-
Medicine Jan 2020Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) has been suggested as an effective method of pain relief. There are several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with tramadol for patient-controlled intravenous analgesia in Chinese surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) has been suggested as an effective method of pain relief. There are several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dexmedetomidine (DEX) combined with tramadol for PCIA in Chinese surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX combined with tramadol for PCIA in Chinese surgical patients from current data.
METHODS
The RCTs of DEX combined with tramadol for PCIA were gathered from the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and VIP databases. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included RCTs, RevMan 5.3 software was employed for the meta-analysis of visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Ramsay sedation scores, effective pressure times for PCIA, tramadol consumption, and safety.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs were included. Compared with tramadol alone, postoperative intravenous tramadol-DEX combination PCA led to lower VAS scores (weighted mean differences [WMD]12h = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] v1.50 to 1.79; WMD24h = 0.78, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.62; WMD48h = 0.51, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.38; all P < .05), lower Ramsay sedation scores (WMD24h = 0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; WMD48h = 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.07; all P < .05), and less postoperative tramadol consumption (WMD0-24h = -102.59 mg, 95% CI -149.68 to -55.49; WMD0-48h = -152.91 mg, 95% CI -259.93 to -45.89; all P < .05). With regard to safety, there was a significant difference between DEX-tramadol and tramadol for PCIA in terms of the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness, chills, and restlessness (all P < .05).
CONCLUSION
According to the domestic evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that DEX-tramadol PCIA is superior to tramadol in terms of analgesic efficacy and safety for Chinese surgical patients. However, because of some clear limitations (sample size and heterogeneity), these results should be interpreted with caution. Further large-scale and well-designed studies are needed to summarize and analyze the data to draw a more convincing conclusion.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; China; Dexmedetomidine; Drug Combinations; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Tramadol
PubMed: 32011494
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018825 -
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related... Feb 2016Local infiltration analgesia and peripheral nerve blocks are common methods for pain management in patients after THA but direct head-to-head, randomized controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Local infiltration analgesia and peripheral nerve blocks are common methods for pain management in patients after THA but direct head-to-head, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not been performed. A network meta-analysis allows indirect comparison of individual treatments relative to a common comparator; in this case placebo (or no intervention), epidural analgesia, and intrathecal morphine, yielding an estimate of comparative efficacy.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
We asked, when compared with a placebo, (1) does use of local infiltration analgesia reduce patient pain scores and opioid consumption, (2) does use of peripheral nerve blocks reduce patient pain scores and opioid consumption, and (3) is local infiltration analgesia favored over peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative pain management after THA?
METHODS
We searched six databases, from inception through June 30, 2014, to identify RCTs comparing local infiltration analgesia or peripheral nerve block use in patients after THA. A total of 35 RCTs at low risk of bias based on the recommended Cochrane Collaboration risk assessment tool were included in the network meta-analysis (2296 patients). Primary outcomes for this review were patient pain scores at rest and cumulative opioid consumption, both assessed at 24 hours after THA. Because of substantial heterogeneity (variation of outcomes between studies) across included trials, a random effect model for meta-analysis was used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI. The gray literature was searched with the same inclusion criteria as published trials. Only one unpublished trial (published abstract) fulfilled our criteria and was included in this review. All other studies included in this systematic review were full published articles. Bayesian network meta-analysis included all RCTs that compared local infiltration analgesia or peripheral nerve blocks with placebo (or no intervention), epidural analgesia, and intrathecal morphine.
RESULTS
Compared with placebo, local infiltration analgesia reduced patient pain scores (WMD, -0.61; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.24; p = 0.001) and opioid consumption (WMD, -7.16 mg; 95% CI, -11.98 to -2.35; p = 0.004). Peripheral nerve blocks did not result in lower pain scores or reduced opioid consumption compared with placebo (WMD, -0.43; 95% CI, -0.99 to 0.12; p = 0.12 and WMD, -3.14 mg, 95% CI, -11.30 to 5.02; p = 0.45). However, network meta-analysis comparing local infiltration analgesia with peripheral nerve blocks through common comparators showed no differences between postoperative pain scores (WMD, -0.36; 95% CI, -1.06 to 0.31) and opioid consumption (WMD, -4.59 mg; 95% CI, -9.35 to 0.17), although rank-order analysis found local infiltration analgesia to be ranked first in more simulations than peripheral nerve blocks, suggesting that it may be more effective.
