A randomized trial of labor analgesia in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension. Labor analgesia: a comparative study between combined spinal-epidural anesthesia versus continuous epidural anesthesia. Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor. A randomised controlled trial of epidural compared with non-epidural analgesia in labour. Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. The influence of epidural analgesia on cesarean delivery rates: a randomized, prospective clinical trial. Prospective, randomized comparison of epidural and combined spinal epidural analgesia during labor. Effects of epidural lidocaine analgesia on labor and delivery: a randomized, prospective, controlled trial. Nulliparous active labor, epidural analgesia, and cesarean delivery for dystocia. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing patient-controlled epidural with intravenous analgesia for pain relief in labor. Cesarean delivery: a randomized trial of epidural versus patient-controlled meperidine analgesia during labor. A randomized study of combined spinal-epidural analgesia versus intravenous meperidine during labor: impact on cesarean delivery rate. The impact of intrapartum analgesia on labour and delivery outcomes in nulliparous women. Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomised controlled trial. Upright versus recumbent position in the second stage of labour in women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Effects of epidural fentanyl on labor pain during the early period of the first stage of induced labor in nulliparous women. [Obstetric analgesia: peridural analgesia versus combined spinal and peridural analgesia]. A randomized trial of intrapartum analgesia in women with severe preeclampsia. Clinical study on labor pain relief using the combined spinal-epidural analgesia and inhaling nitrous oxide. Adverse effects of combined spinal-epidural versus traditional epidural analgesia during labor. [Transcutaneous cerebral electric stimulation by Limoge current during labor]. Effect of maternal ambulation on labour with low-dose combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Randomized controlled comparison of epidural bupivacaine versus pethidine for analgesia in labour. An early labor assessment program: a randomized, controlled trial. Regional analgesia in early active labour: combined spinal epidural vs. epidural. Cesarean delivery: a randomized trial of epidural analgesia versus intravenous meperidine analgesia during labor in nulliparous women.
The purpose of this study was to compare the peripartum and perinatal effects of epidural with intravenous labor analgesia in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension.
                Women with pregnancy-induced hypertension who had consented to participate were randomized to receive either epidural or intravenous analgesia for labor pain. Both methods were given according to standardized protocols. All women received magnesium sulfate seizure prophylaxis. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared according to intent-to-treat allocation.
                Seven hundred thirty-eight women were randomized: 372 women were given epidural analgesia, and 366 women were given intravenous analgesia. Maternal characteristics were similar, including the severity of hypertension. Epidural analgesia was associated with a significantly prolonged second-stage labor, an increase in forceps deliveries, and an increase in chorioamnionitis. Cesarean delivery rates and neonatal outcomes were similar. Pain relief was superior with the epidural method. Hypotension required treatment in 11% of women in the epidural group.
                Epidural labor analgesia provides superior pain relief but no additional therapeutic benefit to women with pregnancy-induced hypertension. Pain relief during labor is a permanent concern, aiming at the maternal well being, decreasing the stress secondary to pain, and reducing its consequences on the fetus. Several analgesia techniques can be used during labor. The aim of this study was to compare continuous and combined epidural analgesia, both of them using 0.25% bupivacaine with 50% enantiomeric excess and fentanyl.
                Forty pregnant women, in labor, with cervical dilation between 4 and 5 cm, were randomly divided in two groups. Group I received continuous epidural anesthesia. Group II received combined anesthesia. The following parameters were evaluated: anthropometric measurements, gestational age, cervical dilation, length of time between the blockade and absence of pain according to the visual analogic scale, ability to walk, length of time between analgesia and complete cervical dilation, duration of the expulsive phase, maternal hemodynamic parameters, and vitality of the newborn. Possible complications, such as respiratory depression, maternal hypotension, pruritus, nausea, and vomiting were also evaluated. The Student t test was used to compare the means and the Chi-square test was used to compare the number of pregnancies and type of labor.
                There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding the length of time between the beginning of analgesia and complete cervical dilation, as well as regarding the duration of the expulsive phase, incidence of cesarean section related to the analgesia, maternal hemodynamic parameters, and vitality of the newborn.
                Both techniques are effective and safe for labor analgesia, although the combined technique provided fast and immediate pain relief. Clinical studies with a larger number of patients are necessary to evaluate the differences in the incidence of cesarean sections. To compare the effects of epidural analgesia with intravenous (IV) analgesia on the outcome of labor.
                Thirteen hundred thirty women with uncomplicated term pregnancies and in spontaneous labor were randomized to be offered epidural bupivacaine-fentanyl or IV meperidine analgesia during labor.
