Practical recommendations in the obstetrical patient with a COVID-19 infection. / Recomendaciones prácticas en la paciente obstétrica con infección por COVID-19.

COVID-19 infection also affects obstetric patients. Regular obstetric care has continued despite the pandemic. Case series of obstetric patients have been published. Neuroaxial techniques appear to be safe and it is important to obtain the highest possible rate of success of the blocks before a cesarean section. For this reason, it is recommended that the blocks be carried out by senior anesthesiologists. The protection and safety of professionals is a key point and in case of general anesthesia, so it is also recommended to call to the most expert anesthesiologist. Seriously ill patients should be recognized quickly and early, in order to provide them with the appropriate treatment as soon as possible. Susceptibility to thrombosis makes prophylactic anticoagulation a priority.

Safety guideline: neurological monitoring associated with obstetric neuraxial block 2020: A joint guideline by the Association of Anaesthetists and the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association.

Serious neurological lesions such as vertebral canal haematoma are rare after obstetric regional analgesia/anaesthesia, but early detection may be crucial to avoid permanent damage. This may be hampered by the variable and sometimes prolonged recovery following 'normal' neuraxial block, such that an underlying lesion may easily be missed. These guidelines make recommendations for the monitoring of recovery from obstetric neuraxial block, and escalation should recovery be delayed or new symptoms develop, with the aim of preventing serious neurological morbidity.

Eve's Curse: Intolerable Unrelieved Pain in Labour - Necessary Evil or Medical Negligence?

For most prospective mothers, pain in childbirth is their greatest fear. However, intolerable labour pain should no longer be accepted by the health professions. Without adequate pain control in labour fetal damage can be significant. Moreover, if relief from pain is a fundamental human right then surely standards of good obstetric care should include a definition of adequate pain relief in labour and obstetricians should pay due attention to alleviating that pain. At present actions in tort focus on poor medical management of injuries or diseases. Pain and suffering are generally a secondary consequence of that negligence although in the tort of negligence pain can constitute damage. However, it is argued that failure to address pain adequately as a primary issue should be considered medical malpractice or at least unsatisfactory professional performance if there is proof of failure to exercise reasonable care. The possibilities for untreated labour pain to be deemed medical negligence could include maternal post-traumatic stress disorder, fetal brain injury resulting from maternal acidosis and utero-placental hypo-perfusion or even negligent infliction of mental harm on the family members witnessing their family relative in intolerable pain. In this article the nature of labour pain and its fetal effects will be discussed. Effective pain control in labour should be good medicine as well as humane treatment.

Epidural test dose in obstetric patients: should we still use it?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As the application of a test dose after epidural catheter insertion in obstetrics has recurrently been associated with serious adverse events affecting both maternal and foetal outcomes, the question whether to test or not remains a controversial issue. RECENT FINDINGS: Present guidelines do not provide clear recommendations in this regard and several recent surveys indicate a heterogeneity in clinical routine. SUMMARY: Physiological alterations during pregnancy and labour restrict the use and also the validity of traditional test agents. Epinephrine is not appropriate to detect a vascular insertion in labour and the application of a local anaesthetic test dose may lead to dose-dependent fatal consequences should the catheter be intrathecal, due to an increased sensitivity in parturients. Given the current practice of opioid-amended-low-concentration epidurals, the waiving of a test dose results at worst in a failed epidural, a stark contrast to the potentially severe to fatal complications of a 'traditional' test dose. Hence, an originally preventive measure providing potentially more harm than the consequences of the situation aimed to prevent, should not be recommended. A simple fractionated administration of the initial analgesic dose seems reasonable though.

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 209: Obstetric Analgesia and Anesthesia.

Labor causes severe pain for many women. There is no other circumstance in which it is considered acceptable for an individual to experience untreated severe pain that is amenable to safe intervention while the individual is under a physician's care. Many women desire pain management during labor and delivery, and there are many medical indications for analgesia and anesthesia during labor and delivery. In the absence of a medical contraindication, maternal request is a sufficient medical indication for pain relief during labor. A woman who requests epidural analgesia during labor should not be deprived of this service based on the status of her health insurance. Third-party payers that provide reimbursement for obstetric services should not deny reimbursement for labor analgesia because of an absence of "other medical indications." Anesthesia services should be available to provide labor analgesia and surgical anesthesia in all hospitals that offer maternal care (levels I-IV) (). Although the availability of different methods of labor analgesia will vary from hospital to hospital, the methods available within an institution should not be based on a patient's ability to pay.The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists believes that in order to allow the maximum number of patients to benefit from neuraxial analgesia, labor nurses should not be restricted from participating in the management of pain relief during labor. Under appropriate physician supervision, labor and delivery nursing personnel who have been educated properly and have demonstrated current competence should be able to participate in the management of epidural infusions.The purpose of this document is to review medical options for analgesia during labor and anesthesia for surgical procedures that are common at the time of delivery. Nonpharmacologic options such as massage, immersion in water during the first stage of labor, acupuncture, relaxation, and hypnotherapy are not covered in this document, although they may be useful as adjuncts or alternatives in many cases.

