-
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Feb 2024Rib fractures (RF) are common injuries. Multiple analgesia strategies are available for treatment of pain associated with RF. However, the optimal multimodal technique... (Review)
Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Rib fractures (RF) are common injuries. Multiple analgesia strategies are available for treatment of pain associated with RF. However, the optimal multimodal technique for pain management is not known. The primary aim of this review was to evaluate the status of evidence derived from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of pain management modalities for rib fracture pain. Other patient-centered outcomes were secondary objectives.
METHODS
Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The screening process involved two phases, two researchers independently screened the title and abstract and subsequently screened full text. RCT data were extracted independently by two research team members. Consensus was achieved by comparison and discussion when needed. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.
RESULTS
A total of 1344 citations were identified. Title and abstract screening excluded 1128 citations, and full text review excluded 177 articles. A total of 32 RCTs were included in the full review. Multiple analgesia techniques and medications were identified and their effect on pain score and need for rescue opioid analgesia. None of the included studies were judged to have a high risk of bias, while only 10 studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found that studies are of low quality with diverse methodologies and outcomes. A reduction in pain scores was found for epidural analgesia when compared with other modalities. However, the low quality of the evidence necessitates cautious interpretation of this finding. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376298 (Nov, 16, 2022).
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Rib Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesia, Epidural; Pain
PubMed: 37883901
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111276 -
Pain Apr 2024Procedural anxiety and pain negatively affect surgical outcomes and the patient experience during awake, invasive procedures (AIPs). This systematic review aims to...
Procedural anxiety and pain negatively affect surgical outcomes and the patient experience during awake, invasive procedures (AIPs). This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of using virtual reality (VR) to enhance the intraprocedural patient experience during AIPs. PRISMA, Cochrane, and SWiM Reporting Items guidelines were followed. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and medRxiv databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of immersive VR headsets to enhance the patient experience in adults undergoing AIPs. Sixteen studies were included. The VR and control groups comprised 685 and 677 patients, respectively. Patients underwent endoscopic procedures in 9 studies ("endoscopic") and interventions that involved a skin incision in 7 studies ("incision"). Eleven (of 13) studies demonstrated a favourable effect on procedural anxiety with VR use compared with standard intraprocedural care (85% [95% CI: 46%-100%], P = 0.011). Ten (of 13) studies demonstrated a favourable effect on pain with VR use (77% [95% CI: 38%-100%], P = 0.046). Seven (of 9) studies demonstrated a favourable VR effect on patient satisfaction (78% (95% CI: 44%-100%), P = 0.070). The effect of VR on physiological markers of anxiety and pain and requirements for additional pro re nata (PRN) analgesia and sedation were not clear. No significant differences in patient experience were identified between the "incision" and "endoscopic" subgroups. This review demonstrates that VR can feasibly be used to enhance the patient experience during AIPs by attenuating subjective perceptions of procedural anxiety and pain. However, further RCTs are required to elucidate the effect of VR on more objective measures of the patient experience.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Wakefulness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Virtual Reality; Pain; Patient Outcome Assessment
PubMed: 37870233
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003086 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life within three to six months. It is, however, acutely associated with pain, local oedema and blood loss. Post-operative management may include cryotherapy. This is the application of low temperatures to the skin surrounding the surgical site, through ice or cooled water, often delivered using specialised devices. This is an update of a review published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of cryotherapy in the acute phase after TKR (within 48 hours after surgery) on blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, range of motion, knee function, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, as well as reference lists, related links and conference proceedings on 27 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing cryotherapy with or without other treatments (such as compression, regional nerve block or continuous passive motion) to no treatment, or the other treatment alone, following TKR for osteoarthritis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We discussed any disagreements and consulted another review author to resolve them, if required. Major outcomes were blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, knee range of