Medge D. Owen

A comparison of epidural analgesia with 0.125% ropivacaine with fentanyl versus 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl during labor

We previously found that the extent of an epidural motor block produced by 0.125% ropivacaine was clinically indistinguishable from 0.125% bupivacaine in laboring patients. By adding fentanyl to the 0.125% ropivacaine and bupivacaine solutions in an attempt to reduce hourly local anesthetic requirements, we hypothesized that differences in motor block produced by the two drugs may become apparent. Fifty laboring women were randomized to receive either 0.125% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 &mgr;g/mL or an equivalent concentration of bupivacaine/fentanyl using patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with settings of: 6-mL/hr basal rate, 5-mL bolus, 10-min lockout, 30-mL/h dose limit. Analgesia, local anesthetic use, motor block, patient satisfaction, and side effects were assessed until the time of delivery. No differences in verbal pain scores, local anesthetic use, patient satisfaction, or side effects between groups were observed; however, patients administered ropivacaine/fentanyl developed significantly less motor block than patients administered bupivacaine/fentanyl. Ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 &mgr;g/mL produces similar labor analgesia with significantly less motor block than an equivalent concentration of bupivacaine/fentanyl. Whether this statistical reduction in motor block improves clinical outcome or is applicable to anesthesia practices which do not use the PCEA technique remains to be determined. Implications: By using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique, ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 &mgr;g/mL produces similar analgesia with significantly less motor block than a similar concentration of bupivacaine with fentanyl during labor. Whether this statistical reduction in motor block improves clinical outcome or is applicable to anesthesia practices which do not use the patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique remains to be determined.

Low-dose clonidine and neostigmine prolong the duration of intrathecal bupivacaine-fentanyl for labor analgesia.

BACKGROUND Intrathecal (IT) opioid and local anesthetic combinations are popular for labor analgesia because of rapid, effective pain relief, but the duration of analgesia is limited. This study was undertaken to determine whether the addition of clonidine and neostigmine to IT bupivacaine-fentanyl would increase the duration of analgesia without increasing side effects for patients in labor. METHODS Forty-five healthy parturients in active labor were randomized to receive a 2-ml IT dose of one of the following dextrose-containing solutions using the combined spinal-epidural technique: (1) bupivacaine 2.5 mg and fentanyl 25 microg (BF); (2) BF plus clonidine 30 microg (BFC); or (3) BFC plus neostigmine 10 microg (BFCN). Pain, sensory levels, motor block, side effects, maternal vital signs, and fetal heart rate were systematically assessed. RESULTS Patients administered BFCN had significantly longer analgesia (165+/-32 min) than those who received BF (90+/-21 min; P<0.001) or BFC (123+/-21 min; P<0.001). Pain scores, block characteristics, maternal vital signs, Apgar scores, maternal satisfaction, and side effects were similar among groups except for nausea, which was significantly greater in the BFCN group (P<0.05 as compared with BFC). CONCLUSIONS The addition of clonidine and neostigmine significantly increased the duration of analgesia from IT bupivacaine-fentanyl during labor, but neostigmine caused more nausea. Although serious side effects were not observed in this study, safety must be further addressed before the routine use of multiple IT drugs is advocated.

Ropivacaine 0.075% and Bupivacaine 0.075% with Fentanyl 2 μg/ml are Equivalent for Labor Epidural Analgesia

Fifty percent effective dose estimates for ropivacaine and bupivacaine suggest that ropivacaine is 40% less potent than bupivacaine to initiate labor analgesia. At clinically used concentrations, however, the drugs seem indistinguishable for initiating and maintaining labor analgesia. We designed this study to evaluate a concentration near the reported 50% effective dose values for ropivacaine and bupivacaine in an attempt to detect differences between the drugs during routine clinical use. Fifty-nine nulliparous women in labor were randomized to receive 0.075% ropivacaine or bupivacaine, each with fentanyl 2 &mgr;g/mL. After epidural placement and the administration of a lidocaine/epinephrine test dose, 20 mL of study solution was administered and a patient-controlled epidural infusion was initiated with the following settings: 6 mL/h basal rate, 5 mL bolus, 10 min lockout, and 30 mL/h limit. Breakthrough pain was treated with 10-mL boluses of study solution. By using a study design to detect a 40% difference in hourly drug use between groups, we found no statistically significant differences in the amount of local anesthetic used, verbal pain scores, sensory levels, motor blockade, labor duration, mode of delivery, side effects, or patient satisfaction. We conclude that 0.075% ropivacaine and bupivacaine, with fentanyl, are equally effective for labor analgesia using the patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique.

