CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Résumé de cet 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 Hepner, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Gutsche, B. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hepner, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Gutsche, B. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Obstetrical and Pediatric Anesthesia
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 47:232-236 (2000)
© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, 2000
Reports of Investigation

Comparison of combined spinal-epidural and low dose epidural for labour analgesia

David L. Hepner, MD*, Robert R. Gaiser, MD{dagger}, Theodore G. Cheek, MD{dagger},{ddagger} and Brett B. Gutsche, MD{dagger},{ddagger}

* From the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the
{dagger} Departments of Anesthesia and
{ddagger} Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System.

Address correspondence to: David Hepner MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115 USA. Phone: 617-732-8222; Fax: 617-277-2192; E-mail: dhepner{at}zeus.bwh.harvard.edu


   Abstract
TOP
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Purpose: To compare the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique with the epidural technique with regard to time to initiate and manage, motor block, onset of analgesia and satisfaction during labour.

Methods: Upon requesting analgesia, 50 healthy term parturients were randomized in a prospective, double-blind fashion to receive either CSE analgesia or lumbar epidural analgesia in the labour floor of a university hospital at an academic medical centre. The epidural group (n=24) received bupivacaine 0.0625%-fentanyl 0.0002% with 0.05 ml in 10 ml local anesthetic sodium bicarbonate 8.4% and epinephrine 1:200, 000. The CSE group (n=26) received intrathecal 25 µg fentanyl and 2.5 mg bupivacaine. Additional analgesia was provided upon maternal request.

Results: There were no differences (P > 0.05) in time to perform either technique, motor blockade, or parturient satisfaction or in the number of times that the anesthesiologist was called to perform any intervention. Although the first sign of analgesia was not different between the two groups, the onset of complete analgesia was more rapid with the CSE technique (Visual Analogue Pain Score (VAPS) at five minutes < three: 26/26 vs 17/24, P ± 0.001).

Conclusion: Although epidural analgesia with a low concentration of local anesthetic and opioid mixture takes longer to produce complete analgesia, it is a satisfactory alternative to CSE.


   Introduction
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
EPIDURAL analgesia has been used extensively to provide pain relief in labour and is the standard by which other methods of labour analgesia are compared. Recently, the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has gained popularity as an approach to labour analgesia.1,2 The technique was reviewed extensively by Norris et al., who showed a similar safety profile between the two techniques.3 Side effects of CSE include pruritus, postdural puncture headache, hypotension, nausea and vomiting and fetal bradycardia. The incidence of pruritus, nausea and vomiting are greater than with the epidural technique alone. Some anesthesiologists at our institution argue that the CSE technique takes longer to perform and more effort to manage (less time efficient). The suggested advantages of CSE are its rapid onset of analgesia and relative lack of motor blockade. Epidural analgesia traditionally has been associated with motor blockade. However, no studies have compared a very low dose local anesthetic and opioid mixture in the epidural space with the CSE technique, both of which produce minimal motor block. In addition, no studies have compared the time involved in performing and managing these two techniques. We hypothesized that the time to perform the technique, the amount of motor blockade and the number of physician interventions are not different between these two techniques.