motion, knee function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. Minor outcomes were analgesia use, knee swelling, length of stay, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 trials (20 randomised trials and two controlled clinical trials), with 1839 total participants. The mean ages reflected the TKR population, ranging from 64 to 74 years. Cryotherapy with compression was compared to no treatment in four studies, and to compression alone in nine studies. Cryotherapy without compression was compared to no treatment in eight studies. One study compared cryotherapy without compression to control with compression alone. We combined all control interventions in the primary analysis. Certainty of evidence was low for blood loss (downgraded for bias and inconsistency), pain (downgraded twice for bias) and range of motion (downgraded for bias and indirectness). It was very low for transfusion rate (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision), function (downgraded twice for bias and once for inconsistency), total adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision) and withdrawals from adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision). The nature of cryotherapy made blinding difficult and most studies had a high risk of performance and detection bias. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials (956 participants) shows that cryotherapy may reduce blood loss at one to 13 days after surgery. Blood loss was 825 mL with no cryotherapy and 561 mL with cryotherapy: mean difference (MD) 264 mL less (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 mL less to 516 mL less). Low-certainty evidence from six trials (530 participants) shows that cryotherapy may slightly improve pain at 48 hours on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (lower scores indicate less pain). Pain was 4.8 points with no cryotherapy and 3.16 points with cryotherapy: MD 1.6 points lower (95% CI 2.3 lower to 1.0 lower). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate at zero to 13 days after surgery. The transfusion rate was 37% with no cryotherapy and 79% with cryotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 109.63; 2 trials, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three trials (174 participants) indicates cryotherapy may improve range of motion at discharge: it was 62.9 degrees with no cryotherapy and 71.2 degrees with cryotherapy: MD 8.3 degrees greater (95% CI 3.6 degrees more to 13.1 degrees more). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves function two weeks after surgery. Function was 75.4 points on the 0- to 100-point Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scale (lower score indicates worse function) in the control group and 88.6 points with cryotherapy (MD 13.2 points better, 95% CI 0.5 worse to 27.1 improved; 4 trials, 296 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces total adverse events: the risk ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.20; 16 trials, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included discomfort, local skin reactions, superficial infections, cold-induced injuries and thrombolytic events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces withdrawals from adverse events (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 17.38; 19 trials, 1347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No significant benefit was found for secondary outcomes of analgesia use, length of stay, activity level or quality of life. Evidence from seven studies (403 participants) showed improved mid-patella swelling between two and six days after surgery (MD 7.32 mm less, 95% CI 11.79 to 2.84 lower), though not at six weeks and three months after surgery. The included studies did not assess participant-reported global assessment of success.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence was low for blood loss, pain and range of motion, and very low for transfusion rate, function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate, function, total adverse events or withdrawals from adverse events. We downgraded evidence for bias, indirectness, imprecision and inconsistency. Hence, the potential benefits of cryotherapy on blood loss, pain and range of motion may be too small to justify its use. More well-designed randomised controlled trials focusing especially on clinically meaningful outcomes, such as blood transfusion, and patient-reported outcomes, such as knee function, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success, are required.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Quality of Life; Cryotherapy; Knee Joint; Pain
PubMed: 37706609
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007911.pub3 -
Pain Physician Jul 2023Intrathecal opioids have long been used as analgesia for intractable cancer pain or as part of spinal anesthesia during obstetric operations. More recently, they have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intrathecal opioids have long been used as analgesia for intractable cancer pain or as part of spinal anesthesia during obstetric operations. More recently, they have been used preoperatively as a pain management adjuvant for open cardiac and thoracic procedures.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to analyze the impact of administering intrathecal opioids before cardiac and thoracic surgeries on postoperative pain and mechanical ventilation.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
University, School of Medicine, and several university-affiliated hospitals.