                Comparison of the allocation groups by intent to treat revealed a significant association between epidural allocation and operative delivery for dystocia. However, only 65% of each randomization group accepted the allocated treatment. Four hundred thirty-seven women accepted and received meperidine as allocated, and they were compared with 432 women accepting epidural allocation. Significant associations resulted between epidural administration and prolongation of labor, increased rate of oxytocin administration, chorioamnionitis, low forceps, and cesarean delivery. Because of the high rate of noncompliance with treatment allocation, a multifactorial regression analysis was performed on the entire cohort, and a twofold relative risk of cesarean delivery persisted in association with epidural treatment. The impact of epidural treatment on cesarean delivery was significant for both nulliparous and parous women (risk ratios 2.55 and 3.81, respectively). Epidural analgesia provided significantly better pain relief in labor than did parenteral meperidine.
                Although labor epidural analgesia is superior to meperidine for pain relief, labor is prolonged, uterine infection is increased, and the number of operative deliveries are increased. A two- to fourfold increased risk of cesarean delivery is associated with epidural treatment in both nulliparous and parous women. To investigate possible short and long term side effects of epidural analgesia, compared with non-epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour.
                Randomised controlled study, with long term follow up by questionnaire. Analysis by intention-to-treat.
                Busy maternity unit within a district general hospital in England.
                Three hundred and sixty nine primigravid women in labour were included (randomised allocation: epidural n = 184, non-epidural n = 185).
                Backache at three and twelve months after delivery, instrumental delivery rates and maternal opinion of pain relief in labour.
                No significant differences were found in the reported incidence of backache between the groups at three months: middle backache [22% vs 20%, chi2 = 0.057, P = 0.81; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]; low backache [35% vs 34%, chi2 = 0.009, P = 0.92; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.6-1.6)]. Nor were there significant differences at 12 months: [middle backache 16% vs 16%, chi2 = 0.013, P = 0.91; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.5-1.8)]; or low backache [35% vs 27%, chi2 = 1.91, P = 0.17; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]. The incidence of instrumental delivery was somewhat higher in the epidural group [30% vs 19%, odds ratio (95% CI) 1.77(1.09-2.86)]. Maternal satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups.
                This study provided no evidence to support the suggestion of a direct association between the use of epidural anaesthesia in labour and the incidence of long term backache. Despite a significant proportion of women in each group not receiving their allocated analgesia, a significant difference in terms of instrumental delivery rates remained. Satisfaction in both groups of women was high. Among nulliparous women, there appears to be an association between the use of epidural analgesia during labor and an increased risk of dystocia. We tested the hypothesis that combined spinal-epidural analgesia, which permits ambulation during labor, is associated with a lower incidence of dystocia than continuous lumbar epidural analgesia.
                Between July 1995 and September 1996, we randomly assigned 761 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term who requested epidural analgesia to receive either continuous lumbar epidural analgesia or a combination of spinal and epidural analgesia. Among the women who received combined spinal-epidural analgesia, some were discouraged from walking and others were encouraged to walk. Maternal and neonatal outcomes, the incidence of dystocia necessitating cesarean section, and measures of patients' satisfaction were compared in the two groups.
                There were no significant differences in the overall rate of cesarean section, the incidence of dystocia, the frequency of maternal or fetal complications, the patients' or nursing staff's assessment of the adequacy of analgesia, or the degree of overall satisfaction between the two groups. Significantly more women receiving combined spinal-epidural analgesia had pruritus (P<0.001) and requested additional epidural bolus doses of local anesthetic (P=0.01). For all the women, dystocia necessitating cesarean section was significantly more likely when analgesia was administered with the fetal vertex at a negative station (odds ratio, 2.5; P<0.001) or at less than 4 cm of cervical dilatation (odds ratio, 2.2; P<0.001).
                As compared with continuous lumbar epidural analgesia, the combination of spinal and epidural analgesia is not associated with an overall decrease in the incidence of cesarean delivery. Our purpose was to determine the effect of epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor and delivery.
                Normal term nulliparous women in early spontaneous labor were randomized to receive either narcotic or epidural analgesia.
                When compared with the group receiving narcotic analgesia (n = 45), the group receiving epidural analgesia (n = 48) had a significant prolongation in the first and second stages of labor, an increased requirement for oxytocin augmentation, and a significant slowing in the rate of cervical dilatation. Epidural analgesia was associated with a significant increase in malposition (4.4% vs 18.8%, p < 0.05). Cesarean delivery occurred more frequently in the epidural group (2.2% vs 25%, p < 0.05), primarily related to an increase in cesarean section for dystocia (2.2% vs 16.7%, p < 0.05).
