CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gambling, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gambling, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, L.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 35, 249-254, Copyright © 1988 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

A comparative study of patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and continuous infusion epidural analgesia (CIEA) during labour

DR Gambling, P Yu, C Cole, GH McMorland and L Palmer
Department of Anaesthesia, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

In a randomised, single-blinded, placebo-controlled study, 27 parturients in labour receiving epidural 0.125 per cent bupivacaine, were assessed to evaluate the efficacy of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) compared with continuous infusion epidural analgesia (CIEA). Group A (n = 14) received a background infusion of 4 ml.hr-1 0.125 per cent bupivacaine, with further 4 ml aliquots, self-administered, as required (up to 16 ml.hr-1). Group B (n = 11) received a continuous infusion of 12 ml.hr-1 through the same PCA apparatus, but with the demand-button deactivated. Both groups were similar in respect to age, height, weight, duration and outcome of labour, birthweight and neonatal Apgar scores. Patients in Group A (PCEA) received significantly less local anaesthetic than those in Group B (11.2 vs 15.2 mg.hr-1). Pain relief was similar in both groups. Patients expressed overall satisfaction with PCEA, appreciating control over their own pain relief and less reliance on medical staff. PCEA is a safe, effective means of providing optimal analgesia during labour, with minimal local anaesthetic requirement.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
F. Duflo, V. Sautou-Miranda, A. Pouyau, P. Taylor, S. Combet, F. Chotel, N. Bleyzac, and D. Chassard
Efficacy and plasma levels of ropivacaine for children: controlled regional analgesia following lower limb surgery
Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2006; 97(2): 250 - 254.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
F. Duflo, Y. Qamouss, C. Remond, A. Pouyau, A. Heilporn, P. Taylor, B. Paturel, S. Combet, E. Boselli, F. Chotel, et al.
Patient-controlled regional analgesia is effective in children: a preliminary report: [L'analgesie regionale auto-controlee est efficace chez les enfants : une etude preliminaire]
Can J Anesth, November 1, 2004; 51(9): 928 - 930.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
E. Antok, F. Bordet, F. Duflo, S. Lansiaux, S. Combet, P. Taylor, A. Pouyau, B. Paturel, R. James, B. Allaouchiche, et al.
Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia Versus Continuous Epidural Infusion with Ropivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia in Children
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2003; 97(6): 1608 - 1611.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
W. Gogarten and H. Van Aken
A Century of Regional Analgesia in Obstetrics
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2000; 91(4): 773 - 775.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Intensive Care MedHome page
D. S. Stevens and W. T. Edwards
Management of Pain in the Critically Ill
J Intensive Care Med, November 1, 1990; 5(6): 258 - 291.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.