Development and validation of a predictive risk factor model for epidural re-siting in women undergoing labour epidural analgesia: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Epidural catheter re-siting in parturients receiving labour epidural analgesia is distressing to the parturient and places them at increased complications from a repeat procedure. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a clinical risk factor model to predict the incidence of epidural catheter re-siting in labour analgesia. METHODS: The data from parturients that received labour epidural analgesia in our centre during 2014-2015 was used to develop a predictive model for epidural catheter re-siting during labour analgesia. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors that were predictive of epidural catheter re-siting. The forward, backward and stepwise variable selection methods were applied to build a predictive model, which was internally validated. The final multivariate model was externally validated with the data collected from 10,170 parturients during 2012-2013 in our centre. RESULTS: Ninety-three (0.88%) parturients in 2014-2015 required re-siting of their epidural catheter. The training data set included 7439 paturients in 2014-2015. A higher incidence of breakthrough pain (OR = 4.42), increasing age (OR = 1.07), an increased pain score post-epidural catheter insertion (OR = 1.35) and problems such as inability to obtain cerebrospinal fluid in combined spinal epidural technique (OR = 2.06) and venous puncture (OR = 1.70) were found to be significantly predictive of epidural catheter re-siting, while spontaneous onset of labour (OR = 0.31) was found to be protective. The predictive model was validated internally on a further 3189 paturients from the data of 2014-2015 and externally on 10,170 paturients from the data of 2012-2013. Predictive accuracy of the model based on C-statistic were 0.89 (0.86, 0.93) and 0.92 (0.88, 0.97) for training and internal validation data respectively. Similarly, predictive accuracy in terms of C-statistic was 0.89 (0.86, 0.92) based on 2012-2013 data. CONCLUSION: Our predictive model of epidural re-siting in parturients receiving labour epidural analgesia could provide timely identification of high-risk paturients required epidural re-siting.

Intravenous Remifentanil Analgaesia for an Obstetric Patient with Type I Neurofibromatosis and a Factor V Leiden Mutation.

Type I neurofibromatosis is characterised by altered skin pigmentation and the growth of benign tumours, particularly along the peripheral nerves and central nervous system. We report a 36-year-old primigravida woman in labour who was admitted to the obstetric suite of the Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain, in 2007 with hypothyroidism, type I neurofibromatosis and a factor V Leiden mutation. Due to a lack of cranial and spinal imaging data, an epidural was not indicated; instead, continuous intravenous remifentanil analgaesia was administered. The remifentanil infusion was self-titrated by the patient using a visual analogue scale, with the dosage ranging from 0.01 to 0.25 µg/kg/minute. Due to rotational dystocia, Kjelland-type forceps were used during the delivery. After birth, the infant was found to have Apgar scores of 9 and 10, with no maternal or neonatal adverse effects observed. Although still controversial, remifentanil may be a successful alternative for analgaesia in similar cases; however, the specific risks and benefits for each patient should be considered prior to administration.

[Post-partum management after cesarean delivery. Guidelines for clinical practice]. / Césarienne et post-partum. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique.

OBJECTIVE: To determine guidelines for post-partum management after cesarean delivery regarding patient monitoring, organization, postoperative analgesia, time of urinary catheter removal, resumption of feeding and drinking, timing of ambulation, indication and modalities of thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: The PubMed database, the Cochrane Library and the recommendations from the French and foreign obstetrical societies or colleges have been consulted. RESULTS: Immediate postoperative monitoring after caesarean delivery should be performed in the recovery room, but in exceptional circumstances, it may be performed in the delivery unit provided safety rules are maintained and regulatory authorities are informed (professional consensus). Specific surveillance including emergency call procedures must be performed (professional consensus). Systematic blood count performed immediately after cesarean delivery is not recommended in the general population (professional consensus). An analgesic protocol developed by the medical team should be available for each patient (professional consensus). An indwelling bladder catheter should be inserted before and maintained during surgery (professional consensus). The bladder catheter should be preferentially removed in the first 12 hours after cesarean delivery (professional consensus). It is recommended to check that spontaneous voiding has occurred in the 4-6 hours after the removal of the bladder catheter. The physician in charge should be alerted if the patient has failed to void within 6 hours after catheter removal (grade C). Early ambulation on day 1 (or earlier from the 6th to 8th hour) with help is advised and encouraged (professional consensus). Early feeding and drinking after elective or emergency cesarean delivery, performed under regional or general anesthesia, is recommended (grade A). Administration of a prophylactic treatment using two antiemetic medications is recommended during cesarean delivery (grade B). For every cesarean delivery, thromboprophylaxis with elastic stockings applied on the morning of the surgery and kept for at least 7 postoperative days is recommended (professional consensus) with or without the addition of LMWH according to the presence or not of additional risk factors, and depending on the risk factor (major, minor). In obese patient, LMWH dose needs to be weight-adapted (grade C). CONCLUSION: Harmonization of care according to these recommendations is expected to enhance recovery after cesarean delivery.