                In a randomized, controlled, prospective trial epidural analgesia resulted in a significant prolongation in the first and second stages of labor and a significant increase in the frequency of cesarean delivery, primarily related to dystocia. The effects of epidural analgesia on the progress of labor are controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of epidural analgesia on cesarean delivery rates in a population of patients randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous opioids for intrapartum pain relief.
                From January 1995 to May 1996, 318 spontaneously laboring, term, nulliparous patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous opioids or epidural analgesia for pain relief. Labor was managed according to the principles of active management of labor. Cesarean delivery was performed for obstetric indications. Data analysis was conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. A subanalysis was subsequently performed on patients who were compliant with the allocated form of treatment.
                One hundred sixty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous meperidine and 156 were randomly assigned to receive epidural analgesia. Maternal age, gravidity, race, gestational age, and cervical dilatation at admission and at first analgesic dose did not differ between the groups. Intent-to-treat data analysis revealed no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate between the 2 groups, being 13.6% in the opioid group and 9.6% in the epidural group (relative risk 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.31, P >.05). Cesarean delivery rates for the indication of dystocia also did not differ, being 10.5% in the opioid group and 5.8% in the epidural group (relative risk 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.21, P >.05). Subanalysis of the data from patients who were compliant with the allocated form of treatment revealed that patients in the epidural group (n = 147) were 3 times more likely to have an active phase duration >/=8 hours and were 10 times more likely to require >/=2 hours in the second stage of labor than were those in the opioid group (n = 78). There were no significant differences in cesarean delivery rates in this subanalysis, being 7.7% in the opioid group and 8.8% in the epidural group (relative risk 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.45-2.91, P >. 05). The cesarean delivery rates for dystocia were also similar in the subanalysis, being 3.8% in the opioid group and 5.5% in the epidural group (relative risk 1.42, 95% confidence interval 0.39-5. 22, P >.05).
                Epidural analgesia provides safe and effective intrapartum pain control and may be administered without undesirable effects on labor outcome. The analgesic efficacy and incidence of maternal, fetal and neonatal side-effects of combined spinal epidural (CSE) and epidural (EPI) analgesia, using a mixture of bupivacaine 0.125%, epinephrine (1.25 micrograms.ml-1) and sufentanil (0.75 microgram.ml-1) for the relief of labor pain, were randomly and prospectively compared in 110 parturients. A 29 gauge Whitacre tip spinal needle was used to perforate the dura in CSE patients. Compared to EPI, CSE resulted in rapid (326 +/- 22 vs 766 +/- 79 sec, p < 0.05), excellent analgesia, using less bupivacaine (23.5 +/- 2.3 vs 33.9 +/- 2.9 mg, p < 0.05) and sufentanil (12.5 +/- 1.0 vs 16.5 +/- .7 micrograms, p < 0.05). A tendency to improved patient satisfaction in the CSE group was observed. The incidence of maternal or neonatal side effects was similar in both groups. No PDPH was observed. We conclude that CSE analgesia results in excellent pain relief during labor with immediate gratification as compared to epidural analgesia. Whether epidural analgesia for labor prolongs the active-first and second labor stages and increases the risk of vacuum-assisted delivery is a controversial topic. Our study was conducted to answer the question: does lumbar epidural analgesia with lidocaine affect the progress of labor in our obstetric population?
                395 healthy, nulliparous women, at term, presented in spontaneous labor with a singleton vertex presentation. These patients were randomized to receive analgesia either, epidural with bolus doses of 1% lidocaine or intravenous, with meperidine 25 to 50 mg when their cervix was dilated to 4 centimeters. The duration of the active-first and second stages of labor and the neonatal apgar scores were recorded, in each patient. The total number of vacuum-assisted and cesarean deliveries were also measured.
                197 women were randomized to the epidural group. 198 women were randomized to the single-dose intravenous meperidine group. There was no statistical difference in rates of vacuum-assisted delivery rate. Cesarean deliveries, as a consequence of fetal bradycardia or dystocia, did not differ significantly between the groups. Differences in the duration of the active-first and the second stages of labor were not statistically significant. The number of newborns with 1-min and 5-min Apgar scores less than 7, did not differ significantly between both analgesia groups.
                Epidural analgesia with 1% lidocaine does not prolong the active-first and second stages of labor and does not increase vacuum-assisted or cesarean delivery rate. Our purpose was to examine the effect of epidural analgesia on dystocia-related cesarean delivery in actively laboring nulliparous women.
                Active labor was confirmed in nulliparous women by uterine contractions, cervical dilatation of 4 cm, effacement of 80%, and fetopelvic engagement. Patients were randomized to one of two groups: epidural analgesia or narcotics. A strict protocol for labor management was in place. Patients recorded the level of pain at randomization and at hourly intervals on a visual analog scale. Elective outlet operative vaginal delivery was permitted.
