用于分娩镇痛起始的程序化间歇硬膜外注射与人工硬膜外注射:随机非劣效性试验。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL
Drug Design, Development and Therapy Pub Date : 2024-11-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/DDDT.S488920
Yan Lu, Yueqi Zhang, Yuhan Zheng, Yujie Song, Yu Zang, Zhiqiang Liu, Zhendong Xu
{"title":"用于分娩镇痛起始的程序化间歇硬膜外注射与人工硬膜外注射:随机非劣效性试验。","authors":"Yan Lu, Yueqi Zhang, Yuhan Zheng, Yujie Song, Yu Zang, Zhiqiang Liu, Zhendong Xu","doi":"10.2147/DDDT.S488920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Typically, labor analgesia is initiated with a manual loading dose. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) effectively maintains labor analgesia. However, no PIEB method has been studied for the initial loading dose. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of loading doses administered via a PIEB versus a manual bolus.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In total, 164 full-term singleton parturients were randomly assigned to receive a 12 mL loading dose (0.1% ropivacaine and 0.3 μg·mL<sup>-1</sup> sufentanil) via manual or pump-driven injection. A standardized maintenance protocol was employed. The primary outcome was the percentage of parturients with adequate analgesia 20 min after the initial epidural injection. Adequate analgesia was defined as a numeric rating score (NRS) of ≤3 during two consecutive uterine contractions, without an additional analgesia request. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for the time interval needed to achieve adequate analgesia. A non-inferiority analysis was conducted by comparing the 90% confidence interval of the pain score difference with the non-inferiority margin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The percentage of parturients achieving adequate analgesia was comparable (75.61% manual injection vs 76.83% pump injection, <i>P</i>=0.05 for non-inferiority). The median NRS was similar, except at 2 min (7 [5-8] manual injection vs 8 [6-9] pump injection, <i>P</i>=0.04). Median time to adequate analgesia, median ropivacaine consumption, median duration of epidural analgesia, incidence of requests for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), median number of PCEA boluses, percentage of bilateral S<sub>2</sub> blocks at 20 min, incidence of breakthrough pain, percentage of highest block level ≥T6 at 20 min, adverse effects, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes were similar between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within 20 min of administering a loading dose through a PIEB pump, non-inferior analgesia comparable to that achieved with manual injection was observed. This hands-free approach could help mitigate the impact of individual operational differences on analgesic efficacy.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>This trial was registered at chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300074063).</p>","PeriodicalId":11290,"journal":{"name":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","volume":"18 ","pages":"5063-5072"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552411/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus vs Manual Epidural Bolus for Labor Analgesia Initiation: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yan Lu, Yueqi Zhang, Yuhan Zheng, Yujie Song, Yu Zang, Zhiqiang Liu, Zhendong Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/DDDT.S488920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Typically, labor analgesia is initiated with a manual loading dose. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) effectively maintains labor analgesia. However, no PIEB method has been studied for the initial loading dose. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of loading doses administered via a PIEB versus a manual bolus.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In total, 164 full-term singleton parturients were randomly assigned to receive a 12 mL loading dose (0.1% ropivacaine and 0.3 μg·mL<sup>-1</sup> sufentanil) via manual or pump-driven injection. A standardized maintenance protocol was employed. The primary outcome was the percentage of parturients with adequate analgesia 20 min after the initial epidural injection. Adequate analgesia was defined as a numeric rating score (NRS) of ≤3 during two consecutive uterine contractions, without an additional analgesia request. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for the time interval needed to achieve adequate analgesia. A non-inferiority analysis was conducted by comparing the 90% confidence interval of the pain score difference with the non-inferiority margin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The percentage of parturients achieving adequate analgesia was comparable (75.61% manual injection vs 76.83% pump injection, <i>P</i>=0.05 for non-inferiority). The median NRS was similar, except at 2 min (7 [5-8] manual injection vs 8 [6-9] pump injection, <i>P</i>=0.04). Median time to adequate analgesia, median ropivacaine consumption, median duration of epidural analgesia, incidence of requests for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), median number of PCEA boluses, percentage of bilateral S<sub>2</sub> blocks at 20 min, incidence of breakthrough pain, percentage of highest block level ≥T6 at 20 min, adverse effects, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes were similar between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within 20 min of administering a loading dose through a PIEB pump, non-inferior analgesia comparable to that achieved with manual injection was observed. This hands-free approach could help mitigate the impact of individual operational differences on analgesic efficacy.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>This trial was registered at chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300074063).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug Design, Development and Therapy\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"5063-5072\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552411/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug Design, Development and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S488920\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S488920","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通常情况下,分娩镇痛以人工负荷剂量开始。程序化间歇硬膜外栓剂(PIEB)可有效维持分娩镇痛。然而,目前还没有针对初始负荷剂量的 PIEB 方法进行过研究。本研究旨在比较通过 PIEB 和手动栓剂给予负荷剂量的效果:共有 164 名足月单胎产妇被随机分配到通过手动或泵驱动注射方式接受 12 mL 负荷剂量(0.1% 罗哌卡因和 0.3 μg-mL-1 舒芬太尼)。采用了标准化的维持方案。主要结果是首次硬膜外注射 20 分钟后出现充分镇痛的产妇比例。充分镇痛的定义是:在连续两次子宫收缩期间,数字评分(NRS)≤3,且未提出额外的镇痛要求。对达到充分镇痛所需的时间间隔绘制了卡普兰-梅耶生存曲线。通过比较疼痛评分差异的 90% 置信区间和非劣效边距,进行了非劣效性分析:结果:获得充分镇痛的产妇比例相当(75.61% 人工注射 vs 76.83% 泵注射,P=0.05 为非劣效)。除 2 分钟外,NRS 中位数相似(手动注射 7 [5-8] vs 泵注射 8 [6-9] ,P=0.04)。两组患者获得充分镇痛的中位时间、罗哌卡因消耗量中位数、硬膜外镇痛持续时间中位数、患者自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)请求发生率、PCEA栓剂中位数、20分钟时双侧S2阻滞百分比、突破性疼痛发生率、20分钟时最高阻滞水平≥T6百分比、不良反应以及产科和新生儿结局相似:结论:通过 PIEB 泵注射负荷剂量后 20 分钟内,观察到的镇痛效果与人工注射镇痛效果相当。这种免提方法有助于减轻个体操作差异对镇痛效果的影响:本试验已在chictr.org.cn注册(ChiCTR2300074063)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus vs Manual Epidural Bolus for Labor Analgesia Initiation: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

