Comparison of ropivacaine (0.2%) and ropivacaine (0.125%) with 2 μg/ml fentanyl for epidural labor analgesia: A randomized controlled study

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Kalyani Rapeti, Santhi Mulam, B. Lakshmi, Ankur Sharma
{"title":"Comparison of ropivacaine (0.2%) and ropivacaine (0.125%) with 2 μg/ml fentanyl for epidural labor analgesia: A randomized controlled study","authors":"Kalyani Rapeti, Santhi Mulam, B. Lakshmi, Ankur Sharma","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_156_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the minimum effective local anesthetic concentration required to provide good analgesia with less consumption of opioids. Objective: Among various labor analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia is the most effective form of analgesia. This study aimed to determine the minimum effective local anesthetic concentration required to provide good analgesia with less consumption of opioids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 0.125% and 0.2% ropivacaine, both with fentanyl 2 μg/ml for epidural labor analgesia. Materials and Methods: A total of 50 term parturients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Grade I and II with vertex presentation in active labor were randomly assigned to two groups, Group R1 and Group R2, which received 10 ml of 0.125% ropivacaine with injection fentanyl 2 μg/ml and 10 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg/ml, respectively, as an initial bolus dose and intermittent top-up doses epidurally. Characteristics of the block, onset and duration of analgesia, and total analgesic requirements were noted. Pain and overall satisfaction scores were assessed with the Visual Analog Scale score. The maternal and fetal outcomes were recorded. Results: Maternal demographic characteristics were comparable. Although both the concentrations are effective in providing optimal labor analgesia, decreasing the concentration of ropivacaine has resulted in an increased number of repetition of doses and thus an increased consumption of fentanyl. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding motor block, hemodynamic, and neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: We conclude that 0.2% ropivacaine was found superior in terms of faster onset, prolonged duration, lesser breakthrough pain requiring lesser top-ups, and hence a lesser consumption of opioids. Hence, we conclude that the use of 0.2% ropivacaine is superior to 0.125% ropivacaine with fentanyl.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_156_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the minimum effective local anesthetic concentration required to provide good analgesia with less consumption of opioids. Objective: Among various labor analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia is the most effective form of analgesia. This study aimed to determine the minimum effective local anesthetic concentration required to provide good analgesia with less consumption of opioids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 0.125% and 0.2% ropivacaine, both with fentanyl 2 μg/ml for epidural labor analgesia. Materials and Methods: A total of 50 term parturients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Grade I and II with vertex presentation in active labor were randomly assigned to two groups, Group R1 and Group R2, which received 10 ml of 0.125% ropivacaine with injection fentanyl 2 μg/ml and 10 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg/ml, respectively, as an initial bolus dose and intermittent top-up doses epidurally. Characteristics of the block, onset and duration of analgesia, and total analgesic requirements were noted. Pain and overall satisfaction scores were assessed with the Visual Analog Scale score. The maternal and fetal outcomes were recorded. Results: Maternal demographic characteristics were comparable. Although both the concentrations are effective in providing optimal labor analgesia, decreasing the concentration of ropivacaine has resulted in an increased number of repetition of doses and thus an increased consumption of fentanyl. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding motor block, hemodynamic, and neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: We conclude that 0.2% ropivacaine was found superior in terms of faster onset, prolonged duration, lesser breakthrough pain requiring lesser top-ups, and hence a lesser consumption of opioids. Hence, we conclude that the use of 0.2% ropivacaine is superior to 0.125% ropivacaine with fentanyl.
罗哌卡因(0.2%)与罗哌卡因(0.125%)加2 μg/ml芬太尼用于硬膜外分娩镇痛的随机对照研究
目的:本研究的目的是确定在阿片类药物消耗较少的情况下提供良好镇痛所需的最低有效局部麻醉剂浓度。目的:在各种分娩镇痛技术中,硬膜外镇痛是最有效的镇痛方式。本研究旨在确定在阿片类药物消耗较少的情况下提供良好镇痛所需的最低有效局部麻醉剂浓度。本研究的目的是评价0.125%和0.2%罗哌卡因与芬太尼2μg/ml用于硬膜外分娩镇痛的疗效。材料与方法:将50名美国麻醉师学会身体状况一级和二级、活动产时出现顶点的足月产妇随机分为两组,R1组和R2组,分别给予0.125%罗哌卡因注射液2μg/ml和0.2%罗哌卡因芬太尼2μg/ml,作为初始推注剂量和硬膜外间歇性补充剂量。记录了阻滞的特点、镇痛的开始和持续时间以及总镇痛需求。疼痛和总体满意度评分采用视觉模拟量表评分进行评估。记录产妇和胎儿的结局。结果:产妇的人口学特征具有可比性。尽管这两种浓度都能有效提供最佳分娩镇痛,但降低罗哌卡因的浓度会导致重复剂量的增加,从而增加芬太尼的消耗。两组在运动阻滞、血液动力学和新生儿结局方面没有显著差异。结论:我们得出的结论是,0.2%罗哌卡因在起效更快、持续时间更长、需要较少补充的突破性疼痛较小以及因此阿片类药物消耗较少方面具有优势。因此,我们得出结论,0.2%罗哌卡因的使用优于0.125%罗哌卡因和芬太尼的使用。
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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