Clinical study on the effect of remifentanil patient-controlled intravenous labor analgesia compared to patient-controlled epidural labor analgesia.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Haibin Li, Hui Li, Yibing Yu, Yan Lu
{"title":"Clinical study on the effect of remifentanil patient-controlled intravenous labor analgesia compared to patient-controlled epidural labor analgesia.","authors":"Haibin Li,&nbsp;Hui Li,&nbsp;Yibing Yu,&nbsp;Yan Lu","doi":"10.5603/GP.a2023.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of remifentanil for patient-controlled intravenous labor analgesia as an alternative to the patient-controlled epidural labor analgesia.</p><p><strong>Material and: </strong>METHODS: Out of 453 parturients who volunteered for labor analgesia and were selected as research objects, 407 completed the trial. They were divided into the research group (n = 148) and the control group (n = 259; patient-controlled epidural analgesia). In the research group, the first dose of remifentanil, the background dose and the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) dose were 0.4 μg/kg, 0.04 μg/min and 0.4 μg/kg, respectively, with a lockout interval of 3 min. The control group was given epidural analgesia. The first dose and background dose were 6-8 mL, and PCA dose and the locking time of analgesia pump were 5 mL and 20 min, respectively. The following indexes of the two groups were observed and recorded: the analgesic and sedative effects on parturient, labor process, forceps delivery, cesarean section rate and adverse reactions, and maternal and neonatal conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1. The onset time of analgesia in the research group was (0.97 ± 0.08) min, which was noticeably shorter than that in the control group ([15.74 ± 1.91] min), with a statistically significant difference (t = -93.979, p = 0.000). 2. There was no significant difference in the labor process, forceps delivery, cesarean section rate and neonatal condition between the two groups (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Remifentanil patient-controlled intravenous labor analgesia has the advantage of rapid onset of labor analgesia. Although its analgesic effect is not as accurate and stable as epidural patient-controlled labor analgesia, it shows a high level of maternal and family satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":12727,"journal":{"name":"Ginekologia polska","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ginekologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2023.0021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of remifentanil for patient-controlled intravenous labor analgesia as an alternative to the patient-controlled epidural labor analgesia.

Material and: METHODS: Out of 453 parturients who volunteered for labor analgesia and were selected as research objects, 407 completed the trial. They were divided into the research group (n = 148) and the control group (n = 259; patient-controlled epidural analgesia). In the research group, the first dose of remifentanil, the background dose and the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) dose were 0.4 μg/kg, 0.04 μg/min and 0.4 μg/kg, respectively, with a lockout interval of 3 min. The control group was given epidural analgesia. The first dose and background dose were 6-8 mL, and PCA dose and the locking time of analgesia pump were 5 mL and 20 min, respectively. The following indexes of the two groups were observed and recorded: the analgesic and sedative effects on parturient, labor process, forceps delivery, cesarean section rate and adverse reactions, and maternal and neonatal conditions.

Results: 1. The onset time of analgesia in the research group was (0.97 ± 0.08) min, which was noticeably shorter than that in the control group ([15.74 ± 1.91] min), with a statistically significant difference (t = -93.979, p = 0.000). 2. There was no significant difference in the labor process, forceps delivery, cesarean section rate and neonatal condition between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Remifentanil patient-controlled intravenous labor analgesia has the advantage of rapid onset of labor analgesia. Although its analgesic effect is not as accurate and stable as epidural patient-controlled labor analgesia, it shows a high level of maternal and family satisfaction.

瑞芬太尼病人自控静脉分娩镇痛与病人自控硬膜外分娩镇痛的临床比较。
目的:本研究旨在探讨瑞芬太尼作为病人自控的静脉分娩镇痛替代病人自控的硬膜外分娩镇痛的安全性和有效性。材料与方法:在453例自愿使用分娩镇痛的产妇中,407例完成了试验。将患者分为研究组(n = 148)和对照组(n = 259);患者控制硬膜外镇痛)。研究组给予瑞芬太尼首次剂量、背景剂量和患者自控镇痛(PCA)剂量分别为0.4 μg/kg、0.04 μg/min和0.4 μg/kg,闭锁时间为3 min。对照组给予硬膜外镇痛。首次给药剂量6 ~ 8 mL,背景给药剂量6 ~ 8 mL, PCA给药剂量5 mL,镇痛泵锁定时间20 min。观察并记录两组患者镇痛镇静效果、产程、产钳分娩、剖宫产率及不良反应、母婴情况。结果:1。研究组镇痛起效时间为(0.97±0.08)min,明显短于对照组([15.74±1.91]min),差异有统计学意义(t = -93.979, p = 0.000)。2. 两组产程、产钳娩出、剖宫产率及新生儿状况比较,差异均无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。结论:瑞芬太尼患者自控静脉分娩镇痛具有起效快的优点。虽然其镇痛效果不如硬膜外患者自控分娩镇痛准确和稳定,但其产妇和家庭满意度较高。
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
Ginekologia polska
Ginekologia polska OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
15.40%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Ginekologia Polska’ is a monthly medical journal published in Polish and English language. ‘Ginekologia Polska’ will accept submissions relating to any aspect of gynaecology, obstetrics and areas directly related. ‘Ginekologia Polska’ publishes original contributions, comparative works, case studies, letters to the editor and many other categories of articles.
×
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