CONCLUSIONS
Using the novel statistical network meta-analysis approach, we found no differences between local infiltration analgesia and peripheral nerve blocks in terms of analgesia or opioid consumption 24 hours after THA; there was a suggestion of a slight advantage to peripheral nerve blocks based on rank-order analysis, but the effect size in question is likely not large. Given the slight difference between interventions, clinicians may choose to focus on other factors such as cost and intervention-related complications when debating which analgesic treatment to use after THA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level I, therapeutic study.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Chi-Square Distribution; Hip Joint; Humans; Nerve Block; Odds Ratio; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Peripheral Nerves; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26573322
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4619-9 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2023This critical review assessed the advantages of invasive procedures that were recently included in systematic reviews, to evaluate whether the definition of refractory... (Review)
Review
This critical review assessed the advantages of invasive procedures that were recently included in systematic reviews, to evaluate whether the definition of refractory pain condition was correctly followed to select patients for invasive interventions and to analyze how data were positively interpreted. A total of 21 studies were selected for the purpose of this review. Three were randomized controlled studies, ten were prospective studies, and eight were retrospective studies. Analysis of these studies showed evident lack of proper assessment before implantation for different reasons. These included an optimistic interpretation regarding the outcomes, poor consideration of complications, and inclusion of patients with short survival. Moreover, the indication of intrathecal therapy as a condition in which a patient has failed to respond to multiple therapies provided by a pain or palliative care physician or at sufficient doses for adequate durations, as suggested by a recent research group, has been disregarded. Regretfully, this can discourage the use of intrathecal therapy in patients who are unresponsive to multiple opioid strategies subtrahend a potent means to be used in a very selective population.
PubMed: 37055698
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-023-00507-z -
Local and Regional Anesthesia 2021Posterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common despite multimodal analgesia and regional anesthesia use. This review included randomized controlled... (Review)
Review
Ultrasound-Guided Local Anesthetic Infiltration Between the Popliteal Artery and the Capsule of the Posterior Knee (IPACK) Block for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Posterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common despite multimodal analgesia and regional anesthesia use. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic outcomes after inclusion of local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee (iPACK) block versus pathways without iPACK. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched from inception to 10/11/2020. Eligible studies evaluated iPACK use on primary outcomes: opioid consumption and pain scores with movement. Secondary outcomes included rest pain, patient satisfaction, length of stay (LOS), gait distance, knee range of motion (ROM), and complications. Bias and quality were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. Eight RCTs (777 patients) were included. iPACK block use demonstrated similar opioid consumption in the PACU (4/7 RCTs) and 24 hours after TKA (5/7 RCTs) compared to without iPACK (moderate-quality GRADE evidence). Additionally, iPACK block use demonstrated lower movement pain scores in PACU (3/5 RCTs) but similar or higher pain scores after 24 hours (5/7 RCTs; low-quality GRADE evidence). Studies consistently reported no difference in gait distance (4/4 RCTs) or complications (7/7 RCTs) between treatment arms (high-quality GRADE evidence), although differing effect estimates were observed with resting pain, satisfaction, LOS, and knee ROM. This review provides a foundation of knowledge on iPACK efficacy. While evidence does not currently support widespread inclusion of iPACK within enhanced recovery pathways for TKA, limitations suggest further study is warranted.
