-
Surgical Oncology May 2022This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the body of evidence investigating the post-operative use of non-opioid analgesic drugs and techniques in endocrine neck surgeries.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the body of evidence investigating the post-operative use of non-opioid analgesic drugs and techniques in endocrine neck surgeries. Adequate pain control is crucial for successful recovery after thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Effective postoperative pain control can shorten hospital stay, improve postoperative outcomes, decrease morbidity and improve the overall patient experience. Traditionally, opioids have been the mainstay of postoperative analgesia after thyroid and parathyroid surgeries. However, the use of opioids has been linked to an increased incidence of postoperative complications.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic literature review via Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from inception until December 26th, 2020 was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. Abstract and full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by 2 investigators. Odds ratios (OR), mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS
Sixty-five randomized control trials were identified from 486 unique publications. Pooled MD and 95% confidence interval for pain scores were higher for the control group at 24 h postoperatively both at rest (-0.65 [-0.92, -0.37]) and with swallowing (-0.77 [-1.37, -0.16]). These differences were statistically significant. The pooled MD and confidence interval for postoperative analgesic requirements was lower in the intervention group (-1.38 [-1.86, -0.90]). The incidence of PONV had a pooled OR of 0.67 [0.48, 0.94].
CONCLUSION
Non-opioid analgesia was superior to the control group for pain control in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid operations with no significant difference in complications.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Thyroid Gland
PubMed: 35287097
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2022.101731 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023This systematic review explored the efficacy of different analgesic modalities and the impact on perioperative outcome in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored the efficacy of different analgesic modalities and the impact on perioperative outcome in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library Database using the PRISMA framework. The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1) and postoperative day two (POD2). The secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS) and specific procedure-related complications.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and ten retrospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EA), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), continuous wound infiltration (CWI), continuous bilateral thoracic paravertebral infusion (CTPVI), intrathecal morphine (ITM), and sublingual sufentanil. The pain scores on POD1 ( < 0.001) and POD2 ( = 0.05) were higher in the PCA group compared with the EA group. Pain scores were comparable between EA and CWI plus PCA or CTPVI on POD1 and POD2. Pain scores were comparable between EA and ITM on POD1. The procedure-related complications and length of hospital stay were not significantly different according to the type of analgesia.
CONCLUSIONS
EA provided lower pain scores compared with PCA on the first postoperative day after pancreatoduodenectomy; the length of hospital stay and procedure-related complications were similar between EA and PCA. CWI and CTPVI provided similar pain relief to EA.
PubMed: 37510799
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144682 -
World Journal of Surgery Oct 2021This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) and impact on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS
MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases were searched using PRISMA framework. Primary outcomes included pain on postoperative day 2 and 4 and respiratory morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operation time, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatic fistula, length of stay, and opioid use.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and seven retrospective cohort studies (1313 patients) were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EDA) (n = 845), patient controlled analgesia (PCA) (n = 425) and transabdominal wound catheters (TAWC) (n = 43). EDA versus PCA following PD was compared in eight studies (1004 patients) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pain scores on day 2 (p = 0.19) and 4 (p = 0.18) and respiratory morbidity (p = 0.42) were comparable between EDA and PCA. Operative times, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, opioid use, and length of stay also were comparable between EDA and PCA. Pain scores and perioperative outcomes were comparable between EDA and PCA following DP and EDA and TAWC following PD.
CONCLUSIONS
EDA, PCA and TAWC are the most frequently used analgesic modalities in pancreatic surgery. Pain relief and other perioperative outcomes are comparable between them. Further larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the relative merits of each analgesic modality on postoperative outcomes with emphasis on postoperative complications.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34185150
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06217-x -
Trials Mar 2022Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which patient-centred outcomes are assessed and reported in studies in this population is unclear.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to assess the outcomes reported in studies involving critically ill burns patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the topics of fluid resuscitation, analgesia, haemodynamic monitoring, ventilation strategies, transfusion targets, enteral nutrition and timing of surgery were included. We assessed the outcomes reported and then classified these according to two suggested core outcome sets.
RESULTS
A comprehensive search returned 6154 studies; 98 papers met inclusion criteria. There were 66 RCTs, 19 clinical studies with concurrent controls and 13 interventional studies without concurrent controls. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across studies. Pain, reported using the visual analogue scale, fluid volume administered and mortality were the only outcomes measured in more than three studies. Sixty-six studies (67%) had surrogate primary outcomes. Follow-up was poor, with median longest follow-up across all studies 5 days (IQR 3-28). When compared to the suggested OMERACT core outcome set, 53% of papers reported on mortality, 28% reported on life impact, 30% reported resource/economic outcomes and 95% reported on pathophysiological manifestations. Burns-specific Falder outcome reporting was globally poor, with only 4.3% of outcomes being reported across the 98 papers.