Epidural Neostigmine Produces Analgesia but Also Sedation in Women after Cesarean Delivery

BackgroundIntrathecal neostigmine produces analgesia but also nausea, limiting its utility. In contrast, epidural administration of neostigmine has been suggested to produce postoperative analgesia without nausea in nonpregnant patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the dose range for efficacy and side effects of epidural neostigmine in women at cesarean delivery receiving combined spinal–epidural anesthesia. MethodsAfter institutional approval and informed consent, 80 patients for elective cesarean delivery were given combined spinal–epidural anesthesia with 8 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 10 &mgr;g fentanyl. Patients were randomized to receive either saline or 75, 150, or 300 &mgr;g neostigmine (n = 20 per group) in 10 ml saline after cord clamping. Pain, morphine consumption, and side effects were monitored for 24 h. ResultsGlobal pain assessment for the first 24 h was reduced from 5.4 ± 0.2 in the saline group to 3.0–3.5 ± 0.3 in the neostigmine groups, dose independently. Correspondingly, global satisfaction with neostigmine was also improved (P < 0.05). Nausea and morphine consumption were similar among groups. Intraoperative shivering and sedation were increased in the 300-&mgr;g neostigmine group only (P < 0.05), and postoperative sedation was increased by neostigmine in a dose-independent fashion (P < 0.05). ConclusionsEpidural neostigmine produced modest analgesia in women after cesarean delivery. In contrast with previous reports, which focused primarily on nausea, these data suggest that epidural neostigmine can also produce mild sedation for several hours. These data suggest a limited role for single bolus-administration epidural neostigmine for analgesia after cesarean delivery. They also support future study of epidural neostigmine for obstetric analgesia.

Studies on the safety of glucose and paraben-containing neostigmine for intrathecal administration.

Initial toxicity testing of neostigmine for intrathecal (IT) injection was performed with preservative-free isobaric solution, yet currently available formulations contain the preservatives methyl- and propylparaben and are usually mixed with glucose to yield hyperbaric solutions. Since it has been proposed that preservatives and hyperbaricity increase the risk of neurotoxicity after IT injection, we examined the safety of chronically administered IT neostigmine containing these additives in sheep and rats. Rats receiving daily IT injections of glucose alone or of glucose with preservative-containing neostigmine, 5 and 10 micro g, exhibited dose-related antinociception, tremor, and rigidity. In comparison to our previously published study of neostigmine injection in solution without glucose, rats receiving IT neostigmine with glucose displayed less rigidity, tremor, and salivation. Sheep receiving daily injection of glucose alone or with preservative-containing neostigmine, 1 mg, for 14 days exhibited no histologic evidence of neurotoxicity, nor did they exhibit abnormalities in cerebrospinal fluid chemistry aside from those caused by inflammation. Spinal cord histologic examination in both species revealed fibrosis and inflammation secondary to the catheter without evidence of neuronal damage. These studies support the safety of paraben- and glucose-containing IT neostigmine. (Anesth Analg 1997;85:317-23)

Prolonged Intravenous Remifentanil Infusion for Labor Analgesia

IMPLICATIONS A 34-h remifentanil infusion was administered for labor analgesia in a patient with thrombocytopenia and renal insufficiency. Compared with other opioids, remifentanil may produce fewer cumulative effects during prolonged infusion because of its unique metabolism.

Advancing obstetric and neonatal care in a regional hospital in Ghana via continuous quality improvement

To reduce maternal and neonatal death at a large regional hospital through the use of quality improvement methodologies.

Dural puncture with a 27-gauge Whitacre needle as part of a combined spinal-epidural technique does not improve labor epidural catheter function.

