Quality of Labor Analgesia with Dural Puncture Epidural versus Standard Epidural Technique in Obese Parturients: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: The dural puncture epidural technique may improve analgesia quality by confirming midline placement and increasing intrathecal translocation of epidural medications. This would be advantageous in obese parturients with increased risk of block failure. This study hypothesizes that quality of labor analgesia will be improved with dural puncture epidural compared to standard epidural technique in obese parturients. METHODS: Term parturients with body mass index greater than or equal to 35 kg · m-2, cervical dilation of 2 to 7 cm, and pain score of greater than 4 (where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst pain imaginable) were randomized to dural puncture epidural (using 25-gauge Whitacre needle) or standard epidural techniques. Analgesia was initiated with 15 ml of 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 µg · ml-1 fentanyl, followed by programed intermittent boluses (6 ml every 45 min), with patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Parturients were blinded to group allocation. The data were collected by blinded investigators every 3 min for 30 min and then every 2 h until delivery. The primary outcome was a composite of (1) asymmetrical block, (2) epidural top-ups, (3) catheter adjustments, (4) catheter replacement, and (5) failed conversion to regional anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to a pain score of 1 or less, sensory levels at 30 min, motor block, maximum pain score, patient-controlled epidural analgesia use, epidural medication consumption, duration of second stage of labor, delivery mode, fetal heart tones changes, Apgar scores, maternal adverse events, and satisfaction with analgesia. RESULTS: Of 141 parturients randomized, 66 per group were included in the analysis. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between the dural puncture epidural and standard epidural groups in the primary composite outcome (34 of 66, 52% vs. 32 of 66, 49%; odds ratio, 1.1 [0.5 to 2.4]; P = 0.766), its individual components, or any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of differences in quality of labor analgesia between the two techniques in this study does not support routine use of the dural puncture epidural technique in obese parturients.

Dexamethasone as an Analgesic Adjunct for Postcesarean Delivery Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Dexamethasone has been shown to have analgesic properties in the general surgical population. However, the analgesic effects for women that undergo cesarean deliveries under spinal anesthesia remain unclear and may be related to the timing of dexamethasone administration. We hypothesized that intravenous dexamethasone administered before skin incision would significantly reduce postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h after cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine. METHODS: Women undergoing elective cesarean deliveries under spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone or placebo prior to skin incision. Both groups received a standardized spinal anesthetic and multimodal postoperative analgesic regime. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included cumulative opioid consumption at 48 h, time to first analgesic request, and pain scores at rest and on movement at 2, 24, and 48 h. RESULTS: 47 patients were analyzed-23 subjects that received dexamethasone and 24 subjects that received placebo. There was no difference in the median (Q1, Q3) cumulative opioid consumption in the first 24 hours following cesarean delivery between the dexamethasone group {15 (7.5, 20.0) mg} and the placebo group {13.75 (2.5, 31.25) mg} (P=0.740). There were no differences between the groups in cumulative opioid consumption at 48 h, time to first analgesic request, and pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous dexamethasone 8 mg administered prior to skin incision did not reduce the opioid consumption of women that underwent cesarean deliveries under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine and multimodal postoperative analgesic regimen.

Placental uterine artery embolization followed by delayed hysterectomy for placenta percreta: A case series.

We describe outcomes of patients with suspected placenta percreta treated with placental uterine artery embolization (P-UAE) followed by delayed hysterectomy. This is a prospective case series of subjects from 2005 to 2018 with suspected placenta percreta who underwent P-UAE at the time of cesarean delivery followed by delayed hysterectomy. Both scheduled and unscheduled surgical cases were included. Maternal characteristics, surgical approaches, intra- and postoperative outcomes were abstracted from medical records. In total, twenty-two subjects were included. Median (interquartile range, IQR) delivery gestational age was 34.6 (31.9, 35.7) weeks, occurring as scheduled in 17 (77.3%) subjects and unscheduled in 5 (22.7%). Delayed hysterectomy was performed as scheduled in 17 (77.3%) subjects at a median (IQR) 40.5 (38.0, 44.0) days after delivery, and 5 (22.7%) subjects had a hysterectomy prior to scheduled date, median (IQR) 27.0 (17.0, 35.0) days after delivery. Indications for the 5 unscheduled hysterectomies included bleeding (n = 3) and suspected endometritis (n = 2). Three subjects (13.6%) received a blood transfusion (1, 3, 3 units) during delivery, and 7 (31.8%) were transfused during delayed hysterectomy (median [IQR] 2 [1,3] units). Three (13.6%) subjects had bladder resection at the time of hysterectomy; 1 (4.5%) had an unintentional cystotomy and 1 (4.5%) had a ureteral injury. P-UAE followed by delayed hysterectomy appears to be a safe and feasible, although appropriate patient selection and close surveillance are imperative, as 22.7% of patients underwent unscheduled hysterectomy.

Comparison of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses With Continuous Epidural Infusion for the Maintenance of Labor Analgesia: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Programmed intermittent epidural boluses may improve the spread of local anesthetics compared to continuous epidural infusion, improving labor analgesia and obstetric outcomes. However, there are limited data from studies using commercially available pumps capable of coadministering programmed intermittent epidural boluses or continuous epidural infusion with patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Therefore, we performed this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the impact of programmed intermittent epidural boluses versus continuous epidural infusion on labor analgesia and maternal/neonatal outcomes. We hypothesized that programmed intermittent epidural boluses will result in lower patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption compared to that with continuous epidural infusion. METHODS: Following standardized initiation of epidural labor analgesia, women were randomized to receive 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 µg/mL fentanyl as 6-mL programmed intermittent epidural boluses every 45 minutes or continuous epidural infusion at 8 mL/h in a double-blind fashion with similar patient-controlled epidural analgesia settings in both groups. The primary outcome was patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption per hour. Secondary outcomes included a need for physician interventions, patterns of patient-controlled epidural analgesia use, motor blockade, number of patients who developed hypotension, pain scores, duration of second stage of labor, mode of delivery, and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: We included 120 patients (61 in programmed intermittent epidural boluses group and 59 in continuous epidural infusion group) in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia volume consumed per hour was not significantly different between the groups: 4.5 mL/h (3.0-8.6 mL/h) for the continuous epidural infusion group and 4.0 mL/h (2.2-7.1 mL/h) for the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group (P = .17). The Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate of the difference (95% CI) from the continuous epidural infusion to the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group is 0.9 mL/h (-0.4 to 2.2 mL/h). There were also no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes except for higher median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia attempts per given ratio per hour in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group (0.17 [0.10-0.30] vs 0.12 [0.08-0.18]; P = .03) and more motor block in the continuous epidural infusion group (those with Bromage score <5, 27.5% vs 50.0%; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of our study, we did not find improved outcomes with programmed intermittent epidural boluses compared to continuous epidural infusion except for less motor block with programmed intermittent epidural boluses. Future studies should assess whether smaller but clinically important differences exist and evaluate different parameters of programmed intermittent epidural boluses to optimize analgesia and outcomes with this mode of analgesia.