Programmed intermittent epidural boluses (pieb) for labor analgesia: study of the sensor block and effects on maternal motor function

Cover Page

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Background. Programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) technique is a promising approach that demonstrates certain advantages over traditional techniques of epidural analgesia. We compared the dynamics of the sensory block of PIEB + parturient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with continuous epidural infusion (CEI) + PCEA for maintenance labor analgesia and the incidence of motor block (MB) in women who received PIEB or traditional techniques.

Methods. A total of 165 subjects were studied. All parturients were divided into five groups: manual boluses, PCEA, PCEA + CEI, PIEB + PCEA; levobupivacaine 0.25 mg/mL; 1.25 mg/mL; 0.625 mg/mL. The level of the MB was evaluated by the classic Bromage scale (0-1-2-3). The level of the sensor block was evaluated by the pin-prick test.

Results. MB was reported in 80% in group 1 120 min after analgesia, 78% and 52% in groups 2 and 3 at the 150th min (p < 0.001); in group 4, the MB frequency was 6% 15 min after the start and was increasing to 40% at full cervical dilation (p < 0.001). In group 5, the relative MB frequency did not exceed 10% at the 120th min and was 0% at full cervical dilation (p < 0.00001). The results indicate that in the PIEB group, the level of sensory block in patients was higher 15 min after the start of analgesia and remained so until the end of the observation period [median PIEB Th5 versus Th8 in the CEI group, (p < 0.0004)].

Conclusions. PIEB + PCEA technique maintained a consistently high level of sensor block throughout the study compared to PCEA + CEI, which ensured effective analgesia in the first and second stages of labor with minimal MB.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Ekaterina Y. Upryamova

Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Author for correspondence.
Email: katerinaupryamova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7057-2149

MD, PhD, Head of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department

Russian Federation, 101000, Moscow,

E. M. Shifman

M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow regional Research and Clinical Institute

Email: katerinaupryamova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6113-8498
Russian Federation, 129110, Moscow

V. I. Krasnopolskij

Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Email: katerinaupryamova@gmail.com
Russian Federation, 101000, Moscow

A. M. Ovezov

M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow regional Research and Clinical Institute

Email: katerinaupryamova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7629-6280
Russian Federation, 129110, Moscow

References

  1. Upryamova E.Yu., Shifman E.M., Krasnopol’skij V.I., Ove- zov A.M. Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses (PIEB) for labor pain relief. Anesteziologiya i reanimatologiya. 2020;4:68-76. doi: 10.17116/anaesthesiology202004169. (in Russ.)
  2. Xu J., Zhou J., Xiao H., Pan S., Liu J., Shang Y., Yao S. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Programmed Intermittent Bolus and Continuous Infusion as the Background Infusion for Parturient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia. Sci Rep. 2019;22;9(1):2583. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39248-5.
  3. Carvalho B., George R.B., Cobb B., McKenzie C., Riley E.T. Implementation of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus for the Maintenance of Labor Analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2016;123(4):965-71. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001407.
  4. Neuroaxial methods of labor pain relief. Clinical guidelines (treatment protocol). Approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 15-4/10/2-6914; 2018. (in Russ.)
  5. Curatolo M., Petersen-Felix S., Arendt-Nielsen L. Assessment of regional analgesia in clinical practice and research. Br Med Bull. 2005;31;71:61-76. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldh035.
  6. Wang T., Shen S., Shao-Qiang H. Effects of Epidural Labor Analgesia With Low Concentrations of Local Anesthetics on Obstetric Outcomes. Anesth Analg. 2017;124(5):1571-80. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001709.
  7. Sultan P., Murphy C., Halpern S., Carvalho B. The effect of low concentrations versus high concentrations of local anesthetics for labour analgesia on obstetric and anesthetic outcomes. Can J Anaesth. 2013;60:840-54. doi: 10.1007/s12630-013-9981-z.
  8. Barbé A., Roofthooft E., Devroe S., Van de Velde M. Programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) in labor analgesia: a narrative review of the present. Acta Anaesth. Belg. 2019;70:11-21.
  9. Xu J., Zhou J., Xiao H., Pan S., Liu J., Shang Y., Yao S. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Programmed Intermittent Bolus and Continuous Infusion as the Background Infusion for Parturient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia. Sci Rep. 2019;22;9(1):2583. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39248-5.
  10. Gabriel L., Young J., Hoesli I., Girard T., Dell-Kuster S. Generalisability of randomised trials of the programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique for maintenance of labour analgesia: a prospective single centre cohort study. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2019;123(2):e434-e441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.016.
  11. Hogan Q. Distribution of solution in the epidural space: examination by cryomicrotome section. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002;27(2):150-6.
  12. Capogna G. Maintenance of labor analgesia. In: Epidural Labor Analgesia: Childbirth Without Pain. Switserland. Springer. 2015;89-101.
  13. Kenichi Ueda, Wasa Ueda, Masanobu Manabe. A Comparative Study of Sequential Epidural Bolus Technique and Continuous Epidural Infusion. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(1):126-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200507000-00019
  14. Kaynar A.M., Shankar K.B. Epidural infusion: continuous or bolus? Anesth. Analg. 1999;89(2):534.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. Fig. 1. Block diagram of study participants (EA – epidural analgesia; Bolus EA – bolus epidural analgesia; PCEA – patient-controlled epidural analgesia; PCEA + CEI – patient-controlled epidural analgesia + continuous epidural analgesia; PIEB + PCEA – programmed intermittent epidural bolus + patient-controlled epidural analgesia; Levo – levobupivacaine)

Download (317KB)
2. Fig. 2. Dynamics of the relative frequency of the motor block in groups 1–5 during the observation period and at the second stage

Download (330KB)
3. Fig. 3. Comparison of the dynamics of the relative frequency of the motor block between groups 4 and 5 during the observation period and at the second stage

Download (98KB)
4. Fig. 4. Comparison of the dynamics of the mean values of the sensor block level between the CEI and PIEB groups for the all observation period

Download (86KB)
5. Fig. 5. Comparison of the dynamics of the sensor block level between the CEI and PIEB groups for the all observation period

Download (185KB)
6. Fig. 6. Comparison of sensor block levels at the second stage between the CEI and PIEB groups

Download (116KB)

Statistics

Views

Abstract: 175

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Eco-Vector



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies