Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942019000100007 |
Resumo: | Abstract Introduction: Lumbar epidural block is an effective and routinely used technique for labor pain relief, and the combined spinal-epidural block has the benefit of using lower doses of local anesthetics and rapid onset of analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two anesthetic techniques: combined spinal-epidural block and continuous epidural block in pregnant women for labor analgesia. Methods: Eighty patients, ASA II and III, with cephalic presentation and cervical dilation between 5 and 6 cm, undergoing labor analgesia, allocated in two groups according to the anesthetic technique: combined spinal-epidural (GI) and continuous epidural (GII). Pain severity before the blockade, time to complete analgesia, degree of motor blockade, time to full cervical dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, pain severity during the 1st and 2nd stage of labor, type of delivery, use of oxytocin during labor, maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory parameters and adverse events, and neonatal repercussions were recorded. Results: At the time of anesthesia, pain severity was similar in both groups. Pain relief was faster in GI (4.5 ± 1.5 min) when compared to GII (11.6 ± 4.6 min) p = 0.01; pain scores in the first and second stages of delivery were lower in GI (0.9 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.7, respectively) when compared to GII (1.9 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.5, respectively), with p = 0.01 only in the first stage of labor; there was need for local anesthetics supplementation in GII; there were more frequent spontaneous deliveries in GI (80% of patients) than in GII (50%) (p = 0.045) and more frequent use of instrumental (p = 0.03) in GII (12 patients) compared to GI (4 patients); the frequency of cesarean deliveries was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in Group II than in Group I, with 4 cases in GI and 8 cases in GII; absence of maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory changes and neonatal repercussions; more frequent pruritus in GI (10 patients) and (0 patients in GII) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The combined blockade proved to be effective with better quality of analgesia and greater comfort for pregnant women, constituting a good option for the practice of obstetric analgesia. |
id |
SBA-1_72d704de16038d5733a69122fc015653 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0034-70942019000100007 |
network_acronym_str |
SBA-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural blockSpinal anesthesiaCombined spinal-epiduralContinuous epiduralLabor analgesiaFetal and obstetric outcomesAbstract Introduction: Lumbar epidural block is an effective and routinely used technique for labor pain relief, and the combined spinal-epidural block has the benefit of using lower doses of local anesthetics and rapid onset of analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two anesthetic techniques: combined spinal-epidural block and continuous epidural block in pregnant women for labor analgesia. Methods: Eighty patients, ASA II and III, with cephalic presentation and cervical dilation between 5 and 6 cm, undergoing labor analgesia, allocated in two groups according to the anesthetic technique: combined spinal-epidural (GI) and continuous epidural (GII). Pain severity before the blockade, time to complete analgesia, degree of motor blockade, time to full cervical dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, pain severity during the 1st and 2nd stage of labor, type of delivery, use of oxytocin during labor, maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory parameters and adverse events, and neonatal repercussions were recorded. Results: At the time of anesthesia, pain severity was similar in both groups. Pain relief was faster in GI (4.5 ± 1.5 min) when compared to GII (11.6 ± 4.6 min) p = 0.01; pain scores in the first and second stages of delivery were lower in GI (0.9 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.7, respectively) when compared to GII (1.9 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.5, respectively), with p = 0.01 only in the first stage of labor; there was need for local anesthetics supplementation in GII; there were more frequent spontaneous deliveries in GI (80% of patients) than in GII (50%) (p = 0.045) and more frequent use of instrumental (p = 0.03) in GII (12 patients) compared to GI (4 patients); the frequency of cesarean deliveries was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in Group II than in Group I, with 4 cases in GI and 8 cases in GII; absence of maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory changes and neonatal repercussions; more frequent pruritus in GI (10 patients) and (0 patients in GII) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The combined blockade proved to be effective with better quality of analgesia and greater comfort for pregnant women, constituting a good option for the practice of obstetric analgesia.Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia2019-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942019000100007Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.69 n.1 2019reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)instacron:SBA10.1016/j.bjane.2018.08.003info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBraga,Angélica de Fátima de AssunçãoCarvalho,Vanessa HenriquesBraga,Franklin Sarmento da SilvaPereira,Rosa Inês Costaeng2019-01-04T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-70942019000100007Revistahttps://www.sbahq.org/revista/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sba2000@openlink.com.br1806-907X0034-7094opendoar:2019-01-04T00:00Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block |
title |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block |
spellingShingle |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block Braga,Angélica de Fátima de Assunção Spinal anesthesia Combined spinal-epidural Continuous epidural Labor analgesia Fetal and obstetric outcomes |
title_short |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block |
title_full |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block |
title_fullStr |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block |
title_full_unstemmed |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block |
title_sort |
Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block |
author |
Braga,Angélica de Fátima de Assunção |
author_facet |
Braga,Angélica de Fátima de Assunção Carvalho,Vanessa Henriques Braga,Franklin Sarmento da Silva Pereira,Rosa Inês Costa |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Carvalho,Vanessa Henriques Braga,Franklin Sarmento da Silva Pereira,Rosa Inês Costa |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Braga,Angélica de Fátima de Assunção Carvalho,Vanessa Henriques Braga,Franklin Sarmento da Silva Pereira,Rosa Inês Costa |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Spinal anesthesia Combined spinal-epidural Continuous epidural Labor analgesia Fetal and obstetric outcomes |
topic |
Spinal anesthesia Combined spinal-epidural Continuous epidural Labor analgesia Fetal and obstetric outcomes |
description |
Abstract Introduction: Lumbar epidural block is an effective and routinely used technique for labor pain relief, and the combined spinal-epidural block has the benefit of using lower doses of local anesthetics and rapid onset of analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two anesthetic techniques: combined spinal-epidural block and continuous epidural block in pregnant women for labor analgesia. Methods: Eighty patients, ASA II and III, with cephalic presentation and cervical dilation between 5 and 6 cm, undergoing labor analgesia, allocated in two groups according to the anesthetic technique: combined spinal-epidural (GI) and continuous epidural (GII). Pain severity before the blockade, time to complete analgesia, degree of motor blockade, time to full cervical dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, pain severity during the 1st and 2nd stage of labor, type of delivery, use of oxytocin during labor, maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory parameters and adverse events, and neonatal repercussions were recorded. Results: At the time of anesthesia, pain severity was similar in both groups. Pain relief was faster in GI (4.5 ± 1.5 min) when compared to GII (11.6 ± 4.6 min) p = 0.01; pain scores in the first and second stages of delivery were lower in GI (0.9 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.7, respectively) when compared to GII (1.9 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.5, respectively), with p = 0.01 only in the first stage of labor; there was need for local anesthetics supplementation in GII; there were more frequent spontaneous deliveries in GI (80% of patients) than in GII (50%) (p = 0.045) and more frequent use of instrumental (p = 0.03) in GII (12 patients) compared to GI (4 patients); the frequency of cesarean deliveries was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in Group II than in Group I, with 4 cases in GI and 8 cases in GII; absence of maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory changes and neonatal repercussions; more frequent pruritus in GI (10 patients) and (0 patients in GII) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The combined blockade proved to be effective with better quality of analgesia and greater comfort for pregnant women, constituting a good option for the practice of obstetric analgesia. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942019000100007 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942019000100007 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1016/j.bjane.2018.08.003 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.69 n.1 2019 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA) instacron:SBA |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA) |
instacron_str |
SBA |
institution |
SBA |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||sba2000@openlink.com.br |
_version_ |
1752126630114885632 |