PubMed: 34012290
DOI: 10.2147/LRA.S303827 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Sedation reduces patient levels of anxiety and stress, facilitates the delivery of care and ensures safety. Alpha-2 agonists have a range of effects including sedation,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sedation reduces patient levels of anxiety and stress, facilitates the delivery of care and ensures safety. Alpha-2 agonists have a range of effects including sedation, analgesia and antianxiety. They sedate, but allow staff to interact with patients and do not suppress respiration. They are attractive alternatives for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and efficacy of alpha-2 agonists for sedation of more than 24 hours, compared with traditional sedatives, in mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 10, 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 9 October 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 9 October 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (1982 to 9 October 2014), ISI Web of Science (1987 to 9 October 2014), Chinese Biological Medical Database (1978 to 9 October 2014) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979 to 9 October 2014), the World Health Organization international clinical trials registry platform (to 9 October 2014), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of controlled trials active registers (to 9 October 2014), the ClinicalTrials.gov database (to 9 October 2014), the conference proceedings citation index (to 9 October 2014) and the reference lists of included studies and previously published meta-analyses and systematic reviews for relevant studies. We imposed no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing alpha-2 agonists (clonidine or dexmedetomidine) versus alternative sedatives for long-term sedation (more than 24 hours) during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We performed meta-analyses when more than three studies were included, and selected a random-effects model due to expected clinical heterogeneity. We calculated the geometric mean difference for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We described the effects by values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We considered two-sided P < 0.05 to be statistically significant.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven studies, covering 1624 participants, met the inclusion criteria. All included studies investigated adults and compared dexmedetomidine with traditional sedatives, including propofol, midazolam and lorazepam. Compared with traditional sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the geometric mean duration of mechanical ventilation by 22% (95% CI 10% to 33%; four studies, 1120 participants, low quality evidence), and consequently the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 14% (95% CI 1% to 24%; five studies, 1223 participants, very low quality evidence). There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; seven studies, 1624 participants, very low quality evidence) as results were consistent with both no effect and appreciable benefit. Only one study assessed the risk of coma, but lacked methodological reliability (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86, very low quality evidence). Of all the adverse events included, the most commonly reported one was bradycardia, and we observed a doubled (111%) increase in the incidence of bradycardia (RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.20; six studies, 1587 participants, very low quality evidence). Our meta-analysis provided no evidence that dexmedetomidine had any impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24; six studies, 1584 participants, very low quality evidence). We observed high levels of heterogeneity in risk of delirium (I² = 70%), but due to the limited number of studies we were unable to determine the source of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses or meta-regression. We judged six of the seven studies to be at high risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this review, we found no eligible studies for children or for clonidine. Compared with traditional sedatives, long-term sedation using dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. There was no evidence for a beneficial effect on risk of delirium and the heterogeneity was high. The evidence for risk of coma was inadequate. The most common adverse event was bradycardia. No evidence indicated that dexmedetomidine changed mortality. The general quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due to high risks of bias, serious inconsistency and imprecision, and strongly suspected publication bias. Future studies could pay more attention to children and to using clonidine
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Bradycardia; Clonidine; Conscious Sedation; Critical Illness; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Selection Bias; Time Factors
PubMed: 25879090
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010269.pub2 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2017Hip fractures configure an important public health issue and are associated with high mortality taxes and lose of functionality. Hip fractures refer to a fracture... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Hip fractures configure an important public health issue and are associated with high mortality taxes and lose of functionality. Hip fractures refer to a fracture occurring between the edge of the femoral head and 5cm below the lesser trochanter. They are common in orthopedic emergencies. The number of proximal femoral fractures is likely to increase as the population ages. The average cost of care during the initial hospitalization for hip fracture can be estimated about US$ 7,000 per patient. Femoral fractures are painful and need immediate adequate analgesia. Treating pain femoral fractures is difficult because there are limited numbers of analgesics available, many of which have side effects that can limit their use. Opiates are the most used drugs, but they can bring some complications. In this context, femoral nerve blocks can be a safe alternative. It is a specific regional anesthetic technique used by doctors in emergency medicine to provide anesthesia and analgesia of the affected leg.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the analgesic efficacy of intravenous fentanyl versus femoral nerve block before positioning to perform spinal anesthesia in patients with femoral fractures assessed by Pain Scales.
