Are labor epidural catheters after a combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique more reliable than after a traditional epidural? A retrospective review of 9153 labor epidural catheters.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1111/aas.14542
Viktoria Sakova, Elina Varjola, James Pepper, Riina Jernman, Antti Väänänen
{"title":"Are labor epidural catheters after a combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique more reliable than after a traditional epidural? A retrospective review of 9153 labor epidural catheters.","authors":"Viktoria Sakova, Elina Varjola, James Pepper, Riina Jernman, Antti Väänänen","doi":"10.1111/aas.14542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique may associate with a lower failure rate of epidural catheters compared to traditional epidural catheters. This may be significant for the parturients as failure of neuraxial analgesia has been associated with a negative impact on birth experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this one-year retrospective study, the failure rate of epidural catheters was compared between 3201 and 5952 epidural catheters after initiation of neuraxial analgesia by the CSE or traditional epidural technique, respectively. Parturient background information, labor parameters, and neuraxial interventions were collected from 9153 parturients. Failure was defined as replacement of a used epidural catheter by new regional analgesia procedures or general anesthesia during intrapartum cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was the failure rate of epidural catheters. The secondary outcome was the time from the initial analgesia intervention to the epidural catheter replacement and progression of labor during this time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CSE method was used at an earlier stage of labor, and the parturients were more often primiparous and undergoing induced labor. Earlier onset of analgesia, obesity, induced labor, anesthesiologist experience, and cesarean delivery were found to be significant cofactors for catheter failure. The unadjusted failure rate was 168/3201 (5.2%) and 223/5952 (3.7%) (OR 1.42 [1.16-1.75]) after initiation of analgesia by CSE or traditional epidural method. After controlling for the stage of labor, body mass index, induction of labor, and anesthesiologist's experience level, the adjusted OR for epidural catheter replacement was 1.04 (0.83-1.29) p = .736. The mean (SD) time until epidural catheter failure was 6.3 (4.4) and 4.0 (4.1) hours following initiation of analgesia by CSE or traditional epidural technique, respectively (p < .001). Cervical dilatation progressed from 4.3 (1.4) to 6.4 (2.1) cm and 5.1 (1.5) to 6.7 (1.7) cm between primary neuraxial analgesia and epidural catheter replacement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CSE technique was not associated with a better survival rate of epidural catheters for provision of analgesia or epidural top-up anesthesia for intrapartum CD. In addition, the time to replacement of the catheter was significantly longer when analgesia was initiated with the CSE technique. Maternal satisfaction scores were lower if catheters required replacement.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"e14542"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14542","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique may associate with a lower failure rate of epidural catheters compared to traditional epidural catheters. This may be significant for the parturients as failure of neuraxial analgesia has been associated with a negative impact on birth experience.

Methods: In this one-year retrospective study, the failure rate of epidural catheters was compared between 3201 and 5952 epidural catheters after initiation of neuraxial analgesia by the CSE or traditional epidural technique, respectively. Parturient background information, labor parameters, and neuraxial interventions were collected from 9153 parturients. Failure was defined as replacement of a used epidural catheter by new regional analgesia procedures or general anesthesia during intrapartum cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was the failure rate of epidural catheters. The secondary outcome was the time from the initial analgesia intervention to the epidural catheter replacement and progression of labor during this time.

Results: The CSE method was used at an earlier stage of labor, and the parturients were more often primiparous and undergoing induced labor. Earlier onset of analgesia, obesity, induced labor, anesthesiologist experience, and cesarean delivery were found to be significant cofactors for catheter failure. The unadjusted failure rate was 168/3201 (5.2%) and 223/5952 (3.7%) (OR 1.42 [1.16-1.75]) after initiation of analgesia by CSE or traditional epidural method. After controlling for the stage of labor, body mass index, induction of labor, and anesthesiologist's experience level, the adjusted OR for epidural catheter replacement was 1.04 (0.83-1.29) p = .736. The mean (SD) time until epidural catheter failure was 6.3 (4.4) and 4.0 (4.1) hours following initiation of analgesia by CSE or traditional epidural technique, respectively (p < .001). Cervical dilatation progressed from 4.3 (1.4) to 6.4 (2.1) cm and 5.1 (1.5) to 6.7 (1.7) cm between primary neuraxial analgesia and epidural catheter replacement.

Conclusion: CSE technique was not associated with a better survival rate of epidural catheters for provision of analgesia or epidural top-up anesthesia for intrapartum CD. In addition, the time to replacement of the catheter was significantly longer when analgesia was initiated with the CSE technique. Maternal satisfaction scores were lower if catheters required replacement.

联合脊柱硬膜外(CSE)技术后的分娩硬膜外导管比传统硬膜外导管更可靠吗?对9153例分娩硬膜外导管的回顾性研究。
背景:与传统硬膜外导管相比,联合脊柱硬膜外(CSE)技术可能会降低硬膜外导管的失败率。这对产妇来说可能意义重大,因为神经镇痛失败对分娩体验有负面影响:在这项为期一年的回顾性研究中,比较了采用 CSE 或传统硬膜外技术启动神经镇痛后,硬膜外导管的失败率,前者为 3201 例,后者为 5952 例。收集了 9153 名产妇的背景信息、分娩参数和神经介入治疗情况。失败的定义是在产内剖宫产过程中,用新的区域镇痛程序或全身麻醉替代使用过的硬膜外导管。主要结果是硬膜外导管的失败率。次要结果是从最初的镇痛干预到硬膜外导管更换的时间以及在此期间的产程进展:结果:CSE方法在较早的产程阶段使用,产妇多为初产妇和引产产妇。研究发现,较早开始镇痛、肥胖、引产、麻醉师经验和剖宫产是导管失败的重要辅助因素。采用 CSE 或传统硬膜外方法开始镇痛后,未经调整的失败率分别为 168/3201 (5.2%)和 223/5952 (3.7%)(OR 值为 1.42 [1.16-1.75])。在控制了产程、体重指数、引产和麻醉师经验水平后,硬膜外导管更换的调整 OR 为 1.04 (0.83-1.29) p = .736。采用 CSE 或传统硬膜外技术开始镇痛后,硬膜外导管失效的平均(标清)时间分别为 6.3 (4.4) 小时和 4.0 (4.1) 小时(p 结论:CSE 技术与硬膜外导管失效无关:CSE 技术与硬膜外导管在产后 CD 镇痛或硬膜外加压麻醉中更高的存活率无关。此外,使用 CSE 技术开始镇痛时,更换导管的时间明显更长。如果导管需要更换,产妇的满意度评分会更低。
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
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
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