                One hundred women were randomized. No difference in the rate of cesarean delivery for dystocia was noted between the groups (epidural 8%, narcotic 6%; p = 0.71). No significant differences were noted in the lengths of the first (p = 0.54) or second (p = 0.55) stages of labor or in any other time variable. Women with epidural analgesia underwent operative vaginal delivery more frequently (p = 0.004). Pain scores were equivalent at randomization, but large differences existed at each hour thereafter. The number of patients randomized did not achieve prestudy estimates. A planned interim analysis of the results demonstrated that we were unlikely to find a statistically significant difference in cesarean delivery rates in a trial of reasonable duration.
                With strict criteria for the diagnosis of labor and with use of a rigid protocol for labor management, there was no increase in dystocia-related cesarean delivery with epidural analgesia. In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we sought to determine whether patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labor affected the incidence of cesarean delivery when compared with patient-controlled IV opioid analgesia (PCIA). Healthy, term nulliparous patients in 4 Canadian institutions were randomly assigned to receive PCIA with fentanyl (n = 118) or PCEA with 0.08% bupivacaine and fentanyl 1.6 microg/mL (n = 124). There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery-10.2% (12 of 118) versus 9.7% (12 of 124)-or instrumental vaginal delivery-21.2% (25 of 118) versus 29% (36 of 124)-between groups. The duration of the second stage of labor was increased in the PCEA group by a median of 23 min (P = 0.02). Fifty-one patients (43%) in the PCIA group received epidural analgesia: 39 (33%) because of inadequate pain relief and 12 (10%) to facilitate operative delivery. Patients in the PCIA group required more antiemetic therapy (17% versus 6.4%; P = 0.01) and had more sedation (39% versus 5%; P < 0.001). Maternal mean pain and satisfaction with analgesia scores were better in the PCEA group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). More neonates in the PCIA group required active resuscitation (52% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and naloxone (17% versus 3%; P < 0.001). These observations support the hypothesis that PCEA does not result in an increased incidence of obstetrical intervention compared with PCIA. PCEA provides superior analgesia and less maternal and neonatal sedation compared with PCIA. Reports indicate that the administration of epidural analgesia for pain relief during labor interferes with labor and increases cesarean deliveries. However, only a few controlled trials have assessed the effect of epidural analgesia on the incidence of cesarean delivery. The authors' primary purpose in this randomized study was to evaluate the effects of epidural analgesia on the rate of cesarean deliveries by providing a suitable alternative: patient-controlled intravenous analgesia.
                Seven hundred fifteen women of mixed parity in spontaneous labor at full term were randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or patient-controlled intravenous meperidine analgesia. Epidural analgesia was maintained with a continuous epidural infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine with 2 microg/ml fentanyl. Patient-controlled analgesia was maintained with 10-15 mg meperidine given every 10 min as needed using a patient-controlled pump. Procedures recorded in a manual that prescribed the intrapartum management were followed for each woman randomized in the study.
                A total of 358 women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 243 (68%) of these women complied with the epidural analgesia protocol. Similarly, 357 women were randomized to receive patient-controlled intravenous meperidine analgesia, and 259 (73%) of these women complied with the patient-controlled intravenous analgesia protocol. Only five women who were randomized and received patient-controlled intravenous meperidine analgesia according to the protocol crossed over to epidural analgesia due to inadequate pain relief. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups using intention-to-treat analysis based on the original randomization (epidural analgesia, 4% [95% CI: 1.9-6.2%] compared with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, 5% [95% CI: 2.6-7.2%]). Similar results were observed for the analysis of the protocol-compliant groups (epidural analgesia, 5% [95% CI: 2.6-8.5%] compared with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, 6% [95% CI: 3-8.9%]). Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared with women who received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia.
                Epidural analgesia was not associated with increased numbers of cesarean delivery when compared with a suitable alternative method of analgesia. Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia produces rapid-onset pain relief and allows ambulation in early labor. Epidural local anesthetics may contribute to an increase in operative deliveries by decreasing perineal sensation and causing motor weakness. Operative delivery rates might be reduced with CSE, by avoiding or delaying administration of local anesthetics. This study compares the operative delivery rates associated with a CSE technique and those associated with intravenous meperidine for labor analgesia.
                Healthy parturients at full term were assigned randomly to receive CSE or intravenous meperidine analgesia. The CSE group received 10 microg intrathecal sufentanil, followed by epidural bupivacaine and fentanyl at their next request for analgesia. Parturients receiving intravenous meperidine had 50 mg on demand (maximum, 200 mg in 4 h). Labor and delivery outcomes in both groups were recorded and compared.