METHODS
A systematic review of scientific literature was conducted. Studies described as randomized controlled trials comparing femoral nerve block and traditional fentanyl are included. Two reviewers (MR and FH) independently assessed potentially eligible trials for inclusion. The methodology assessment was based on the tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration for assessment of bias for randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Medline and Lilacs were searched for all articles published, without restriction of language or time.
RESULTS
Two studies were included in this review. Nerve blockade seemed to be more effective than intravenous fentanyl for preventing pain in patients suffering from a femoral fracture. It also reduced the use of additional analgesia and made lower the risk for systemic complications. Femoral nerve block reduced the time to perform spinal anesthesia to the patient who will be subjected to surgery and facilitate the sitting position for this.
CONCLUSION
The use of femoral nerve block can reduce the level of pain and the need for additional analgesia. There are less adverse systemic events associated with this and the procedure itself does not offer greater risks. More studies are required for further conclusions.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Female; Femoral Nerve; Fentanyl; Hip Fractures; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Musculoskeletal Pain; Nerve Block; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28017173
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2015.08.017 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Oct 2016Single-shot spinal with bupivacaine plus fentanyl or sufentanil is commonly used as analgesia during labour, but the short duration limits the clinical feasibility.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Single-shot spinal with bupivacaine plus fentanyl or sufentanil is commonly used as analgesia during labour, but the short duration limits the clinical feasibility. Different drugs have been added to prolong the analgesic duration. The additional effect of intra-thecal morphine has been studied during labour pain as well as after surgery. We assessed whether adding morphine to intra-thecal bupivacaine+fentanyl or sufentanil prolongs pain relief during labour.
METHODS
Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of analgesia prolongation after single-shot intrathecal morphine ≤250μg during labour when given in combination with bupivacaine+fentanyl or sufentanil. After identifying 461 references, 24 eligible studies were evaluated after excluding duplicate publications, case reports, studies of analgesia after caesarean delivery, and epidural labour analgesia. Mean duration in minutes was the primary outcome measure and was included in the calculation of the standardized mean difference. Duration was defined as the time between a single shot spinal until patient request of rescue analgesia. All reported side effects were registered. Results of individual trials were combined using a random effect model. Cochrane tool was used to assess risk of bias.
RESULTS
Five randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (286 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. A dose of 50-250μg intrathecal morphine prolonged labour analgesia by a mean of 60.6min (range 3-155min). Adding morphine demonstrated a medium beneficial effect as we found a pooled effect of standardized mean difference=0.57 (95% CI: -0.10 to 1.24) with high heterogeneity (I=88.1%). However, the beneficial effect was statistically non-significant (z=1.66, p=0.096). The lower-bias trials showed a small statistically non-significant beneficial effect with lower heterogeneity. In influential analysis, that excluded one study at a time from the meta-analysis, the effect size appears unstable and the results indicate no robustness of effect. Omitting the study with highest effects size reduces the pooled effect markedly and that study suffers from inadequate concealment of treatment allocation and blinding. Trial quality was generally low, and there were too few trials to explore sources of heterogeneity in meta-regression and stratified analyses. In general, performing meta-analyses on a small number of trials are possible and may be helpful if one is aware of the limitations. As few as one more placebo-controlled trial would increase the reliability greatly.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from this systematic review suggests a possible beneficial prolonging effect of adding morphine to spinal analgesia with bupivacaine+fentanyl or +sufentanil during labour. The study quality was low and heterogeneity high. No severe side effects were reported. More adequately-powered randomized trials with low bias are needed to determine the benefits and harms of adding morphine to spinal local anaesthetic analgesia during labour.