   Materials and methods
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Following institutional review board approval, written informed consent was obtained from 50 healthy term parturients who requested labor analgesia. They were randomized to either the epidural technique alone or to the combined spinal-epidural technique. Parturients with preeclampsia, diabetes, preterm labour, bleeding problems, scoliosis, in advanced labor (>5 cm cervical dilatation) or who received previous intravenous opioid were excluded. The epidural technique was performed in the sitting position by a third year anesthesia resident. The epidural space was entered using a midline approach at the L2-3 or L3-4 interspace with an 18 gauge Tuohy-Weiss epidural needle with a loss of resistance to air technique. The epidural group received 16 ml bupivacaine 0.0625% (B)-fentanyl 0.0002% (F) with 0.05 ml in 10 ml local anesthetic sodium bicarbonate 8.4% (S) and epinephrine 1:200, 000 (E) in divided doses over three minutes through the epidural needle. In the CSE group, the intrathecal space was entered with a 26-gauge 127 mm Gertie Marx needle through the epidural needle, and 1 ml bupivacaine 0.25% plus 25 µg fentanyl (0.5 ml) were injected through the spinal needle. In both groups, a multiport epidural catheter was threaded five centimeters into the epidural space. Catheters of both groups were initially not dosed to avoid introducing the variability of catheter function. If, at 20 min, analgesia was inadequate in any parturient of either group (Visual Analogue Pain Score>3), 13 ml BFSE were injected in incremental doses through the epidural catheter. When additional analgesia was requested, both groups received 13 ml BFSE in incremental doses (first 3 ml as a test dose) and an infusion of BF with epinephrine 1:400, 000 was started at 10 ml•hr–1. Another anesthesiologist, blinded to the technique, was in charge of collecting the data. Maternal blood pressure, heart rate, oxyhemoglobin saturation, fetal heart rate and uterine activity were monitored throughout labour and delivery. Parturients were laying on their right side throughout labor so as to avoid aortocaval compression. Visual Analogue Pain Score (VAPS) on a scale of 0-10 (0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain) was obtained at 0, 5, 10 and 15 min after the first injection, every 15 min thereafter until 60 min and then every 30 min until delivery. Parturient satisfaction on a scale of 1-4 (1-very satisfied to 4-not satisfied) were obtained at the time of complete analgesia, at delivery and on post-partum day 1 (PP #1). Maternal Bromage scores were obtained at 15 and 30 min to assess motor block: 1= unable to move feet or knees (complete motor block), 2=able to move feet only (almost complete), 3=just able to move knees (partial), and 4=full flexion of feet and knees (none).4 Measurements included times from skin infiltration 1) to taping of the epidural catheter, 2) to initial sensation of analgesia (a decrease in VAPS) and 3) to request for additional analgesia. Parturient interventions were defined as supplemental analgesia and treatment of pruritus, hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, >30% decrease from baseline), nausea, vomiting or nonreassuring fetal heart rate changes. Maternal parameters obtained included height, weight, gravity and cervical dilatation. Newborn parameters obtained included umbilical artery pH, umbilical vein pH, weight and Apgar scores at one and five minutes. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Parametric data were analyzed using unpaired t tests. Nonparametric data were analyzed using chi-square. A value of P < 0.05 was considered significant.


   Results
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
There were no differences in maternal or neonatal demographics (Tables I, IIGoGo.). It did not take longer to perform the CSE nor did it take more of the physician's time to manage the CSE technique compared with the epidural technique. In addition, the time from injection of the solution to maternal request for additional analgesia was similar between the two techniques. Although there was no difference in the initial onset of analgesia (a decrease in the VAPS), the VAPSs at 5, 10 and 15 min were lower in the CSE group, indicating a faster onset of complete analgesia in the CSE group (P < 0.05 by Chi-square). However, there were no differences in the VAPSs after 15 min. There were no differences between group satisfaction scores at complete analgesia, at the time of delivery or on PP#1 (Table IIIGo).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I Maternal demographics
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE II Neonatal demographics
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE III Comparison of CSE and epidural techniques
 
There was no difference in the degree of motor block between the two techniques (Table IIIGo). Only three subjects developed motor blockade. In the CSE group, one parturient had a Bromage score of three at 15 min (no motor block at 30 min) and another had a score of two at 15 min (Bromage of three at 30 min). Only one parturient in the epidural group had a score of three at 15 min, which was not present at 30 min.

In all cases, the CSE or epidural technique functioned well and there was no need to repeat the technique. Four women (two in each group) delivered before dissipation of the intrathecal dose or the original epidural dose. These parturients were excluded from the additional analgesia data but were included with the rest of the data. There were no accidental dural punctures in the epidural group and none of the parturients in the CSE group developed a postdural puncture headache (PDPH). The incidence of pruritus, nausea, vomiting and hypotension were similar. The amount of ephedrine used to treat hypotension was also similar (Table IIIGo).

Four parturients in the CSE group and six in the epidural group required Cesarean section. Two parturients in the CSE group and one in the epidural group required low forceps vaginal delivery. None of the above differences were significant. The reasons for the Cesarean section and low outlet forceps delivery included failure to progress, arrest of dilatation and dystocia. There were no cases of fetal bradycardia or respiratory depression in the mother or fetus. The neonates (n=50) experienced no complications and none were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit.


   Discussion
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Many authors have studied epidural5,6 and CSE techniques separately for labour analgesia2,7,8,9 but few have compared them with each other. The few studies that have compared them, have included an epidural technique with a relatively high concentration of local anesthetic such as bupivacaine 0.25%,10–12 or a CSE technique with morphine or with a low dose of sufentanil and bupivacaine.13,14 Two of the above studies used 10 ml of bupivacaine 0.125 % in the epidural group.13,14 While this is not a high concentration, it is not as dilute a mixture as some clinicians are using. The overall conclusion of the studies comparing CSE with the epidural technique is that the CSE provides faster onset of analgesia with minimal motor blockade. Pruritus, nausea and vomiting are increased in the CSE group compared with the epidural group. It is difficult to reach a conclusion from these studies because the epidural and/or CSE drug mixtures are not the same. Also, lower concentrations of local anesthetic with opioid mixture in the epidural space have been shown to decrease the incidence of motor blockade.

