Dataset Information

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN:Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING:15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION:Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS:1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION:In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

SUBMITTER: Freeman LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4353278 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore women's experiences of remifentanil or pethidine for labour pain and infant feeding behaviours at 6weeks post partum.DesignQualitative postnatal sub-study to the randomised controlled trial of remifentanil intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) versus intramuscular pethidine for pain relief in labour (RESPITE). Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted at 6 weeks post partum, and thematic analysis was undertaken.SettingWomen recruited to the RESPITE trial from seven UK hospitals.ParticipantsEighty women consented and 49 (30 remifentanil group and 19 pethidine group) completed the interview.ResultsEight themes emerged which encompassed women's antenatal plans for pain management (Birth Expectations) through to their future preferences for pain relief (Reflections for Future Choices). Many women who used remifentanil felt it provided effective pain relief (Effectiveness of Pain Relief), whereas women in the pethidine group expressed more mixed views. Both groups described side effects, with women using pethidine frequently reporting nausea (Negative Physiological Responses) and women using remifentanil describing more cognitive effects (Cognitive Effects). Some women who used remifentanil reported restricted movements due to technical aspects of drug administration and fear of analgesia running out (Issues with Drug Administration). Women described how remifentanil enabled them to maintain their ability to stay focused during the birth (Enabling a Sense of Control). There was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and continuation between pethidine and remifentanil groups (Impact on Infant Behaviour and Breastfeeding).ConclusionsQualitative insights from a follow-up study to a trial which explored experiences of intravenous remifentanil PCA with intramuscular pethidine injection found that remifentanil appeared to provide effective pain relief while allowing women to remain alert and focused during labour, although as with pethidine, some side effects were noted. Overall, there was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and duration between the two groups.Trial registration numberISRCTN29654603.

Project description:BackgroundAcute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality in its most severe forms. Most patients with severe AP require intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, frequently for more than 7 days, which is associated with the worst outcome. Recent increasing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies support the beneficial effects of epidural analgesia (EA) in AP, such as increased gut barrier function and splanchnic, pancreatic and renal perfusion, decreased liver damage and inflammatory response, and reduced mortality. Because recent studies suggest that EA might be a safe procedure in the critically ill, we sought to determine whether EA reduced AP-associated respiratory failure and other major clinical outcomes in patients with AP.Methods and analysisThe Epidural Analgesia for Pancreatitis (EPIPAN) trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled two-arm trial with assessor-blinded outcome assessment. The EPIPAN trial will randomise 148 patients with AP requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive EA (with patient-controlled epidural administration of ropivacaine and sufentanil) combined with standard care based on current recommendations on the treatment of AP (interventional group), or standard care alone (reference group). The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days at day 30. Secondary outcomes include main complications of AP (eg, organ failure and mortality, among others), levels of biological markers of systemic inflammation, epithelial lung injury, renal failure, and healthcare-associated costs.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee (CPP Sud-Est VI). Informed consent is required. If the combined application of EA and standard care proves superior to standard care alone in patients with AP in the ICU, the use of EA may become standard practice in experienced centres, thereby decreasing potential complications related to AP and its burden in critically ill patients. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT02126332.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The use of patient-controlled epidural analgesia after various operations has been associated with an early return of bowel function, thus decreasing patients' length of stay (LOS). The primary aim of this study was to compare LOS after radical cystectomy between patients who received epidural analgesia versus those who received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Our secondary analysis included the assessment of other metrics such as total opioid requirements, pain scores, return of bowel function, and complication rates between the 2 groups. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review using the electronic medical records of 308 patients who underwent radical cystectomies at Memorial Sloan Kettering between 2006 and 2011. We aimed to understand if epidural analgesia was associated with a reduced LOS compared with patient-controlled intravenous opioid analgesia. We also aimed to identify performance improvements as a function of epidural analgesia status using various metrics such as pain management, bowel function return, and complication rates. We used both univariate and multivariate analyses to identify if epidural analgesia was associated with meaningful differences in the aforementioned metrics. RESULTS:Median age at radical cystectomy, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and T stage were similar for both groups. For our primary objective of LOS, we found no significant difference between the 2 cohorts (8 vs 7 days, P = 0.2). Analysis of our secondary outcome measures revealed that epidural analgesia use was associated with less total opioid requirement for the first 3 postoperative days (PODs) (P = 0.0001). In addition, epidural analgesia was found to be associated with improved postoperative pain scores compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia on PODs 1 (P = 0.0001) and 2 (P = 0.004), and there was a slight improvement on POD 3, but this was not significant (P = 0.77). In contrast, we found no difference between pain management types with regard to proportion of patients who experienced a delay in gastrointestinal recovery, fluid bolus requirements within the first 3 perioperative days, rates of infection, pulmonary complications, and grade 3 or greater complications. CONCLUSIONS:We have demonstrated that, despite significant improvements in initial pain control and less opioid requirement with patient-controlled epidural analgesia, there was no association between analgesic approach and LOS, return of bowel function, or complications.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore whether an ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block (PNB) could decrease anaesthetic use, thereby shortening the length of the second stage of labour in women undergoing epidural analgesia.DesignProspective, single-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.SettingAn obstetric centre in a general hospital in China.Participants72 nulliparous women were randomised, and 71 women completed the study.InterventionAn ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB was administered to all study participants; the PNB group were given 0.25% ropivacaine 10 mL, while the control group were given 10 mL saline.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was the duration of the second stage of labour. Secondary outcomes included additional bolus administration, total hourly bupivacaine consumption, difference in thickness between the contracted and relaxed rectus abdominis muscle before (DRAM1) and 30 min after (DRAM2) PNB, urge to defecate, maternal cooperation, preservation of the lower limb motor function, tightness of the perineum, and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score for pain.ResultsThe duration of the second stage of labour was shorter in the PNB group than in the control group (difference of 33.8 min (95% CI 15.6 to 52.0), p<0.001). Additional bolus administration and total hourly bupivacaine consumption were lower in the PNB group than in the control group (p<0.001). DRAM2 was greater (p<0.001), rate of parturient women with the urge to defecate was higher (p=0.014), maternal cooperation was superior (p=0.002), and lower limb motor function preservation was greater (p=0.004) in the PNB group relative to the control group. Tightness of the perineum was eliminated from the results due to the inconsistent application of the criteria by the nursing staff. There was no significant difference in NRS scores between the groups.ConclusionsNulliparous women with epidural analgesia who received an ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB may reduce their need for bupivacaine and consequently shorten the length of the second stage of labour, therein indicating that a bilateral PNB may serve as an additional effective adjunct method of labour analgesia.Trial registration numberChiCTR-IOR-16009121.

Project description:IntroductionThis study aimed to compare the efficacy between patient-controlled caudal epidural analgesia (PCCA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after perianal surgery, to provide a feasible solution to postoperative pain.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized controlled trial comprising 100 patients who underwent caudal epidural block on perianal surgery at Chengdu Shang Jin Nan Fu Hospital of West China Hospital at Sichuan University between April and August 2020. Patients were randomly divided into the PCCA and PCIA groups. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at 2, 4, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery, and at the first dressing change and first defecation. The lower limb mobility in the post-anesthetic recovery room (PACU) was determined. The analgesic effect, usage amount of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), usage amount and frequency of remedial analgesic measures, number of individuals who must be catheterized, and incidence of adverse reactions were recorded. Satisfaction of postoperative analgesic effect and convenience of PCA were also assessed.ResultsThe patients in the PCCA group had significantly lower VAS scores at 4, 6, 24, 48, 72 h, the first dressing change, and the first defecation compared with the PCIA group. There were more patients receiving postoperative remedial analgesics in the PCIA group than in the PCCA group. The outcome of the number of PCA and catheterization rates did not differ significantly between the groups. There were two cases of sensory numbness below the S3 plane. The major postoperative complications in the PCIA group were pruritus (3/47, 6.4%), nausea, and vomiting (6/47, 12.8%) (one case combined with pruritus). Patients in the PCCA group were more satisfied with the analgesic effect, while those in the PCIA group were more satisfied with the convenience.ConclusionIn the postoperative analgesia program of perianal surgery, PCCA may provide a better analgesic effect without increasing the incidence of complications.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier, ChiCTR2000038425, September 2020, retrospectively registered.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief. SEARCH METHODS:We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA:We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS:Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Dataset Information

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets