Effects of epidural analgesia on intrapartum maternal fever and maternal outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Rui Lu, Lijuan Rong, Li Ye, Ying Xu, Hao Wu
{"title":"Effects of epidural analgesia on intrapartum maternal fever and maternal outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Rui Lu, Lijuan Rong, Li Ye, Ying Xu, Hao Wu","doi":"10.1080/14767058.2024.2357168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Epidural-related maternal fever in women is a common clinical phenomenon that leads to adverse consequences for mothers and neonates. The meta-analysis aimed to quantify the risk for intrapartum maternal fever after epidural analgesia (EA) stratified according to parity. The secondary objective was to investigate the association between EA and maternal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic literature search of the Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was performed to identify studies reporting the occurrence of intrapartum fever in parturients. Studies were reviewed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (5959 parturients) were included. Odds ratios for maternal fever in the analysis were 4.17 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.93-5.94) and 5.83 (95% CI 4.96-6.87), respectively. Results of subgroup analysis according to parity were consistent. EA significantly prolonged the length of the first stage of labor (MD 34.52 [95% CI 12.13-56.91]) and the second stage of labor (MD 9.10 [95% CI 4.51-13.68]). Parturients who received EA were more likely to undergo instrumental delivery (OR 2.03 [95% CI 1.44-2.86]) and oxytocin augmentation (OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.12-1.88]). There were no differences in cesarean delivery rates between the EA and non-EA groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Parturients who received EA exhibited a higher incidence of intrapartum fever. Credibility of the subgroup analyses was low because the mixed group did not effectively represent multiparas.</p>","PeriodicalId":50146,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine","volume":"37 1","pages":"2357168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2024.2357168","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Epidural-related maternal fever in women is a common clinical phenomenon that leads to adverse consequences for mothers and neonates. The meta-analysis aimed to quantify the risk for intrapartum maternal fever after epidural analgesia (EA) stratified according to parity. The secondary objective was to investigate the association between EA and maternal outcomes.

Methods: An electronic literature search of the Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was performed to identify studies reporting the occurrence of intrapartum fever in parturients. Studies were reviewed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3.

Results: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (5959 parturients) were included. Odds ratios for maternal fever in the analysis were 4.17 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.93-5.94) and 5.83 (95% CI 4.96-6.87), respectively. Results of subgroup analysis according to parity were consistent. EA significantly prolonged the length of the first stage of labor (MD 34.52 [95% CI 12.13-56.91]) and the second stage of labor (MD 9.10 [95% CI 4.51-13.68]). Parturients who received EA were more likely to undergo instrumental delivery (OR 2.03 [95% CI 1.44-2.86]) and oxytocin augmentation (OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.12-1.88]). There were no differences in cesarean delivery rates between the EA and non-EA groups.

Conclusions: Parturients who received EA exhibited a higher incidence of intrapartum fever. Credibility of the subgroup analyses was low because the mixed group did not effectively represent multiparas.

硬膜外镇痛对产褥期发热和产妇预后的影响:最新系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:硬膜外相关产妇发热是一种常见的临床现象,会给产妇和新生儿带来不良后果。该荟萃分析旨在量化硬膜外镇痛(EA)后产褥期发热的风险,并根据孕妇的奇偶性进行分层。次要目标是调查硬膜外镇痛与产妇结局之间的关联:方法:对 Medline/PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、万方数据和中国国家知识基础设施数据库进行电子文献检索,以确定报道产妇产期发热的研究。根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南对研究进行了综述,并使用 Review Manager 5.3 版进行了元分析:共纳入 17 项随机对照试验(RCT)(5959 名产妇)。分析中孕产妇发热的比值比分别为 4.17(95% 置信区间 (CI) 2.93-5.94)和 5.83(95% CI 4.96-6.87)。根据胎次进行的亚组分析结果一致。EA能明显延长第一产程(MD 34.52 [95% CI 12.13-56.91])和第二产程(MD 9.10 [95% CI 4.51-13.68])。接受 EA 的产妇更有可能进行器械助产(OR 2.03 [95% CI 1.44-2.86])和催产素助产(OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.12-1.88])。EA组和非EA组的剖宫产率没有差异:结论:接受 EA 的产妇产褥热发生率较高。由于混合组不能有效代表多胎妊娠,因此亚组分析的可信度较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
217
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The official journal of The European Association of Perinatal Medicine, The Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies and The International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians. The journal publishes a wide range of peer-reviewed research on the obstetric, medical, genetic, mental health and surgical complications of pregnancy and their effects on the mother, fetus and neonate. Research on audit, evaluation and clinical care in maternal-fetal and perinatal medicine is also featured.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信