                An intent-to-treat analysis of 1,223 women indicated that CSE does not increase the rate of cesarean delivery for dystocia in nulliparous and parous women (CSE, 3.5% vs. intravenous meperidine, 4; P=not significant) or in nulliparous women alone (CSE, 7% vs. intravenous meperidine, 8%; P=not significant). Profound fetal bradycardia that necessitated emergency cesarean delivery within 1 h of the time the mother received sufentanil occurred in 8 of 400 parturients (compared with 0 of 352 who received meperidine; P < 0.01). However, the method of fetal monitoring differed between the two groups. Despite this, neonatal outcomes were similar overall.
                Combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor does not increase the cesarean delivery rate for dystocia in healthy parturient patients at full term, regardless of parity. However, an unexpected increase in the number of cesarean deliveries for profound fetal bradycardia after intrathecal sufentanil was observed. Further investigation is warranted. To determine if nulliparous women intending to have epidural analgesia have a similar labour profile and delivery outcome to women who intend to have their labour managed using alternative forms of pain relief.
                A prospective randomised controlled clinical trial conducted at a tertiary obstetric institution. Nulliparous women intending to deliver vaginally with a term singleton fetus were eligible for recruitment.
                1159 women were recruited, of whom 992 were subsequently randomised to receive continuous midwifery support (CMS) or epidural analgesia (EPI) on presentation for delivery. The duration of labour was shorter in the CMS group compared with EPI (10.7 hours (inter quartile (IQ) 7.0,15.2) versus 11.4 hours (IQ 8.2,15.2), p = 0.039). The median duration of the first stage was 8.9 hours (IQ 6,12.5) versus 9.5 hours (IQ 7,12.7) (p = 0.069), and the median duration of the second stage was 1.33 hours (IQ 0.6,2.5) versus 1.48 hours (IQ 0.77,2.6) (p = 0.034). The requirement for oxytocin augmentation in spontaneous labour was 39.8% CMS versus 46.2% EPI (p = 0.129). There was no significant difference in the caesarean section rates. The need for any operative delivery was significantly lower in CMS (43.9% CMS versus 51.5% EPI, p = 0.019).
                Nulliparous women have a high usage of epidural analgesia, regardless of their prelabour intentions. In women who do not intend to use epidural analgesia, the temporal delay in insertion compared with those who use epidural analgesia as their primary analgesic modality is associated with a small but statistically significant reduction in overall labour duration and operative delivery rates. Epidural analgesia is the most effective labour pain relief but is associated with increased rates of instrumental vaginal delivery and other effects, which might be related to the poor motor function associated with traditional epidural. New techniques that preserve motor function could reduce obstetric intervention. We did a randomised controlled trial to compare low-dose combined spinal epidural and low-dose infusion (mobile) techniques with traditional epidural technique.
                Between Feb 1, 1999, and April 30, 2000, we randomly assigned 1054 nulliparous women requesting epidural pain relief to traditional (n=353), low-dose combined spinal epidural (n=351), or low-dose infusion epidural (n=350). Primary outcome was mode of delivery, and secondary outcomes were progress of labour, efficacy of procedure, and effect on neonates. We obtained data during labour and interviewed women postnatally.
                The normal vaginal delivery rate was 35.1% in the traditional epidural group, 42.7% in the low-dose combined spinal group (odds ratio 1.38 [95% CI 1.01-1.89]; p=0.04); and 42.9% in the low-dose infusion group (1.39 [1.01-1.90]; p=0.04). These differences were accounted for by a reduction in instrumental vaginal delivery. Overall, 5 min APGAR scores of 7 or less were more frequent with low-dose technique. High-level resuscitation was more frequent in the low-dose infusion group.
                The use of low-dose epidural techniques for labour analgesia has benefits for delivery outcome. Continued routine use of traditional epidurals might not be justified. Neuraxial blockade is widely used for pain relief in labour. This form of analgesia may be associated with an increase in instrumental delivery rates due to dystocia. 'Traditional' epidurals cause motor blockade and hence immobility. Using a low dose anaesthetic-opioid combination with either epidural or combined spinal-epidural, selective sensory blockade can be achieved, allowing mobility as well as pain relief. In this study, we randomised women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia either to mobilise (upright group n = 25) or to remain recumbent (n = 41) in the second stage of labour. We found women in the upright group had significantly shorter total second stage, (132 vs 109 min,P = 0.019) particularly during the pushing phase (73 vs 51 min, P = 0.011). Although there were fewer instrumental deliveries in the upright group, this was not statistically significant. Women who were randomised to the upright group, did actually mobilise. We conclude that mobilisation in the second stage of labour is possible, and may reduce the length of the second stage. It is generally accepted that epidural injection with local anesthetics and narcotics administered when the cervix has dilated to a diameter exceeding 4 cm can adequately control labor pain. However, many nulliparous women still suffer from labor pain for a few hours prior to the administration of epidural analgesia. This study examined the effectiveness of relief of labor pain obtained by injection of narcotics epidurally once the labor pain begins and the subject requests analgesia.