In an effort to produce motor blockade similar to CSE technique, we opted for a lower concentration of local anesthetic and opioid mixture in the epidural space than in the above studies. We placed the emphasis of our study in comparing CSE with a low dose local anesthetic and opioid mixture epidural technique for labour analgesia with regard to time to perform and number of physician interventions. We chose to place greater emphasis on these two issues because time efficiency is a current economic concern and none of the previous studies had addressed this question.

These concentrations of local anesthetic and opioid for epidural analgesia were chosen (bupivacaine 0.0625%-fentanyl 0.0002%) based on our experience and on previous studies that have demonstrated good analgesia and minimal motor blockade when using this mixture for epidural infusion.5,6 We felt it important to choose an epidural solution that would avoid motor blockade. While probably not equipotent to the CSE solution, this epidural solution achieved similar levels of analgesia as intrathecal fentanyl with bupivacaine. The 25 µg fentanyl dose in the CSE technique was chosen based upon clinical impression of efficacy and duration of analgesia. A recent study to determine the dose-response relation of intrathecal fentanyl for labor analgesia confirms this opinion.15 While the ED50 of intrathecal fentanyl was 14 µg, additional duration of analgesia was obtained by increasing the dose to 25 µg. The authors' conclusion was that there was little benefit in increasing the dose beyond 25 µg. The addition of bupivacaine to the intrathecal fentanyl prolongs its duration with no additional motor block.2

Our use of high volumes of a very low concentration of local anesthetic combined with fentanyl, epinephrine and bicarbonate for the first injection in the epidural group may account for the relatively fast onset of analgesia. This may also explain the similar duration of action of both techniques. All 26 of the CSE patients had VAPS < 3 at five minutes while only 17 of 24 in the epidural group had VAPS < 3 at 15 min. Proximity of drug to nerve in the CSE approach probably accounts for the difference in pain scores. The site of action of intrathecal lipid soluble opioids is believed to be spinal as well as supraspinal.16 Lipid soluble opioids such as fentanyl also penetrate the dura following lumbar epidural administration and, as such, may reach cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations similar to those after intrathecal injection.17 The slower onset of action of fentanyl given by the epidural rather than the intrathecal route may be because it must penetrate the dura to reach its site of action. Even though the CSE group initially obtained greater degree of analgesia, satisfaction was equal and excellent in both sets of mothers from shortly after the initial injection to the end of the study. We believe this is because all parturients achieved a satisfactory degree of analgesia without motor blockade.

Our study may be criticized for not taking into account the total time from parturient request for pain relief to achieving satisfactory analgesia. We did not delay the initiation of epidural or CSE analgesia to prepare the solutions. While one anesthesiologist was placing the needle, another was preparing the solution. This time must be taken into consideration if a solo practitioner attempts to repeat our results. In this case, the individual must prepare the epidural solution prior to injection, which would add approximately two minutes.

Another criticism to our study is the use of high volumes of local anesthetic, opioid and epinephrine through the epidural needle. The main reason we injected all of the solution through the epidural needle was to have two groups with untested epidural catheters. The epidural solution was injected over a three minutes period and a very careful monitoring of the parturient's response and of the vital signs was taking place at that time. This fractionation may account for the longer latency to onset compared with that of the intrathecal route. We believe that if the medication had ended up in the subarachnoid space or intravenously (iv), it would have been recognized prior to the full amount being injected. A further question regards accidental injection of 10 mg bupivacaine and 32 µg fentanyl intrathecally (IT) or iv. 32 µg fentanyl is safe in either space as long as maternal respiration is monitored adequately. Bupivacaine, 10 mg iv, is well below the toxic dose and IT will produce a spinal block that would be recognized by an anesthesiologist. We are not advocating the injection of the entire solution through the epidural needle or the injection of high concentrations of local anesthetic. Our usual approach is to inject an initial test dose with a local anesthetic and 15 µg epinephrine through the catheter and wait three to five minutes before further injection through the catheter to avoid accidental subarachnoid block or intravenous injection.

Overall, the incidence of side effects was very similar between the two groups. We did not find a difference in the incidence of pruritus unlike earlier studies. We believe that this is because of the substantial concentrations of opioid used in the epidural bolus and in the infusion mixture. Overall, with the exception of a slower onset to complete analgesia, the epidural mixture produced a similar clinical profile to CSE. Is the faster onset of complete analgesia worth the extra cost of a spinal needle and the potential for an increase of side effects? Our impression is that the difference in speed of onset of CSE over epidural injection is measurable but unlikely to be of clinical importance.

