Dataset Information

Delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with gestational diabetes undergoing epidural labour analgesia: a propensity score-matched analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to retrospectively analyse the influence of epidural labour analgesia (ELA) on delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) using propensity score-matched analysis.

Design

Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting

Primary care practices in a teaching hospital from March 2018 to October 2021.

Participants

A total of 816 delivery records of nulliparous women with GDM were collected and retrospectively analysed.

Interventions

ELA and non-ELA (NELA) cohorts were assessed.

Main outcome measure

The primary outcome assessed was delivery type (spontaneous, assisted vaginal or caesarean). The secondary outcomes assessed included labour duration and maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Results

A total of 137 propensity score-matched pairs of ELA and NELA patients were analysed. ELA was associated with a decreased rate of caesarean section (18.3% vs 46.0% in the ELA vs NELA cohort, respectively; p<0.05) and an increased occurrence of assisted vaginal delivery (35.8% vs 12.4% in the ELA vs NELA cohort, respectively; p<0.05). The duration of the first and total stages of labour was prolonged, the occurrence of postpartum fever increased, and the duration of hospital stay was shortened in those receiving ELA (all p<0.05). Additionally, neonatal birth weight, plasma glucose levels and neonatal macrosomia occurrence increased, while neonatal intensive care unit admissions and neonatal hypoglycaemia decreased in the ELA versus the NELA group (all p<0.05). With respect to other maternal and neonatal outcomes, both cohorts were similar.

Conclusions

The use of ELA decreases the rate of caesarean section and improves maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with GDM.

Trial registration number

ChiCTR-2000033091.

SUBMITTER: Chen Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9345031 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with gestational diabetes undergoing epidural labour analgesia: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Chen Yu Y Ye Xin X Wu Han H Yuan Xueling X Yu Xiaofang X Wu Huanghui H Wu Xiaodan X Chen Yanqing Y

BMJ open 20220729 7

<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to retrospectively analyse the influence of epidural labour analgesia (ELA) on delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) using propensity score-matched analysis.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care practices in a teaching hospital from March 2018 to October 2021.<h4>Participants</h4>A total of 816 delivery records of nulliparous women with GDM were collected and ...[more]

PMID: 35906056

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionElective labour induction is associated with more pain, intrapartum interventions, cesarean deliveries, as compared with spontaneous labour, necessitating the use of labour analgesia. Epidural analgesia is one popular method for control of pain. This study was to determine the effect of epidural analgesia on the maternal and fetal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labour, as adequate data in this specific population is relatively sparse.Materials and methodsThis was a cross-sectional study conducted over a period of 18 months which included mothers with singleton term gestation with cephalic presentation admitted for induction of labour.ResultA sample of 238 mothers were included in the study. Among the study population, 52.7% opted for epidural analgesia. The pain score was less than 3/10 (VAS) in 81% of mothers who opted for epidural analgesia. The cesarean section rate was 20.5% and 34.3% in the epidural and non-epidural groups, respectively. After adjusting the confounding factors, there was a positive effect noted in the caesarean section rate among the epidural group, which was lesser than the non-epidural group. However, a higher instrumental delivery rate (18.8% vs. 10.5%, p-value < 0.05) was noted in the epidural group. There was no significant difference in the duration of labour and fetal outcome in the two groups.ConclusionEpidural analgesia providing good pain relief in the majority of the mothers was reinforced. In our study, epidural analgesia was associated with a reduction of caesarean section rate after adjusting the confounding factor. Epidural analgesia did not affect the duration of labour, cesarean section rate and fetal outcome independently, however, it was associated with increased risk of instrumental delivery. The outcomes mainly depend on the confounding factors. Therefore, mothers can be provided with an evidence-based information regarding the effect of epidural analgesia in induced labour and help those seeking epidural analgesia to make an informed choice.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13224-022-01622-1.

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of dexmedetomidine-ropivacaine combination versus sufentanil-ropivacaine combination for epidural labour analgesia on neonatal and maternal outcomes and test the feasibility of a future large, randomised trial.DesignA randomised, double-blind, pilot clinical trial from 16 March 2023 to 15 June 2023.SettingA tertiary-care hospital in Beijing, China.Participants200 women aged≥18 years who had full-term single pregnancy and were scheduled for vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia.InterventionsEligible participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive self-controlled epidural labour analgesia using ropivacaine supplemented with either dexmedetomidine (0.45 µg/mL for induction and 0.36 µg/mL for maintenance) or sufentanil (0.45 µg/mL for induction and 0.36 µg/mL for maintenance).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary endpoint was a composite of neonatal morbidity, including 1- or 5 min Apgar score<7, umbilical artery PH<7.1, requirement for immediate assisted ventilation and admission to neonatal ward or intensive care unit within 24 hours. Secondary and other endpoints included effect of analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. The feasibility of implementing the protocol was evaluated.ResultsAll 200 women were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Composite neonatal morbidity occurred in 14.0% (14/100) of women with dexmedetomidine versus 17.0% (17/100) of women with sufentanil: relative risk 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.58. Women in the dexmedetomidine group had a comparable area under curve of pain intensity (median difference -2.0 point⋅h, 95% CI -9.9 to 5.9, p=0.638), required more self-controlled boluses (median difference two boluses, 95% CI 0 to 3, p=0.040) and epidural analgesics (median difference 17 mL, 95% CI 4 to 29, p=0.007), and experienced less pruritus (0.0% (0/100) vs 30.0% (30/100), p<0.001) but more lower limb weakness (13.0% (13/100) vs 1.0% (1/100), p<0.001). Recruitment rate was satisfactory (87.7%); the protocol was well accepted by anaesthesiologists and nurses.ConclusionsCompared with sufentanil-ropivacaine combination, use of dexmedetomidine-ropivacaine combination for epidural labour analgesia was associated with a 18% decrease in composite neonatal endpoint and deserve further investigation. The dexmedetomidine-ropivacaine combination provided comparable analgesia but increased mild motor block. The conduct of a large, randomised trial using same protocol requires careful re-evaluation.Trial registration numberNCT05698407.

Project description:ImportanceEpidural analgesia is used by approximately 70% of birthing persons in the US to alleviate labor pain and is a common cause of elevated temperature in the birthing parent during labor, which, in turn, is associated with adverse neonatal outcomes such as hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE).ObjectiveTo determine whether epidural analgesia is associated with increased risk of HIE after adjusting for the birthing person's maximal temperature before epidural placement and for the propensity to get an epidural.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted at 15 Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals. Participants included singleton neonates born at 35 weeks' or later gestational age between 2012 and 2019. Elective cesarean deliveries and deliveries within 2 hours of hospital admission were excluded. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to June 2024.ExposureThe primary exposure was epidural analgesia during labor.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was HIE, defined as the presence of both neonatal acidosis (ie, pH <7 or base deficit ≥10) and encephalopathy. The presence and timing of epidural analgesia and demographic, pregnancy, and labor characteristics were extracted from electronic medical records. A propensity score for receiving epidural analgesia was created including demographic variables and comorbidities predating epidural placement. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between epidural analgesia and HIE, adjusting for maximal birthing parent's temperature before epidural placement and the propensity for receiving an epidural.ResultsAmong 233 056 infants born at 35 weeks' or later gestational age by vaginal or unplanned cesarean delivery after at least 2 hours of in-hospital labor, 177 603 (76%) were exposed to epidural analgesia and 439 (0.19%) had HIE. On unadjusted analysis, epidural analgesia was associated with an increased risk of maximal temperature greater than 38 °C during labor (risk ratio [RR], 8.58; 95% CI, 8.06-9.14). Each degree increase in maximal temperature during labor was associated with nearly triple the odds of HIE (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; 95% CI, 2.51-3.17). However, there was no significant association between epidural analgesia and the risk of HIE either on crude (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.96-1.53) or adjusted (adjusted OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.73-1.17) analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study including more than 230 000 parent-infant dyads, epidural analgesia was associated with increased maximal temperature during labor, a known risk factor for HIE. However, epidural analgesia was not associated with increased odds of HIE.

Dataset Information

Delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with gestational diabetes undergoing epidural labour analgesia: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

Delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with gestational diabetes undergoing epidural labour analgesia: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets