medicaid eligibility alone may be insufficient to increase the rate of neuraxial labor analgesia.

Background The lack of reliable data on gastric emptying of solid food during labor has led to some discrepancies between current guidelines regarding fasting for solid food in the parturient. This prospective comparative study aimed to test the hypothesis that the gastric emptying fraction of a light meal would be reduced in parturients receiving epidural analgesia and with no labor analgesia compared with nonpregnant and pregnant women. Methods Ten subjects were enrolled and tested in each group: nonpregnant women, term pregnant women, parturients with no labor analgesia, and parturients with epidural labor analgesia. After a first ultrasound examination was performed to ensure an empty stomach, each subject ingested a light meal (125 g yogurt; 120 kcal) within 5 min. Then ultrasound measurements of the antral area were performed at 15, 60, 90, and 120 min. The fraction of gastric emptying at 90 min was calculated as [(antral area90 min / antral area15 min) – 1] × 100, and half-time to gastric emptying was also determined. For the Parturient–Epidural group, the test meal was ingested within the first hour after the induction of epidural analgesia. Results The median (interquartile range) fraction of gastric emptying at 90 min was 52% (46 to 61), 45% (31 to 56), 7% (5 to 10), and 31% (17 to 39) for nonpregnant women, pregnant women, parturients without labor analgesia, and parturients with labor epidural analgesia, respectively (P < 0.0001). The fraction of gastric emptying at 90 min was statistically significant and lower in the Parturient–Epidural group than in the Nonpregnant and Pregnant Control groups. In addition, the fraction of gastric emptying at 90 min was statistically significant and lower in the Parturient–No-Epidural group than in the Parturient–Epidural group. Conclusions Gastric emptying in parturients after a light meal was delayed, and labor epidural analgesia seems not to worsen but facilitates gastric emptying. This should be taken into consideration when allowing women in labor to consume a light meal. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate, using the best level of evidence, the possible benefits and advantages of using peanut ball (PB) in women with an epidural during labour on the maternal and neonatal outcomes. This research was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PEDro, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases, with no period or language restrictions. The terms ‘labor’ and ‘peanut ball’ were used. Clinical trials (randomised and non-randomised) were included when comparing a group of parturients using PB with a control group under usual care. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised were eligible for this systematic review. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence which was evaluated by the GRADE system. Quantitative analysis through meta-analysis was also applied whenever possible. In this updated review, we included four studies with a total of 818 women in labour after the use of pharmacological analgesia. Our GRADE ratings of evidence ranged from high to low quality. Overall, the included studies varied in their risk of bias, in which most were considered with some concerns. There is high evidence that the use of PB after epidural analgesia reduces the duration of the first period of labour by 87 minutes and moderate evidence that it increases the chance of vaginal delivery 11%. However, there is no evidence about other maternal and neonatal outcomes.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? The peanut ball (PB) is used after the use of pharmacological analgesia, as it favours the opening of the pelvic canal and helps women to adopt more comfortable postures, but its real effects are not clear.What do the results of this study add? Our results suggest that using the PB reduces the duration of the first period of labour after an epidural and increases the chance of a vaginal birth.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? These findings recommend the use of a PB after an epidural and further research with women without the use of pharmacological analgesia. What is already known on this subject? The peanut ball (PB) is used after the use of pharmacological analgesia, as it favours the opening of the pelvic canal and helps women to adopt more comfortable postures, but its real effects are not clear. What do the results of this study add? Our results suggest that using the PB reduces the duration of the first period of labour after an epidural and increases the chance of a vaginal birth. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? These findings recommend the use of a PB after an epidural and further research with women without the use of pharmacological analgesia.

Background: Disparities in neuraxial analgesia use for childbirth by maternal origin have been reported in high-resource countries. We explored the association between maternal immigrant status (characterised separately by geographic continental origin and Human Development Index [HDI] of maternal country of birth) and neuraxial analgesia use. We hypothesised that immigrant women from low-resource countries may have more limited access to neuraxial analgesia than native French women. Methods: The study population, extracted from the 2016 National Perinatal Survey, a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of births in France, included only women who initially wished to deliver with neuraxial analgesia. We used multivariable multilevel logistic regression to explore the association between immigrant status and both use of neuraxial analgesia and its timely administration. Results: Among the 6070 women included, 88.1% gave birth with neuraxial analgesia and 15.8% were immigrants. There was no difference in neuraxial analgesia use between native French women and either immigrant women by geographic continental region of origin, or immigrants from countries with low HDI. However, immigrants from countries with very high HDI were more likely to give birth with neuraxial analgesia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2–5.8; P=0.018) and its timeliness

The aim: To evaluate the clinical characteristics of complications and side effects of CSE and DPE as a method of analgesia. Materials and methods: The study included 137 patients who had a vaginal birth using one of two, CSE or DPE methods of analgesia. All of them were divided into two groups: Group I – 54 women (DPE group) and Group II – 83 women (CSE group). In group I, an epidural kit with a Tuohy G18 needle, G20 catheter, and a Whitacre G25 x 120 mm spinal needle was passed through the epidural needle for puncture of dura mater and removed after cerebrospinal fluid receiving, the epidural catheter was conducted on 3-4 cm. The initial dose of anesthetic was: 3 ml of Naropin 0.12% – test dose and 17 ml of working solution (Naropin 0.12% + Fentanyl 2 μg / ml) – main dose. In group II, a spinal-epidural kit with Tuohy G18 needle, catheter G20, spinal needle “Whitacre” G27 x 132 mm for dura mater puncture was used. Bupivacaine 1.5 mg + Fentanyl 15 mcg, 1 ml solution was administered spinally. To maintain analgesia in both groups – the patient-controlled analgesia with a working solution (Naropin 0.12% + Fentanyl 2 μg / ml) with a bolus of 8 – 10 ml, lockout 15 minutes. Results: The higher frequency of hypotension in childbirth when using CSE – 4 women (4.8%) vs 1 woman (1.9%) in the DPE group. Inadequate or insufficient analgesia in group I was found in 2 women (3.7%), and in group II in 4 women (4.8%). The severity of monolateral block in group I was not high and did not cause significant discomfort in women. The higher incidence of monolateral blockade was in group II, in three cases there was a need for additional anesthesiologist interventions and catheter manipulations. In the CSE group there were two cases (2.4%) of severe itching in women, in group I such an adverse reaction was absent. No complication such as PDPH was documented in either group. Conclusions: 1. The use of the DPE technique showed a lower frequency of complications compared to CSE. 2. The use of a G 25 spinal needle for puncture of the dura mater does not lead to an increase in the frequency of PDPH. 3. DPE technique using G25 spinal needles reduces the need for additional manipulations with the epidural catheter to overcome unilateral blockades.

To compare the analgesic profile of remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) and combined spinal-epidural analgesia technique (CSEA) in multiparous women during the entire labour. We hypothesized that CSEA would provide a better and more sustained pain reduction than RPCA.A prospective observational trial under ID NCT02963337 at a university hospital in Slovenia 2017-2018. Analgesic efficacy, satisfaction with pain-relief, adverse effects, labour progress, and outcomes between RPCA (80) and CSEA (81) were compared.CSEA provided significantly lower pain scores during the entire labour. Compared to baseline, significant pain reduction was recorded in both groups after 15 min. No difference was recorded compared to baseline with RPCA and CSEA after 45 and 90 mins, respectively. CSEA provided higher satisfaction than RPCA (5 [5-5] vs 5 [4-5], p0.0001). More patients with CSEA opted for the same technique for the next labour [CSEA; 77 (95%) vs RPCA; 65 (81%), p = 0.003]. No crossovers were observed. RPCA was associated with desaturation (34%), bradypnea (21%) and apnoea (25%), which were transitional and easily managed. None had severe sedation. No differences were recorded in labour progress and outcomes. Apgar scores were reassuring in all neonates (8). None had umbilical artery pH7.0.In multiparas, CSEA provided superior analgesia and satisfaction than RPCA. Nevertheless, RPCA provided a satisfactory experience, suggesting it could be used when neuraxial analgesia is not available, preferred, or contraindicated. In that case, constant presence of midwife is mandatory for management of clinically significant hypoventilation.

Induction of labor may be indicated to minimize maternal and fetal risks. The rate of induction is likely to increase as recent evidence supports elective induction at 39 weeks gestation. We review methods of induction and then analgesic options as they relate to indications and methods to induce labor. We specifically focus on parturients at high risk for anesthetic complications including those requiring anticoagulation, and those with cardiac disease, obesity, chorioamnionitis, prior spinal instrumentation, elevated intracranial pressure, known or anticipated difficult airway, thrombocytopenia, and preeclampsia. Guidelines regarding timing of anticoagulation dosing with neuraxial anesthetic techniques have been defined through consensus statements. Early epidural placement may be beneficial in patients with cardiac disease, obesity, anticipated difficult airway, and HELLP syndrome. Questions remain regarding how early is too early for epidural placement, what options are safest for patients with bacteremia, and what pain relief should be offered to those unable to tolerate cervical exams in early labor.

Objective To determine if comfort and satisfaction with the birth experience differed among women who used nitrous oxide (N2O), epidural analgesia, or no analgesia during labor and birth. Design Nonexperimental, cross-sectional, between-subjects. Setting Maternity care units in three U.S. Midwest hospitals from June to October 2019. Participants A total of 84 women with spontaneous vaginal birth at term gestation (≥37 weeks). Methods Women were grouped according to self-selected pain management method: N2O and oxygen (50%/50% mixture) only (n = 28), epidural analgesia (may have been in combination with other analgesia options; n = 28), or no analgesia (n = 28). We collected data within 6 hours after childbirth using the Birth Satisfaction Scale–Revised and the researcher-modified Childbirth Comfort Questionnaire. We analyzed data for differences in comfort and satisfaction scores among the three groups of women using analysis of variance. Results We found no statistically significant differences related to comfort during labor and birth among women who used N2O only, epidural analgesia, or no analgesia during labor and birth, F(2, 81) = 1.11, p = .34. We also found no statistically significant differences related to satisfaction with the birth experience among women who used N2O only, epidural analgesia, or no analgesia during labor and birth, F(2, 81) = .084, p = .92. Conclusion Our finding of no statistically significant differences in comfort and satisfaction with the birth experience across groups highlights the need to present comprehensive pain management options to women for labor and birth, such as N2O.

Labor pain is not only an unpleasant mental experience, but one of the most important factors that may negatively affect the course of labor and the well-being of the fetus. Over the years, many techniques for relieving labor pain have been developed, ranging from non-pharmacological (acupuncture, TENS, hypnosis...), through opioids and aeriform anesthetics, to regional analgesia techniques. Numerous studies and meta-analyzes prove that central blockades are the gold standard of labor analgesia and debunk the myths that these blockages are negatively limited to the course of labor. In the light of recent studies, the claim that epidural analgesia increases the risk of termination by caesarean section should be rejected. It has also been proven that central blockades do not lower the child's APGAR score. Feeling, an indication to use a central block during labor, should be a subjective intolerance to pain and the wishes of the mother in labor. The review presents the directions of development and the current state of knowledge of modern medicine regarding various anesthesia techniques, their safety for the mother, fetus and newborn, as well as practical tips to increase the satisfaction of the mother in labor.

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) in postoperative pain management compared with continuous epidural infusion (CEI) after cesarean delivery. A total of 58 participants were randomly allocated to receive PIEB (3 mL bolus every 60 min) or CEI (3 mL/h) for postoperative analgesia after undergoing elective cesarean section under combined spinal–epidural anesthesia. Both groups had the same epidural solution containing ropivacaine 0.2% plus fentanyl 2 µg/mL. The primary outcome was postoperative pain score at rest and mobilization at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h. The secondary outcomes were the total amount of ropivacaine used in the 48 h study period and the time to the first PCEA bolus. Data from 58 women were analyzed. There was a reduction in pain verbal numerical rating scores at 12 h in patients receiving PIEB compared with CEI at rest [2 (1.75–3) vs. 3 (2–4), p = 0.011]; and on movement [4 (3–5) vs. 5 (4–6), p = 0.038]. No differences were found in pain scores at any other time-point up to 48 h. Total ropivacaine consumption at 48 h was less in the PIEB group compared with the CEI group [316 mg (304–321) vs. 336 mg (319–344), p = 0.001]. Postoperative epidural analgesia for patients who underwent cesarean delivery with PIEB compared with CEI resulted in less ropivacaine usage while providing comparable analgesia.