IMPLICATIONS
Epidural analgesia is documented as the most effective method for providing pain relief during labour, but from a global perspective most women in labour have no access to epidural analgesia. Adding morphine to single shot spinal injection of low dose bupivacaine, fentanyl or sufentanil may be efficacious but needs to be investigated.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Fentanyl; Humans; Labor Pain; Morphine; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 28850533
DOI: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.06.010 -
Anaesthesia Feb 2015Several studies have investigated the presence of a drug interaction between tramadol and ondansetron that reduced the efficacy of tramadol postoperatively. Most of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Several studies have investigated the presence of a drug interaction between tramadol and ondansetron that reduced the efficacy of tramadol postoperatively. Most of these studies were small and the results inconsistent, so we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the cumulative dose of tramadol administered by patient-controlled analgesia within the first 24 h after surgery between subjects receiving tramadol alone and those who received tramadol with ondansetron. Six studies, with a total of 340 participants, met the selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was an increased tramadol requirement in patients receiving ondansetron. The standardised mean difference in tramadol requirements, expressed in terms of standard deviations (95% CI), was 1.03 (0.54-1.53) (p < 0.001) at 4 h, 0.66 (0.06-1.25) (p = 0.03) at 8 h, 0.86 (0.41-1.31) (p < 0.001) at 12 h and 0.45 (0.01-0.90) (p = 0.046) at 24 h postoperatively, where the mean pooled standard deviations were 79.5, 157.7, 238.1 and 289.4 mg at 4, 8, 12 and 24 h, respectively. There was a significant linear time effect over the 24 h, indicating that the effect of ondansetron on tramadol consumption diminished with time. The results support the presence of a drug interaction between tramadol and ondansetron in the early postoperative period that potentially decreases the effectiveness of tramadol.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Antiemetics; Drug Interactions; Humans; Ondansetron; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Postoperative Period; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tramadol; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25490944
DOI: 10.1111/anae.12948 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Various methods of conscious sedation and analgesia (CSA) have been used during oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction. The choice of agent has been influenced by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Various methods of conscious sedation and analgesia (CSA) have been used during oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction. The choice of agent has been influenced by the quality of sedation and analgesia and by concerns about possible detrimental effects on reproductive outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different methods of conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief and pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing transvaginal oocyte retrieval.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched; the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, and trials registers in November 2017. We also checked references, and contacted study authors for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods and administrative protocols for conscious sedation and analgesia during oocyte retrieval.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, patient satisfaction, analgesic side effects, and postoperative complications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 RCTs (3160 women) in five comparisons. We report the main comparisons below. Evidence quality was generally low or very low, mainly owing to poor reporting and imprecision.1. CSA versus other active interventions.All evidence for this comparison was of very low quality.CSA versus CSA plus acupuncture or electroacupunctureData show more effective intraoperative pain relief on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) with CSA plus acupuncture (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.82, 62 women) or electroacupuncture (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.23 to 3.77, 62 women).Data also show more effective postoperative pain relief (0 to 10 VAS) with CSA plus acupuncture (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.30, 61 women) or electroacupuncture (MD 2.10, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.80, 61 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether clinical pregnancy rates were different between CSA and CSA plus acupuncture (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.86, 61 women). CSA alone may be associated with fewer pregnancies than CSA plus electroacupuncture (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66, 61 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether rates of vomiting were different between CSA and CSA plus acupuncture (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.88, 62 women) or electroacupuncture (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.58, 62 women).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA versus general anaesthesia Postoperative pain relief was greater in the CSA group (0 to 3 Likert: mean difference (MD) 1.9, 95% CI 2.24 to 1.56, one RCT, 50 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.35, two RCTs, 108 women, I = 0%).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in rates of vomiting (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75, one RCT, 50 women) or airway obstruction (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.22, one RCT, 58 women). Fewer women needed mask ventilation in the CSA group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.20, one RCT, 58 women).Evidence was also insufficient to show whether groups differed in satisfaction rates (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.04, two RCTs, 108 women, I = 34%; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for outcomes of interest.2. CSA + paracervical block (PCB) versus other interventions.CSA + PCB versus electroacupuncture + PCB Intraoperative pain scores were lower in the CSA + PCB group (0 to 10 VAS: MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.39, 781 women, I = 76%; low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 783 women, I = 9%; low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus general anaesthesiaEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in postoperative pain scores (0 to 10 VAS: MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.11, 50 women; very low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.26, 51 women; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus spinal anaesthesiaPostoperative pain scores were higher in the CSA + PCB group (0 to 10 VAS: MD 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.56, 36 women; very low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.65, 38 women; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus PCBEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.96, 150 women; low-quality evidence) or satisfaction (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.89, 150 women, low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus CSA only Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.36, one RCT, 100 women; very low-quality evidence). Rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting were lower in the CS + PCB group (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, two RCTs, 140 women, I = 40%; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence does not support one particular method or technique over another in providing effective conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief during and after oocyte retrieval. Simultaneous use of sedation combined with analgesia such as the opiates, further enhanced by paracervical block or acupuncture techniques, resulted in better pain relief than occurred with one modality alone. Evidence was insufficient to show conclusively whether any of the interventions influenced pregnancy rates. All techniques reviewed were associated with a high degree of patient satisfaction. Women's preferences and resource availability for choice of pain relief merit consideration in practice.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthesia, General; Conscious Sedation; Electroacupuncture; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Oocyte Retrieval; Pain Measurement; Pain, Procedural; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29761478
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004829.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Pain during childbirth is arguably the most severe pain some women may experience in their lifetime. Epidural analgesia is an effective form of pain relief during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain during childbirth is arguably the most severe pain some women may experience in their lifetime. Epidural analgesia is an effective form of pain relief during labour. Many women have concerns regarding its safety. Furthermore, epidural services and anaesthetic support may not be available consistently across all centres. Observational data suggest that early initiation of epidural may be associated with an increased risk of caesarean section, but the same findings were not seen in recent randomised controlled trials. More recent guidelines suggest that in the absence of a medical contraindication, maternal request is a sufficient medical indication for pain relief during labour. The choice of analgesic technique, agent, and dosage is based on many factors, including patient preference, medical status, and contraindications. There is no systematically reviewed evidence on the maternal and foetal outcomes and safety of this practice.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to summarise the effectiveness and safety of early initiation versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in women. We considered the obstetric and fetal outcomes relevant to women and side effects of the treatments, including risk of caesarean section, instrumental birth and time to birth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (12 February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2014), Embase (January 1980 to February 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials involving women undergoing epidural labour analgesia that compared early initiation versus late initiation of epidural labour analgesia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data and assessed the trial quality. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies with a total of 15,752 women.The overall risk of bias of the studies was low, with the exception of performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel).The nine studies showed no clinically meaningful difference in risk of caesarean section with early initiation versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour (risk ratio (RR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.08, nine studies, 15,499 women, high quality evidence). There was no clinically meaningful difference in risk of instrumental birth with early initiation versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, eight studies, 15,379 women, high quality evidence). The duration of second stage of labour showed no clinically meaningful difference between early initiation and late initiation of epidural analgesia (mean difference (MD) -3.22 minutes; 95% CI -6.71 to 0.27, eight studies, 14,982 women, high quality evidence). There was significant heterogeneity in the duration of first stage of labour and the data were not pooled.There was no clinically meaningful difference in Apgar scores less than seven at one minute (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10, seven studies, 14,924 women, high quality evidence). There was no clinically meaningful difference in Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.33, seven studies, 14,924 women, high quality evidence). There was no clinically meaningful difference in umbilical arterial pH between early initiation and late initiation (MD 0.01; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03, four studies, 14,004 women, high quality evidence). There was no clinically meaningful difference in umbilical venous pH favouring early initiation (MD 0.01; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.02, four studies, 14,004 women, moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is predominantly high-quality evidence that early or late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour have similar effects on all measured outcomes. However, various forms of alternative pain relief were given to women who were allocated to delayed epidurals to cover that period of delay, so that is it hard to assess the outcomes clearly. We conclude that for first time mothers in labour who request epidurals for pain relief, it would appear that the time to initiate epidural analgesia is dependent upon women's requests.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Labor Stage, First; Labor Stage, Second; Labor, Obstetric; Pain Management; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time-to-Treatment
PubMed: 25300169
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007238.pub2