Background:This prospective, double-blind, randomized study was designed to examine whether the combined spinal–epidural technique without subarachnoid drug administration improved epidural catheter function when compared with the traditional epidural technique. Methods:After institutional review board approval and informed consent, 251 healthy laboring parturients were randomly assigned to either group DP (combined spinal–epidural technique with 27-gauge Whitacre needle dural puncture but without subarachnoid drug administration) or group NoDP (traditional epidural technique). Patient-controlled epidural analgesia was initiated with 0.11% bupivacaine and 2 &mgr;g/ml fentanyl. Top-up doses in 5-ml increments of 0.25% bupivacaine were administered if needed. Previous power analysis revealed that a sample size of 108 patients/group was needed to show a clinically useful reduction of the catheter manipulation rate from 32% to 15%. Results:In groups DP and NoDP, 107 and 123 evaluable patients, respectively, completed the study. Demographics and outcome variables measured, including epidural catheter manipulation and replacement rate, sacral sparing, unilateral block, number of top-up doses, average hourly epidural drug usage, highest sensory blockade level, and labor analgesia quality, were not different between groups. A subgroup of 18 patients without cerebral spinal fluid return during dural puncture had a higher catheter replacement rate than those of groups DP and NoDP, but it did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions:Dural puncture with a 27-gauge Whitacre needle without subarachnoid drug administration during combined spinal–epidural labor analgesia did not improve epidural labor analgesia quality or reduce catheter manipulation or replacement rate when compared with a traditional epidural technique.

Can ropivacaine and levobupivacaine be used as test doses during regional anesthesia

BackgroundLower systemic toxicity reported with ropivacaine and levobupivacaine may produce less reliable recognition of inadvertent intravenous injection during regional anesthesia. This study was undertaken to determine whether ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are suitable for use as intravenous test doses by evaluating central nervous system (CNS) symptoms after intravenous bolus injection. MethodsInstitutional approval and informed consent were granted for the study. One hundred twenty patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery were randomly assigned to receive 5 ml intravenous saline, 100 mg lidocaine, 25 mg ropivacaine, or 25 mg levobupivacaine before anesthesia. Patients reported CNS symptoms after injection and were monitored for hemodynamic change. ResultsIntravenous ropivacaine or levobupivacaine produced CNS symptoms in only 52% and 57% of patients, respectively, compared with 87% of patients after lidocaine (P < 0.02). Despite preparatory instruction, many patients receiving ropivacaine or levobupivacaine did not spontaneously volunteer symptoms because they were subtle and admitted symptoms only after in-depth questioning by the investigator. ConclusionsPlain ropivacaine and levobupivacaine (25 mg) solutions are unsuitable for use as intravenous test doses during regional anesthesia because CNS symptoms are insufficient. When using ropivacaine or levobupivacaine for regional anesthesia, for test dose purposes, the authors recommend the addition of epinephrine to the local anesthetic solution or the use of a separate agent with more predictable CNS characteristics.

Neostigmine Decreases Bupivacaine Use by Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia During Labor: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal neostigmine not only produces analgesia but also severe nausea. In contrast, epidural neostigmine enhances opioid and local anesthetic analgesia without causing nausea. Previous studies examined only single epidural neostigmine bolus administration and did not assess the efficacy of continuous epidural infusion or several aspects of maternal and fetal safety. We therefore tested the hypothesis that epidural neostigmine in combination with bupivacaine by continuous infusion during labor would reduce the amount of bupivacaine required. METHODS: Twelve healthy women scheduled for elective cesarean delivery were assigned to receive epidural neostigmine, 40 μg (first six subjects) or 80 μg (second six subjects) as a single bolus, with fetal heart rate (FHR) and uterine contractions monitored for 20 min. In a subsequent experiment, 40 healthy laboring women were randomized to receive bupivacaine 1.25 mg/mL alone or with neostigmine 4 μg/mL by patient-controlled epidural analgesia. The primary outcome measure was hourly bupivacaine use. RESULTS: Epidural neostigmine bolus did not alter baseline FHR, induce contractions, or produce nausea. Epidural neostigmine infusion reduced bupivacaine requirement by 19% in all patients and 25% in those with >4 h of treatment (P < 0.05 for both) but might have contributed to the incidence of mild sedation. Mode of delivery, incidence of maternal nausea, and FHR abnormality were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that adding epidural neostigmine 4 μg/mL reduces the hourly bupivacaine requirement by 19%–25% with patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor. Administered as a bolus and by continuous infusion at the studied doses, epidural neostigmine does not cause nausea and does not induce uterine contractions or FHR abnormalities, but mild sedation can occur.