                Subjects scheduled for induced labour were divided into three groups: Group A (n = 60) received 5 x 10(-4)% fentanyl (10-20 mL) administered epidurally to relieve early first-stage labor pain. Group B (n = 60) received no analgesic in the early first stage of labor. For groups A and B, when cervical dilatation exceeded 4 cm, 10 to 15 mL of 5 x 10(-2)% bupivacaine and 2 x 10(-4)% fentanyl were injected epidurally and a continuous low dosage was maintained until full dilatation of the cervix resulted. Group C (n = 198) received no analgesic during the entire labor course.
                There were no significant differences in the duration of the early period of the first stage of labor, the duration of the late period of the first stage, the duration of the second stage, the Apgar score, or the arterial blood gas of neonates among the three groups. However, group C had a significantly higher cesarean section rate (28.8%) than group A (16.7%) or group B (15%). Pain scores assessed with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) throughout the entire labor course, were lower in group A than in group B; particularly during the early period of the first stage. The VAS scores in both groups A and B were significantly lower than those in group C during the late period of the first stage of labor.
                The results indicate that once labor pain begins and the subject requests analgesia, epidural injection with fentanyl alone can relieve labor pain during the early period of the first stage. The analgesia does not cause adverse effects to the mothers or neonates. In addition, the labor course and the method of delivery are not affected. To compare the analgesic efficiency, side effects and obstetrical repercussions of epidural analgesia (EP) and combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSE).
                Prospective, randomized, double or single-blind studies as required, approved by the ethical committee of the institution.
                The study included 80 parturients, in active labour with a singleton in vertex presentation and a cervical dilatation of 3 cm or less, randomly allocated to receive either EP (n = 40) or CSE (n = 40).
                In the EP group, sufentanil (20 micrograms) and 0.25% bupivacaine (6-8 mL) were injected into the epidural space. In those of the CSE group, sufentanil (10 micrograms) was first injected into the subarachnoid space, followed by an epidural injection of the same agents at the same quantities as for the EP group. Additional analgesia was obtained in both groups by top-ups of 6-8 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine at the request of the patients. Analgesia, course of labour, obstetrical outcome, and neonatal status were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using Anova, chi 2 analysis, Yates' correction or Fisher's exact test, with a P < 0.05 considered as significant.
                Both groups had similar demographic and obstetric data. The onset of analgesia was more rapid in CSE group (8 +/- 11 min vs. 12 +/- 7 min, P < 0.05), however the duration was similar. Technical incidents were more frequent in the CSE group (30% vs. 7%, P < 0.05). The technique of analgesia did not influence the bupivacaine amounts required for its maintenance. The incidence of adverse effects were comparable with the exception of vertigo, which was more frequent in the EP group (57% vs. 28%, P < 0.05). The first stage of labour was increased by 30% in the CSE group (281 +/- 130 min vs. 216 +/- 97 min, P < 0.05), without significant prolongation of labour length. Durations of second stage and expulsion were similar in both groups, despite the administration of a lower dose of bupivacaine in the CSE group (33 +/- 17 mg vs. 46 +/- 12 mg, P < 0.05). The rates of instrumental deliveries and Caesarien sections were comparable. The Apgar scores were satisfactory at 5 min.
                In the early phase of labour, the CSE technique using intrathecal sufentanil has no significant benefit when compared to the EP technique using bupivacaine and sufentanil. In the CSE group, technical incidents were more frequent and the length of the first stage of labour was increased. To estimate whether the cesarean delivery rate differs between women with severe preeclampsia who receive intrapartum epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous opioid analgesia.
                Women with severe preeclampsia at at least 24 weeks' gestation were randomly assigned to receive either intrapartum epidural (n = 56) versus patient-controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (n = 60), and each was administered by a standardized protocol. The sample size was selected to have 80% power to detect at least a 50% difference in the predicted intergroup cesarean delivery rates. Data were analyzed by intent to treat.
                Selected maternal characteristics and neonatal outcomes were similar in the two groups. The cesarean delivery rates in the epidural group (18%) and the patient-controlled analgesia group (12%) were similar (P =.35). Women who received epidural analgesia were more likely to require ephedrine for the treatment of hypotension (9% versus 0%, P =.02), but their infants were less likely to require naloxone at delivery (9% versus 54%, P <.001). Epidural analgesia provided significantly better pain relief as determined by a visual analogue intrapartum pain score (P <.001) and a postpartum pain management survey (P =.002).