Valoración de la información educacional sobre analgesia obstétrica recibida en el tercer trimestre de gestación / Assessment of patient-education on obstetric epidural analgesia received in the third quarter of pregnancy

No disponible

Large Heterogeneity in Mean Durations of Labor Analgesia Among Hospitals Reporting to the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Anesthesia Quality Institute.

BACKGROUND: Variability in the mean durations of labor analgesia for vaginal delivery among hospitals is unknown. Such differences in means among hospitals would influence appropriate equitable fee-for-service payment to US anesthesia groups. Equitable payment is the foundational principle of relative value unit payment, which, for anesthesia in the United States, means use of the American Society of Anesthesiologist's Relative Value Guide. METHODS: We analyzed data from the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Anesthesia Quality Institute to test whether there are large differences in mean durations of labor analgesia for vaginal delivery among US hospitals. We choose the statistical methodology for that analysis using detailed data from 2 individual hospitals. Analyses of the means were performed for the 172 hospitals reporting a total of at least 200 durations; having no greater than 5.0% of durations 1.0 hour or less; and at least 5 four-week periods each having a mean of at least one epidural every couple of days. The 172 hospitals provided for n = 5671 combinations of hospital and 4-week period and 551,707 labor epidurals, with an overall mean duration of 6.12 hours (SE, 0.001 hour). RESULTS: 55.2% of the 172 hospitals had mean durations of labor analgesia for vaginal delivery that each differed (P < 0.001) from the overall mean. Among those 55.2% were the 9.9% of hospitals with means ≤5.12 hours. Those mean durations on the low end ranged from 2.68 (SE, 0.17) to 5.10 (SE, 0.07) hours. Also, among the 55.2% were the 12.2% of hospitals with means ≥7.12 hours. Those mean durations at the high end ranged from 7.13 (SE, 0.08) to 12.03 (SE, 0.23) hours. The heterogeneity in the mean durations among hospitals would have been greater had the inclusion criteria not been applied. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the number of labor epidurals alone is not a valid measure to quantify obstetrical anesthesia productivity. In addition, payment to US anesthesia groups for labor analgesia based solely on the number of labor epidurals initiated is not equitable. Previous work showed lack of validity and equality of payment based on face-to-face time with the patient (i.e., like a surgical anesthetic). The use of base and time units, with one time unit per hour, is a suitable payment system.

Documenting risk: A comparison of policy and information pamphlets for using epidural or water in labour.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of Australian women use epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour, and its use is increasing. While epidural analgesia is considered a safe option from an anaesthetic point of view, its use transfers a labouring woman out of the category of 'normal' labour and increases her risk of intervention. Judicious use of epidural may be beneficial in particular situations, but its current common use needs to be assessed more closely. This has not yet been explored in the Australian context. AIM: To examine personal, social, institutional and cultural influences on women in their decision to use epidural analgesia in labour. Examining this one event in depth illuminates other birth practices, which can also be analysed according to how they fit within prevailing cultural beliefs about birth. METHODS: Ethnography, underpinned by a critical medical anthropology methodology. RESULTS: These findings describe the influence of risk culture on labour ward practice; specifically, the policies and practices surrounding the use of epidural analgesia are contrasted with those on the use of water. Engaging with current risk theory, we identify the role of power in conceptualisations of risk, which are commonly perpetuated by authority rather than evidence. CONCLUSIONS: As we move towards a risk-driven society, it is vital to identify both the conception and the consequences of promulgations of risk. The construction of waterbirth as a 'risky' practice had the effect of limiting midwifery practice and women's choices, despite evidence that points to the epidural as the more 'dangerous' option.

Quality of labour neuraxial analgesia and maternal satisfaction at a tertiary care teaching hospital: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Current labour analgesia practices are evidence-based; however, such evidence often originates in controlled trials, the results of which may not be readily applicable in the context of day-to-day clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of and maternal satisfaction with the neuraxial labour analgesia regimen provided at a tertiary care teaching hospital. METHODS: All women with a viable pregnancy who requested neuraxial analgesia for labour during November 2011 at our institution were approached to participate in this prospective study. Patients were managed as per departmental routine based on a patient-controlled epidural analgesia regimen with a maintenance solution of 0.0625% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 µg·mL(-1). Demographic and obstetric data, characteristics of the neuraxial analgesia, pain scores, side effects, and complications were recorded. After delivery, patients completed a satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: All 332 eligible women were approached, and 294 completed the study. Most women received epidural analgesia and considered its placement comfortable. A large number of women reported having experienced pain during the first or second stages of labour (38% and 26%, respectively). Although 24.4% of women required top-ups both by nurses and physicians, adjustment in the local anesthetic maintenance concentration was made in only 7.8% of the cases. Most women (92%) were satisfied with the quality of analgesia. Unintentional dural puncture occurred in three (1%) cases, and there were no cases of intravascular catheter insertion or systemic local anesthetic toxicity. Overweight women (body mass index 25-30 kg·m(-2)) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1 to 5.97), those undergoing induced labour (AOR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.2 to 5.2), and those requiring top-ups by the anesthesiologist (AOR = 5.08; 95% CI: 2.31 to 11.11) were associated with more dissatisfaction with pain control during the first stage of labour. CONCLUSION: Although our technique with dilute local anesthetic-opioid infusion was considered effective in previous randomized clinical trials, it did not provide sufficient labour analgesia for a large proportion of women. Nevertheless, most women were satisfied with their pain management and childbirth experience. Strategies to individualize care for labour and delivery should be readily available while providing labour analgesia.

Implementation of epidural analgesia for labor: is the standard of effective analgesia reachable in all women? An audit of two years.

BACKGROUND: Social and cultural factors combined with little information may prevent the diffusion of epidural analgesia for pain relief during childbirth. The present study was launched contemporarily to the implementation of analgesia for labor in our Department in order to perform a 2 years audit on its use. The goal is to evaluate the epidural acceptance and penetration into hospital practice by women and care givers and safety and efficacy during childbirth. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This audit cycle measured epidural analgesia performance against 4 standards: (1) Implementation of epidural analgesia for labor to all patients; (2) Acceptance and good satisfaction level reported by patients and caregivers. (3) Effectiveness of labor analgesia; (4) No maternal or fetal side effects. RESULTS: During the audit period epidural analgesia increased from 15.5% of all labors in the first trimester of the study to 51% in the last trimester (p < 0.005). Satisfaction levels reported by patients and care givers were good. A hierarchical clustering analysis identified two clusters based on VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) time course: in 226 patients (cluster 1) VAS decreased from 8.5±1.4 before to 4.1±1.3 after epidural analgesia; in 1002 patients (cluster 2) VAS decreased from 8.12±1.7 before (NS vs cluster 1), to 0.76±0.79 after (p < 0.001 vs before and vs cluster 2 after). No other differences between clusters were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Present audit shows that the process of implementation of labor analgesia was quick, successful and safe, notwithstanding the identification of one cluster of women with suboptimal response to epidural analgesia that need to be further studies, overall pregnant womens'adhesion to labor analgesia was satisfactory.

A national survey of prevention of infection in obstetric central neuraxial blockade in the UK.

We conducted a postal survey of all consultant-led UK obstetric anaesthetic units in August 2009, to assess the standard of aseptic technique used for neuraxial blocks. One hundred and sixty-four units responded giving a response rate of 76%; 93% of units (149/160) follow recommended precautions and attach a bacterial micropore filter to the epidural catheter. Epidural top-ups are provided by 72% (116/162) of units, with about two thirds using premixed solutions (of local anaesthetic with opioid) in a variety of ways: 51% (57/111) via a continuous infusion pump; 47% (52/111) by a prefilled syringe; and 23% (25/111) by multiple use of a premixed bag of solution. For spinals, 91% of units (149/164) add diamorphine: of these 85% (126/149) draw the diamorphine from non-sterile-wrapped ampoules. If required to draw opioid from a non-sterile-wrapped ampoule, 86% (119/138) of units use a micropore filter and 21% (29/138) wipe the ampoule neck with an alcohol swab. Although sepsis secondary to neuraxial block in obstetric practice is uncommon (declared by 8.5% of units over an unspecified period of time), there is scope for further improvement.