Programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen vs continuous epidural infusion: a retrospective study of motor block and obstetric outcomes using the Robson’s Ten Group Classification System

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
C. Joyce , R. Free , P. Calpin , I. Browne , M. Robson , R. ffrench-O’Carroll
{"title":"Programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen vs continuous epidural infusion: a retrospective study of motor block and obstetric outcomes using the Robson’s Ten Group Classification System","authors":"C. Joyce ,&nbsp;R. Free ,&nbsp;P. Calpin ,&nbsp;I. Browne ,&nbsp;M. Robson ,&nbsp;R. ffrench-O’Carroll","doi":"10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Use of a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) regimen during labour is associated with several benefits over a continuous epidural infusion (CEI), including reduced local anaesthetic consumption and reduced risk of motor block. We hypothesise that the benefits of a PIEB regimen may vary according to the Robson Ten Group Classification System (TGCS). The aim of this study was to determine if introduction of a PIEB regimen was associated with reduced incidence of motor block. We also wished to examine changes in obstetric outcomes following PIEB introduction across the Robson TGCS.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Data were collected over two three-month periods before and after PIEB introduction. The primary outcome was the incidence of motor block. Maternal and obstetric outcomes across Robson Groups 1–4 were analysed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Introduction of PIEB was associated with reduced incidence of motor block (28.4% (95% CI 25.7% to 31.3%) vs 22.4%, (95% CI 19.9% to 25.2%), difference 5.9% (95% CI 1.0% to 21.1%), <em>P</em>=0.003), with no association with changes in rates of caesarean section, operative vaginal delivery or other obstetric outcomes. Use of a PIEB regimen was associated with reduced incidence of motor block in Robson Group 4a (20.3% (16.0%, 28.0%) vs 12.0%, (7.6%, 16.4%), difference 9.9% (95% CI −17.4% to −2.4%) <em>P</em>=0.009). There were no significant changes in other outcomes assessed across Robson TGCS.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Introduction of PIEB for maintenance of labour analgesia was associated with reduced incidence of motor block in our institution compared with CEI. Presenting results according to Robson’s TGCS in future studies may allow better elucidation of the impact of neuraxial analgesia on maternal and obstetric outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":14250,"journal":{"name":"International journal of obstetric anesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of obstetric anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959289X24002279","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Use of a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) regimen during labour is associated with several benefits over a continuous epidural infusion (CEI), including reduced local anaesthetic consumption and reduced risk of motor block. We hypothesise that the benefits of a PIEB regimen may vary according to the Robson Ten Group Classification System (TGCS). The aim of this study was to determine if introduction of a PIEB regimen was associated with reduced incidence of motor block. We also wished to examine changes in obstetric outcomes following PIEB introduction across the Robson TGCS.

Methods

This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Data were collected over two three-month periods before and after PIEB introduction. The primary outcome was the incidence of motor block. Maternal and obstetric outcomes across Robson Groups 1–4 were analysed.

Results

Introduction of PIEB was associated with reduced incidence of motor block (28.4% (95% CI 25.7% to 31.3%) vs 22.4%, (95% CI 19.9% to 25.2%), difference 5.9% (95% CI 1.0% to 21.1%), P=0.003), with no association with changes in rates of caesarean section, operative vaginal delivery or other obstetric outcomes. Use of a PIEB regimen was associated with reduced incidence of motor block in Robson Group 4a (20.3% (16.0%, 28.0%) vs 12.0%, (7.6%, 16.4%), difference 9.9% (95% CI −17.4% to −2.4%) P=0.009). There were no significant changes in other outcomes assessed across Robson TGCS.

Conclusion

Introduction of PIEB for maintenance of labour analgesia was associated with reduced incidence of motor block in our institution compared with CEI. Presenting results according to Robson’s TGCS in future studies may allow better elucidation of the impact of neuraxial analgesia on maternal and obstetric outcomes.

程序化间歇硬膜外栓剂疗法与持续硬膜外输注:使用罗布森十组分类系统对运动阻滞和产科结果进行的回顾性研究
背景与连续硬膜外输注(CEI)相比,在分娩过程中使用程序化间歇硬膜外栓剂(PIEB)方案具有多种益处,包括减少局麻药消耗和降低运动阻滞风险。我们假设,根据罗布森十组分类系统(TGCS)的不同,PIEB 方案的益处也可能不同。本研究旨在确定 PIEB 方案的引入是否与运动阻滞发生率的降低有关。我们还希望研究在罗布森十组分类系统(TGCS)中引入 PIEB 后产科结果的变化。这项研究是一项单中心回顾性队列研究,收集了引入PIEB前后两个三个月的数据。主要结果是运动阻滞的发生率。结果PIEB的引入与运动阻滞发生率的降低有关(28.4% (95% CI 25.7% to 31.3%) vs 22.4%, (95% CI 19.9% to 25.2%),差异为5.9% (95% CI 1.0% to 21.1%),P=0.003),与剖腹产率、手术阴道分娩率或其他产科结果的变化无关。使用 PIEB 方案与罗布森 4a 组运动阻滞发生率降低有关(20.3% (16.0%, 28.0%) vs 12.0%, (7.6%, 16.4%), 差异 9.9% (95% CI -17.4% to -2.4%) P=0.009)。结论与 CEI 相比,在本院采用 PIEB 维持分娩镇痛可降低运动阻滞的发生率。在未来的研究中,根据罗布森TGCS来呈现结果可能会更好地阐明神经镇痛对产妇和产科结果的影响。
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
4.70
自引率
7.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia is the only journal publishing original articles devoted exclusively to obstetric anesthesia and bringing together all three of its principal components; anesthesia care for operative delivery and the perioperative period, pain relief in labour and care of the critically ill obstetric patient. • Original research (both clinical and laboratory), short reports and case reports will be considered. • The journal also publishes invited review articles and debates on topical and controversial subjects in the area of obstetric anesthesia. • Articles on related topics such as perinatal physiology and pharmacology and all subjects of importance to obstetric anaesthetists/anesthesiologists are also welcome. The journal is peer-reviewed by international experts. Scholarship is stressed to include the focus on discovery, application of knowledge across fields, and informing the medical community. Through the peer-review process, we hope to attest to the quality of scholarships and guide the Journal to extend and transform knowledge in this important and expanding area.
×
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