                Compared with patient-controlled intravenous opioid analgesia, intrapartum epidural analgesia did not significantly increase the cesarean delivery rate in women with severe preeclampsia at our level III center, and it provided superior pain relief. To study the pain relief effectiveness of the combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSEA) and the inhalation of nitrous oxide, and the influences on the mothers and infants.
                The 300 cases of pregnant women were randomly divided into 3 groups: CSEA group, nitrous oxide group and control group. The nitrous oxide group was that pregnant women inhaled nitrous oxide premixed with oxygen (50%:50%), the pregnant women of the CSEA group were injected fentanyl and bupivacaine in the subarachnoid and epidural space, analgesic was not used in the control group. The degree of labor pain, duration of the labor, way of delivery, bleeding volume, rate of anoxia of newborn, blood gas analysis to maternal radius artery and fetal umbilical blood among 3 groups were observed.
                The effect for analgesia labor of the CSEA group was much better than that of the nitrous oxide group (P < 0.01). In the first stage of labor and total stage of labor, the CSEA group was shorter than the others (P < 0.05), but there was no difference between the nitrous oxide group and the control group (P > 0.05). In the second stage of labor, the 3 groups were alike to each other. The bleeding volume of caesarean section (373 +/- 77) ml in the nitrous oxide group was much more than the other 2 groups, there was no difference between the CSEA group (259 +/- 78) ml and the control group (239 +/- 89) ml. The rate of obstetric forceps of CSEA group was higher than the control group (P < 0.01), and the rate of caesarean section of the nitrous oxide group was much higher than the CSEA group. The blood gas analysis to maternal radius artery and fetal umbilical blood and the rate of anoxia of newborn of 3 groups revealed no significant difference.
                The effectiveness of the combined spinal-epidural analgesia CSEA for analgesia labor is confirmed and has rarely side-effect, and it can be the first choice, and the inhalation of nitrous oxide can safely provide effective labor analgesia, too. To compare two neuraxial block techniques during labor for maternal and fetal effects.
                Women in labor at term with cephalic singleton fetuses were randomized (nonblinded) to receive either labor epidural (EPI) or combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia. Primary outcome was prolonged deceleration (PD) of fetal heart rate. Outcomes also included hypotension, mode of delivery, and efficacy of analgesia by visual analog pain scale (VAPS) before and after block placement.
                Randomization occurred in 127 patients: 63 received EPI, 64 received CSE. There was no difference in the rate of PD in the EPI group compared with the CSE group (3.2% vs 6.2% respectively; P=0.43, RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.4-9.3), rate of cesarean delivery, or mean epidural duration. VAPS ratings were significantly lower in the CSE group.
                There were no differences in the rate of PD or other adverse outcomes. Hypotension occurred more frequently with CSE during labor at term. The study supports both EPI and CSE during labor as safe and effective techniques for neuraxial analgesia. In order to test the analgesic efficacy of Anesthelec (transcutaneous cranial electrical stimulation with Limoge currents) during labour and delivery, a double blind study was performed in 20 cases for whom analgesia was necessary. In 10 cases Anesthelec was used with the Limoge currents on and in 10 cases as a sham. Labour and delivery were carried out by a medical team different from that which set up the Anesthelec. The results showed that this method, with or without nitrous oxide inhalation, decreased by 80% the number of epidural and general anaesthesias that would otherwise have been unavoidable. To define the effects of this new method, maternal and foetal parameters of 50 deliveries carried out under Anesthelec were compared with 50 deliveries carried out under epidural analgesia. Anesthelec was used only if analgesia was required. This study was a retrospective comparison between two similar non paired series. Despite the fact that analgesia obtained with Anesthelec was less powerful than with epidural analgesia, this method showed many advantages: total safety for the child and the mother, easy utilization, shorter labour time, decreased number of instrumental extractions and potentially reduced costs. Good acceptance and satisfaction for the mother should allow a rapid evolution of this new method. Two hundred and twenty-nine nulliparous women who requested regional analgesia during labour were given a combined spinal-epidural block. They were randomly allocated to stay in bed or spend at least 20 min of every hour out of bed. There was no significant difference in duration of labour, analgesia requirements, mode of delivery or condition of the baby between the groups. Ambulation appeared to be safe for the mother and baby. Maternal satisfaction with the low-dose combined spinal-epidural was high in both groups. We compared the incidence of Caesarean delivery in nulliparous women randomized to receive epidural analgesia with those randomized to intramuscular (i.m.) pethidine. On admission to the delivery suite in established labour, 802 nulliparae had already agreed to be randomized with respect to their first analgesia. One hundred and eighty-eight women required either no analgesia or 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen (Entonox) only. Of the remaining 614 women, 310 were randomly allocated to receive i.m. pethidine up to 300 mg and 304 to receive epidural bupivacaine. Labour management was standardized according to the criteria for active management of labour. The intention-to-treat analysis showed similar Caesarean section rates in those randomized to epidural (12%) or pethidine analgesia (13%). The difference in Caesarean rate was -1.1% with 95% confidence intervals from -6.3% to +4.1%. The normal vaginal delivery rates were similar (epidural, 59%; pethidine, 61%). Approximately 31 percent of cesarean deliveries in the United States and Canada are performed for dystocia. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of early labor assessment to reduce cesarean birth rates for low-risk nulliparous women.