Our results indicate that there is no difference between the CSE technique and an epidural technique using bupivacaine 0.0625% combined with fentanyl, epinephrine and bicarbonate in regard to time to perform the block or number of interventions by a physician. Although the epidural group took a longer time for complete analgesia, once it was achieved, it provided a similar clinical profile to the CSE.

Accepted for publication November 27, 1999.


   References
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
1 Camann WR, Denney RA, Holby ED, Datta S. A comparison of intrathecal, epidural, and intravenous sufentanil for labor analgesia. Anesthesiology 1992; 77: 884–7.[Medline]

2 Campbell DC, Camann WR, Datta S. The addition of bupivacaine to intrathecal sufentanil for labor analgesia. Anesth Analg 1995; 81: 305–9.[Abstract]

3 Norris MC, Grieco WM, Borkowski M, et al. Complications of labor analgesia: epidural versus combined spinal epidural techniques. Anesth Analg 1994; 79: 529–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4 Bromage PR. Epidural Analgesia, 1st ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1978: 144–5.

5 Chestnut DH, Owen CL, Bates JN, Ostman LG, Choi WW, Geiger MW. Continuous infusion epidural analgesia during labor: a randomized, double-blind comparison of 0.0625% bupivacaine/0.0002% fentanyl versus 0.125% bupivacaine. Anesthesiology 1988; 68: 754–9.[Medline]

6 Chestnut DH, Laszewski LJ, Pollack KL, Bates JN, Manago NK, Choi WW. Continuous epidural infusion of 0.0625% bupivacaine-0.0002% fentanyl during the second stage of labor. Anesthesiology 1990; 72: 613–8.[Medline]

7 Camann WR, Mintzter BH, Denney RA, Datta S. Intrathecal sufentanil for labor analgesia. Effects of added epinephrine. Anesthesiology 1993; 78: 870–4.[Medline]

8 Honet JE, Arkoosh VA, Norris MC, Huffnagle HJ, Silverman NS, Leighton BL. Comparison among intrathecal fentanyl, meperidine, and sufentanil for labor analgesia. Anesth Analg 1992; 75: 734–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9 Grieco WM, Norris MC, Leighton BL, et al. Intrathecal sufentanil labor analgesia: the effects of adding morphine or epinephrine. Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 1149–54.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10 Collis RE, Davies DWL, Aveling W. Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour. Lancet 1995; 345: 1413–6.[Medline]

11 D'Angelo R, Anderson MT, Philip J, Eisenach JC. Intrathecal sufentanil compared to epidural bupivacaine for labor analgesia. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 1209–15.[Medline]

12 Nageotte MP, Larson D, Rumney PJ, Sidhu M, Hollenbach K. Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1715–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13 Abouleish E, Rawal N, Shaw J, Lorenz T, Rashad MN: Intrathecal morphine 0.2 mg versus epidural bupivacaine 0.125% or their combination: effects on parturients. Anesthesiology 1991; 74: 711–6.[Medline]

14 Kartawiadi SL, Vercauteren MP, Van Steenberge AL, Adriaensen HA. Spinal analgesia during labor with low-dose bupivacaine, sufentanil, and epinephrine. A comparison with epidural analgesia. Reg Anesth 1996; 21: 191–6.[Medline]

15 Palmer CM, Cork RC, Hays R, Van Maren G, Alves D. The dose-response relation of intrathecal fentanyl for labor analgesia. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 355–61.[Medline]

16 Ferouz F, Norris MC, Arkoosh VA, Leighton BL, Boxer LM, Corba RJ. Baricity, needle direction, and intrathecal sufentanil labor analgesia. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 592–8.[Medline]

17 Gourlay GK, Murphy TM, Plummer JL, Kowalski SR, Cherry DA, Cousins MJ. Pharmacokinetics of fentanyl in lumbar and cervical cerebrospinal fluid following lumbar epidural and intravenous administration. Pain 1989; 38: 253–9.[Medline]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
D. J. A. Vaughan, N. Ahmad, N. K. Lillywhite, N. Lewis, D. Thomas, and P. N. Robinson
Choice of opioid for initiation of combined spinal epidural analgesia in labour--fentanyl or diamorphine
Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2001; 86(4): 567 - 569.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Résumé de cet 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 Hepner, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Gutsche, B. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hepner, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Gutsche, B. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Obstetrical and Pediatric Anesthesia

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS