Epidural analgesia versus dural puncture epidural analgesia in labouring parturients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Preet Mohinder Singh, David T Monks, Adithya D Bhat, Anuradha Borle, Manpreet Kaur, Phillip Yang, Muthuraj Kanakaraj
{"title":"Epidural analgesia versus dural puncture epidural analgesia in labouring parturients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Preet Mohinder Singh, David T Monks, Adithya D Bhat, Anuradha Borle, Manpreet Kaur, Phillip Yang, Muthuraj Kanakaraj","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2025.01.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Epidural analgesia and dural puncture epidural (DPE) analgesia are widely used techniques for alleviating labour pain. This meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes between parturients receiving epidural analgesia vs DPE analgesia for labour pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medical databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia with DPE analgesia in labouring parturients published up to October 2024. Results were pooled using an inverse variance random-effects model, and 95% prediction intervals were calculated. Clinical outcomes were used as defined by individual trials. The primary outcome was time to onset of analgesia. Secondary outcomes were unilateral block, motor block, sacral sparing, adequate analgesia, Caesarean/operative vaginal delivery, additional doses, and hypotension. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines, and subgroup analyses were performed based on the types of local anaesthetics used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen trials involving 2144 parturients were included. DPE labour analgesia slightly reduced the time to onset (mean difference: 3.4 min, 95% confidence interval: 2.1-4.7, P<0.01, I<sup>2</sup>=97%; moderate certainty). All statistically significant results demonstrated clinical advantages for DPE analgesia, including fewer unilateral blocks, reduced motor block, improved sacral coverage, and higher rates of adequate analgesia. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the outcome data for time to onset of analgesia, unilateral block, and sacral sparing. Pooled results for Caesarean/operative vaginal delivery, additional doses, and hypotension failed to achieve statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DPE labour analgesia offers a slightly faster onset and reduced incidence of motor and unilateral blocks compared with traditional epidural analgesia. However, high heterogeneity in some outcomes, likely attributable to clinical and dosing variability, requires cautious interpretation. Although the clinical relevance of the faster onset with DPE analgesia might be modest, when considered alongside its benefits in secondary outcomes it supports the use of DPE analgesia over traditional epidural analgesia. Imputed prediction intervals cross zero for many outcomes, and further studies might alter these findings.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO- CRD42024602115.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.01.033","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Epidural analgesia and dural puncture epidural (DPE) analgesia are widely used techniques for alleviating labour pain. This meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes between parturients receiving epidural analgesia vs DPE analgesia for labour pain.

Methods: Medical databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia with DPE analgesia in labouring parturients published up to October 2024. Results were pooled using an inverse variance random-effects model, and 95% prediction intervals were calculated. Clinical outcomes were used as defined by individual trials. The primary outcome was time to onset of analgesia. Secondary outcomes were unilateral block, motor block, sacral sparing, adequate analgesia, Caesarean/operative vaginal delivery, additional doses, and hypotension. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines, and subgroup analyses were performed based on the types of local anaesthetics used.

Results: Eighteen trials involving 2144 parturients were included. DPE labour analgesia slightly reduced the time to onset (mean difference: 3.4 min, 95% confidence interval: 2.1-4.7, P<0.01, I2=97%; moderate certainty). All statistically significant results demonstrated clinical advantages for DPE analgesia, including fewer unilateral blocks, reduced motor block, improved sacral coverage, and higher rates of adequate analgesia. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the outcome data for time to onset of analgesia, unilateral block, and sacral sparing. Pooled results for Caesarean/operative vaginal delivery, additional doses, and hypotension failed to achieve statistical significance.

Conclusions: DPE labour analgesia offers a slightly faster onset and reduced incidence of motor and unilateral blocks compared with traditional epidural analgesia. However, high heterogeneity in some outcomes, likely attributable to clinical and dosing variability, requires cautious interpretation. Although the clinical relevance of the faster onset with DPE analgesia might be modest, when considered alongside its benefits in secondary outcomes it supports the use of DPE analgesia over traditional epidural analgesia. Imputed prediction intervals cross zero for many outcomes, and further studies might alter these findings.

Clinical trial registration: PROSPERO- CRD42024602115.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
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