METHODS
Five outcomes were studied, including the primary outcome of time to extubation, secondary outcomes of analgesia requirements at 24 and 48 hours, resting pain scores at 1 and 24 hours post-extubation, ICU length of stay in hours, and hospital length of stay in days. A search of multiple databases provided 28 studies reporting 4,000 total patients. Outcomes were measured using continuous mean difference with a 95% confidence interval, and the studies were examined for heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
The primary outcome analysis suggested that time to extubation was 42 minutes shorter in the intrathecal opioid group (ranging from 82 to 1 minute, P = 0.04). There was also a decrease in postoperative analgesia requirements at both 24 hours (mean difference (MD) = -8.95 mg morphine equivalent doses (MED) [-9.4, -8.5], P < 0.001) and 48 hours (MD = -17.7 mg MED [-23.1, -12.4], P < 0.001) with I2 of 94% and 85% respectively, an improvement of pain scores at both 1 hour (MD = -2.24 [-3.16, -1.32], P < 0.001) and 24-hours (MD = -1.64 [-2.48, -0.80], P =< 0.001) I2 of 94% and 85%, no change in both ICU length of stay (MD = -0.27 hours [-0.55, 0.01], P = 0.06) I2 = 77% and hospital length of stay (MD = -0.30 days [-0.66, 0.06], P = 0.11) I2 = 32%.
LIMITATIONS
The major limitation of this meta-analysis was the inconsistent dosages of intrathecal opioids utilized. Some used the same dose for each patient, while other studies used weight-based doses. The differences in the outcomes observed may then be a result of the different amounts of opioids administered rather than the technique itself. Another limitation was the inconsistent timing of reports for pain scores and postoperative analgesic requirements. Further studies were analyzed at the 2 time periods for both secondary outcomes, making it difficult to attribute the 2 effects solely to the intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that preoperative injection of intrathecal opioids is significantly associated with decreased time to extubation, decreased postoperative analgesia requirement, and improved pain scores. In controlled conditions with adequate staff education, this method of analgesia may make it possible to extubate the patients after the surgery in the operating room and fast-track their discharge from the hospital.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Injections, Spinal; Morphine; Coronary Artery Bypass; Pain, Postoperative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37535770
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Dec 2023Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCA for the management of adults with acute traumatic pain in the ED. The hypothesis was that PCA can effectively treat acute trauma pain in adults in the ED, with minimal adverse outcomes and better patient satisfaction compared with non-PCA modalities.
METHODS
MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from inception date to December 13, 2022. Randomized controlled trials involving adults presenting to the ED with acute traumatic pain who received intravenous (IV) analgesia via PCA compared with other modalities were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to assess the quality of included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 1,368 publications were screened, with 3 studies involving 382 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. All three studies compared PCA IV morphine with clinician-titrated IV morphine boluses. For the primary outcome of pain relief, the pooled estimate was in favor of PCA with a standard mean difference of -0.36 (95% confidence interval, -0.87 to 0.16). There were mixed results concerning patient satisfaction. Adverse event rates were low overall. The evidence from all three studies was graded as low-quality because of a high risk of bias from lack of blinding.
CONCLUSION
This study did not demonstrate a significant improvement in pain relief or patient satisfaction using PCA for trauma in the ED. Clinicians wishing to use PCA to treat acute trauma pain in adult patients in the ED are advised to consider the available resources in their own practice settings and to implement protocols for monitoring and responding to potential adverse events.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review/Meta-Analyses; Level III.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Pain Management; Acute Pain; Emergency Service, Hospital; Morphine
PubMed: 37335181
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004004 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Aug 2023To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this setting.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase and The Cochrane Library from inception until September 21st 2022. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included when they reported on clinical outcomes of gynecologic procedures under procedural sedation and analgesia in which propofol was used as an anesthetic. Studies were excluded when sedation without propofol was used, when they only mentioned the use of procedural sedation and analgesia but did not describe any clinical outcome parameters or when < 10 patients were included. The primary outcome parameter was completeness of procedure. Secondary outcome parameters were type of gynecologic procedure, intraoperative complication rate, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, duration of hospital admission, patient's discomfort and ease of procedure as judged by the surgeon. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for bias assessment. A narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies was provided. Numbers and percentages were presented, as well as means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile range where applicable.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included. A total of 914 patients underwent gynecologic surgical procedures with procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol. Gynecological procedures varied from hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The percentage of complete procedures was 89.8%-100%. Complications occurred in 0-6.5% of patients. Other outcomes were measured in various ways, but overall patient satisfaction was high and postoperative pain was low.
CONCLUSION
The use of PSA with propofol is promising for a wide range of gynecologic procedures, including hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The use of PSA with propofol seems to be effective and safe and leads to high degree of patient satisfaction. More research is needed in order to determine for which types of procedures PSA can be used.
Topics: Humans; Female; Propofol; Uterine Prolapse; Analgesia; Pain, Postoperative; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37327552
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.035 -
Pain and Therapy Aug 2023Renal colic is one of the most common urological emergencies, and is usually caused by ureteral colic spasms. Pain management in renal colic remains the central focus of...
INTRODUCTION
Renal colic is one of the most common urological emergencies, and is usually caused by ureteral colic spasms. Pain management in renal colic remains the central focus of emergency treatment. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to identify the efficacy and safety of ketamine versus opioids in the treatment of patients with renal colic.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that referred to the use of ketamine and opioids for patients with renal colic. The methodology was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to analyze the data. The results were pooled using a fixed-effects model or random-effects model. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported pain scores 5, 15, 30, and 60 min after drug administration. The secondary outcome measure was side effects.
RESULTS
The data analysis revealed that ketamine was similar to opioids in pain intensity at the time of 5 min post-dose (MD = - 0.40, 95% CI - 1.82 to 1.01, P = 0.57), 15 min post-dose (MD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.52, P = 0.67), 30 min post-dose (MD = 0.38, 95% CI - 0.25 to 1.01, P = 0.24). Also, the pain score of ketamine was better than that of opioids at 60 min after administration (MD = - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.22 to - 0.02, P = 0.02). As for safety, the ketamine group was linked to a significant decrease in the incidence of hypotensive (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.65, P = 0.02). The two groups did not statistically differ in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with opioids, ketamine showed a longer duration of analgesia in renal colic, with satisfactory safety.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022355246.
PubMed: 37284927
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-023-00530-0 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong... 2023Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with clinical efficacy in chronic pain conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with clinical efficacy in chronic pain conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate the analgesic effect and safety of duloxetine in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic search was completed on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase from inception to December 2022 to find relevant articles. We used Cochrane methodology to evaluate the bias of included studies. Investigated outcomes included postoperative pain, opioid consumption, adverse events (AEs), range of motion (ROM), emotional and physical function, patient satisfaction, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), knee-specific outcomes, wound complications, skin temperature, inflammatory markers, length of stay, and incidence of manipulations. Nine articles involving 942 participants were included in our systematic review. Out of nine papers, eight were randomized clinical trials and one was a retrospective study. The results of these studies indicated the analgesic effect of duloxetine on postoperative pain, which was measured using numeric rating scale and visual analogue scale. Deluxetine was also effective in reducing the morphine requirement and wound complications and enhancing patient satisfaction after surgery. However, the results on ROM, PCA, and knee-specific outcomes were contraventional. Deluxetine was generally safe without serious AEs. The most common AEs included headache, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and constipation. Duloxetine may be an effective treatment option for postoperative pain following TKA, but further rigorously designed and well-controlled randomized trials are required.
Topics: Humans; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Retrospective Studies; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37279647
DOI: 10.1177/10225536231177482 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Epidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting in sensory blockade of the abdomen, pelvis, and perineum. Epidural opioids are often co-administered to improve analgesia. Administration of epidural medications can be accomplished by basal infusion (BI) or automated mandatory bolus (AMB). With BI, medications are administered continuously, while AMB involves injecting medications at set time intervals. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on top of AMB or BI enables patients to initiate additional boluses of epidural medications. The superior method of delivering epidural medications would result in lower incidence of pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention (breakthrough pain). Also, it should be associated with lower incidence of epidural-related adverse effects including caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery (use of forceps or vacuum devices), prolonged duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, clear evidence of the superiority of one technique over the other is lacking. Also, differences in the initiation of epidural analgesia such as combined spinal-epidural (CSE) (medications given into the intrathecal space in addition to the epidural space) compared to epidural only, and medications used (types and doses of LA or opioids) may not have been accounted for in previous reviews. Our prior systematic review suggested that AMB reduces the incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI with no significant difference in the incidence of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, several studies comparing AMB and BI have been performed since then, and inclusion of their data may improve the precision of our effect estimates.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of AMB versus BI for maintaining labour epidural analgesia in women at term.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, Wiley Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, (National Library of Medicine), Embase(Elseiver), Web of Science (Clarivate), the WHO-ICTRP (World Health Organization) and ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine) on 31 December 2022. Additionally, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews for eligible citations, and we contacted authors of included studies to identify unpublished research and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled studies that compared bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI during epidural analgesia. We excluded studies of women in preterm labour, with multiple pregnancies, with fetal malposition, intrathecal catheters, those that did not use automated delivery of medications, and those where AMB and BI were combined.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis described by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included: incidence of breakthrough pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention; incidence of caesarean delivery; and incidence of instrumental delivery. Secondly, we assessed the duration of labour; hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents, maternal satisfaction after fetal delivery, and neonatal Apgar scores. The following subgroup analyses were chosen a priori: epidural alone versus CSE technique; regimens that used PCEA versus those that did not; and nulliparous versus combination of nulli- and multi-parous women. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence associated with our outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies of 4590 women, of which 13 enrolled healthy nulliparous women and five included healthy nulli- and multiparous women. All studies excluded women with preterm or complicated pregnancies. Techniques used to initiate epidural analgesia differed between the studies: seven used combined spinal epidural, 10 used epidural, and one used dural puncture epidural (DPE). There was also variation in analgesics used. Eight studies utilised ropivacaine with fentanyl, three used ropivacaine with sufentanil, two utilised levobupivacaine with sufentanil, one used levobupivacaine with fentanyl, and four utilised bupivacaine with fentanyl. Most of the studies were assessed to have low risk of randomisation, blinding, attrition, and reporting biases, except for allocation concealment where eight studies were assessed to have uncertain risk and three with high risk. Our results showed that AMB was associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.91; I = 57%) (16 studies, 1528 participants), and lower hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents (mean difference (MD) -0.84 mg/h; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.38, I = 87%) (16 studies, 1642 participants), both with moderate certainty. AMB was associated with an estimated reduction in breakthrough pain incidence of 29.1% (incidence 202 per 1000, 95% CI 157 to 259), and was therefore considered clinically significant. The incidence of caesarean delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; I = 0%) (16 studies, 1735 participants) and instrumental delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; I = 0%) (17 studies, 4550 participants) were not significantly, both with moderate certainty. There was no significant difference in duration of labour analgesia (MD -8.81 min; 95% CI -19.38 to 1.77; I = 50%) (17 studies, 4544 participants) with moderate certainty. Due to differences in the methods and timing of outcome measurements, we did not pool data for maternal satisfaction and Apgar scores. Results reported narratively suggest AMB may be associated with increased maternal satisfaction (eight studies reported increased satisfaction and six reported no difference), and all studies showed no difference in Apgar scores. WIth the exception of epidural alone versus CSE which found significant subgroup differences in LA consumption between AMB and BI, no significant differences were detected in the remaining subgroup analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, AMB is associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain, reduced LA consumption, and may improve maternal satisfaction. There were no significant differences between AMB and BI in the incidence of caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and Apgar scores. Larger studies assessing the incidence of caesarean and instrumental delivery are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Breakthrough Pain; Levobupivacaine; Ropivacaine; Sufentanil; United States
PubMed: 37276327
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011344.pub3