CONCLUSION
There are deficiencies in the reporting of outcomes in the literature pertaining to the intensive care management of patients with severe burns, both with regard to the consistency of outcomes as well as a lack of focus on patient-centred outcomes. Long-term outcomes are infrequently reported. The development and validation of a core outcome dataset for severe burns would improve the quality of reporting.
Topics: Burns; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 35246209
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06104-3 -
Pain Aug 2023There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for the application of virtual reality (VR) in pain management, however, with varying effectiveness. Little is known about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for the application of virtual reality (VR) in pain management, however, with varying effectiveness. Little is known about patient-related and VR-related factors affecting efficacy of VR. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including 122 randomised controlled trials (9138 patients), reporting on subjectively reported pain scores comparing an immersive VR intervention to a non-VR control group. Virtual reality significantly reduced pain in the pooled analysis (standardized mean difference = -0.65, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.54, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences between type of pain, ie, VR effects were similar in acute, chronic, and procedural pain conditions. Univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of intervention, patient, and pain characteristics on VR. Virtual reality effectively reduced pain, especially in patients reporting moderate to severe pain and in younger subjects. Studies comparing VR with a control group receiving no distraction methods were associated with higher effect sizes. The effect of VR was not related to a specific frequency or duration of use. Type of software and interaction level were related to VR effects in the univariable, but not in the multivariable, meta-regression analysis. Heterogeneity was considerable for all meta-analyses, and risk of bias was moderate to high in most included studies. Studies on mechanisms behind VR analgesia in younger patients and patients reporting moderate to severe pain are recommended to confirm our hypotheses while taking into account risk of bias and the comparator. Optimal application of VR using treatment modules for long-term pain conditions are an important issue for future research.
Topics: Humans; Pain; Pain Management; Virtual Reality; Analgesia; Regression Analysis
PubMed: 36943251
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002883 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a...
BACKGROUND
As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias. The included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events. The study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL. We are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). The included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta. The quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals). There is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Job Satisfaction; Nerve Block; Pain, Procedural; Patient Satisfaction; Placenta, Retained; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32529658
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013013.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia. The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs. As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India. NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 μg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 μg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 μg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 μg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Male; Analgesics; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Apnea; Body Weight; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Ketamine; Pain; Pain, Procedural; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 37014033
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015179.pub2 -
Paediatric Anaesthesia Jan 2022Chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis can result in severe pain. Intravenous (IV) opioids are recommended, but management protocols vary. We systematically reviewed... (Review)
Review
Intravenous opioids for chemotherapy-induced severe mucositis pain in children: Systematic review and single-center case series of management with patient- or nurse-controlled analgesia (PCA/NCA).
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis can result in severe pain. Intravenous (IV) opioids are recommended, but management protocols vary. We systematically reviewed studies reporting IV opioid use for pain related to chemotherapy-induced severe oral mucositis in children and conducted a large single-center case series.
METHODS
Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting IV opioid duration and/or dose requirements for severe mucositis. Secondly, our pain service database was interrogated to describe episodes of opioid administration by patient- or nurse-controlled analgesia (PCA/NCA) for children with mucositis and cancer treatment-related pain.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (six randomized trials, two prospective observational, three retrospective cohort, six retrospective case series) included IV opioid in 618 patients (age 0.3-22.3 years), but reported parameters varied. Mucositis severity and chemotherapy indication influenced IV opioid requirements, with duration ranging from 3 to 68 days and variable dose trajectories (hourly morphine or equivalent 0-97 mcg/kg/h). Our 7-year series included PCA/NCA for 364 episodes of severe mucositis (302 patients; age 0.12-17.2 years). Duration ranged from 1 to 107 days and dose requirements in the first 3 days from 1 to 110 mcg/kg/h morphine. Longer PCA/NCA duration was associated with: higher initial morphine requirements (ρ = 0.46 [95% CI 0.35, 0.57]); subsequent increased pain and need for ketamine co-analgesia (118/364 episodes with opioid/ketamine 13.9 [9.8-22.2] days vs opioid alone 6.0 [3.9-10.8] days; median [IQR]); but not with age or sex.