                Two hundred and nine low-risk nulliparous women were randomly allocated to either the early labor assessment group or the direct admission to hospital group. Women in the early labor assessment group were evaluated and, if found to be in false or latent labor, were encouraged to go home or walk before admission to the labor unit. Those in the direct admission group were admitted to the labor unit without an assessment. Data were collected and analyzed about method of delivery, duration of labor, intrapartum interventions, and neonatal well-being. Women completed an evaluation of their experience in the early postpartum period.
                Significant decreases occurred in duration of labor, use of epidural analgesia for pain, and use of oxytocin to augment labor in the early labor assessment group. These women evaluated their labor and birth experience more positively than women in the direct admission group. No significant differences were found in the frequency of cesarean section or instrumental vaginal delivery for the two groups.
                Early labor assessment has the potential to reduce the number of women receiving oxytocin for augmentation, the rate of epidural analgesia for pain relief, and the duration of the active and second stages of labor, and to improve women's evaluations of their labor and birth experiences. We randomly allocated 93 women in early active labour and requesting epidural analgesia to receive either epidural (n = 48) or combined spinal-epidural analgesia (n = 45). For epidural analgesia 15 ml of bupivacaine 0.1% with 75 micrograms of fentanyl were injected into the epidural space. For combined spinal-epidural analgesia 1 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% with 25 micrograms of fentanyl were injected into the subarachnoid space. For both groups subsequent top-ups of 10 ml of bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 20 micrograms were given using a lightweight patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pump with a lockout time of 30 min. We assessed analgesia and the degree of motor blockade and found no significant differences in pain or maternal satisfaction scores between the two groups. The time to first top-up was significantly longer in the epidural group than in the CSE group (p = 0.01). The combined spinal-epidural group had significantly greater motor blockade at 30 min than the epidural group (p = 0.01), but there was no difference after this. The PCEA machine failed completely twice and temporarily many times. We conclude that the combined spinal-epidural technique confers no advantages in early active labour. Also, a lightweight PCEA pump needs to be more reliable before we can recommend its use. Controversy concerning increased cesarean births as a result of epidural analgesia for relief of labor pain has been attributed, in large part, to difficulties interpreting published studies because of design flaws. In this study, the authors compared epidural analgesia to intravenous meperidine analgesia using patient-controlled devices during labor to evaluate the effects of labor epidural analgesia, primarily on the rate of cesarean deliveries while minimizing limitations attributable to study design.
                Four hundred fifty-nine nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term were randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous meperidine analgesia. Epidural analgesia was initiated with 0.25% bupivacaine and was maintained with 0.0625% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 microg/ml at 6 ml/h with 5-ml bolus doses every 15 min as needed using a patient-controlled pump. Women in the intravenous analgesia group received 50 mg meperidine with 25 mg promethazine hydrochloride as an initial bolus, followed by 15 mg meperidine every 10 min as needed, using a patient-controlled pump. A written procedural manual that prescribed the intrapartum obstetric management was followed for each woman randomized in the study.
                A total of 226 women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 233 women were randomized to receive intravenous meperidine analgesia. Protocol violations occurred in 8% (38 of 459) of women. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups (epidural analgesia, 7% [16 of 226; 95% confidence interval, 4-11%] vs. intravenous meperidine analgesia, 9% [20 of 233; 95% confidence interval, 5-13%]; P = 0.61). Significantly more women randomized to epidural analgesia had forceps deliveries compared with those randomized to meperidine analgesia (12% [26 of 226] vs. 3% [7 of 233]; P < 0.001). Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared with women who received intravenous meperidine analgesia.
                Epidural analgesia compared with intravenous meperidine analgesia during labor does not increase cesarean deliveries in nulliparous women.
Epidural analgesia appears to be effective in reducing pain during labour. However, women who use this form of pain relief are at increased risk of having an instrumental delivery. Epidural analgesia had no statistically significant impact on the risk of caesarean section, maternal satisfaction with pain relief and long-term backache and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.