CONCLUSIONS
Management of severe mucositis pain can require prolonged IV opioid therapy. Individual and treatment-related variability in analgesic requirements highlight the need for regular review, titration, and management by specialist services.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Morphine; Mucositis; Observational Studies as Topic; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Retrospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 34731511
DOI: 10.1111/pan.14324 -
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma,... May 2021Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide with about 5.8 million deaths globally and the leading cause of death in those aged 45 and younger. The...
BACKGROUND
Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide with about 5.8 million deaths globally and the leading cause of death in those aged 45 and younger. The pre-hospital phase of traumatic injury is particularly important as care received during this phase has effects on survival. The need for high quality clinical trials in this area has been recognised for several years as a key priority to improve the evidence base and, ultimately, clinical care in prehospital trauma. We aimed to systematically map the existing evidence base for pre-hospital trauma trials, to identify knowledge gaps and inform decisions about the future research agenda.
METHODS
A systematic mapping review was conducted first employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 23rd 2020) to identify randomised controlled trials within the pre-hospital trauma and injury setting. The evidence 'map' identified and described the characteristics of included studies and compared these studies against existing priorities for research. Narrative description of studies informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics was completed.
RESULTS
Twenty-three eligible studies, including 10,405 participants across 14 countries, were identified and included in the systematic map. No clear temporal or geographical trends in publications were identified. Studies were categorised into six broad categories based on intervention type with evaluations of fluid therapy and analgesia making up 60% of the included trials. Overall, studies were heterogenous with regard to individual interventions within categories and outcomes reported. There was poor reporting across several studies. No studies reported patient involvement in the design or conduct of the trials.
CONCLUSION
This mapping review has highlighted that evidence from trials in prehospital trauma is sparse and where trials have been completed, the reporting is generally poor and study designs sub-optimal. There is a continued need, and significant scope, for improvement in a setting where high quality evidence has great potential to make a demonstrable impact on care and outcomes.
Topics: Emergency Medical Services; Hospitals; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 34001219
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-021-00880-8 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia May 2024In labor, programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) can be defined as the bolus administration of epidural solution at scheduled time intervals. Compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Influence of different volumes and frequency of programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
In labor, programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) can be defined as the bolus administration of epidural solution at scheduled time intervals. Compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) with or without patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), PIEB has been associated with decreased pain scores and need for rescue analgesia and increased maternal satisfaction. The optimal volume and dosing interval of PIEB, however, has still not been determined.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022362708).
SETTINGS
Labor.
PATIENTS
Pregnant patients.
INTERVENTIONS
Central, CINAHL, Global Health, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials that examined pregnant patients in labor who received CEI or PIEB with or without a PCEA component. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, facilitating the indirect comparison of PIEB with different volumes and dosing intervals through the common comparator of CEI and substituting or supplementing direct comparisons with these indirect ones. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, 30 trials were included. For the first primary endpoint, need for rescue analgesia, PIEB delivered at a volume of 4 ml and frequency of 45 min (4/45) was inferior to PIEB 8/45 (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.12-11.33), PIEB 10/60 was superior to PIEB 2.5/15 (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16-0.82), PIEB 4/45 (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.71) and PIEB 5/60 (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.08-0.70), and PIEB 5/30 was not inferior to PIEB 10/60 (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.31-1.19). For the second primary endpoint, maternal satisfaction, no differences were present between the various PIEB regimens. The quality of evidence for these multiple primary endpoints was low owing to the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Importantly, PIEB 5/30 decreased the pain score at 4 h compared to PIEB 2.5/15 (MD 2.45; 95% CI 0.13-4.76), PIEB 5/60 (MD -2.28; 95% CI -4.18--0.38) and PIEB 10/60 (MD 1.73; 95% CI 0.31-3.16). Mean ranking of interventions demonstrated PIEB 10/60 followed by PIEB 5/30 to be best placed to reduce the cumulative dose of local anesthetic, and this resulted in an improved incidence of lower limb motor blockade for PIEB 10/60 in comparison to CEI (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.67). No differences in neonatal outcomes were found. Some concerns were present for the risk of bias in two thirds of trials and the risk of bias was shown to be high in the remaining one third of trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Future research should focus on PIEB 5/30 and PIEB 10/60 and how the method of analgesia initiation, nature and concentration of local anesthetic, design of epidural catheter and rate of administration might influence outcomes related to the mother and neonate.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Labor, Obstetric; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Pain; Analgesia, Obstetrical
PubMed: 38176084
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111364