Purpose: Typically, labor analgesia is initiated with a manual loading dose. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) effectively maintains labor analgesia. However, no PIEB method has been studied for the initial loading dose. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of loading doses administered via a PIEB versus a manual bolus.

Patients and methods: In total, 164 full-term singleton parturients were randomly assigned to receive a 12 mL loading dose (0.1% ropivacaine and 0.3 μg·mL-1 sufentanil) via manual or pump-driven injection. A standardized maintenance protocol was employed. The primary outcome was the percentage of parturients with adequate analgesia 20 min after the initial epidural injection. Adequate analgesia was defined as a numeric rating score (NRS) of ≤3 during two consecutive uterine contractions, without an additional analgesia request. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for the time interval needed to achieve adequate analgesia. A non-inferiority analysis was conducted by comparing the 90% confidence interval of the pain score difference with the non-inferiority margin.

Results: The percentage of parturients achieving adequate analgesia was comparable (75.61% manual injection vs 76.83% pump injection, P=0.05 for non-inferiority). The median NRS was similar, except at 2 min (7 [5-8] manual injection vs 8 [6-9] pump injection, P=0.04). Median time to adequate analgesia, median ropivacaine consumption, median duration of epidural analgesia, incidence of requests for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), median number of PCEA boluses, percentage of bilateral S2 blocks at 20 min, incidence of breakthrough pain, percentage of highest block level ≥T6 at 20 min, adverse effects, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes were similar between the groups.

Conclusion: Within 20 min of administering a loading dose through a PIEB pump, non-inferior analgesia comparable to that achieved with manual injection was observed. This hands-free approach could help mitigate the impact of individual operational differences on analgesic efficacy.

Registration: This trial was registered at chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300074063).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drug Design, Development and Therapy
Drug Design, Development and Therapy CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
382
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Design, Development and Therapy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that spans the spectrum of drug design, discovery and development through to clinical applications. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of high-quality original research, reviews, expert opinions, commentary and clinical studies in all therapeutic areas. Specific topics covered by the journal include: Drug target identification and validation Phenotypic screening and target deconvolution Biochemical analyses of drug targets and their pathways New methods or relevant applications in molecular/drug design and computer-aided drug discovery* Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of novel biologically active compounds (including diagnostics or chemical probes) Structural or molecular biological studies elucidating molecular recognition processes Fragment-based drug discovery Pharmaceutical/red biotechnology Isolation, structural characterization, (bio)synthesis, bioengineering and pharmacological evaluation of natural products** Distribution, pharmacokinetics and metabolic transformations of drugs or biologically active compounds in drug development Drug delivery and formulation (design and characterization of dosage forms, release mechanisms and in vivo testing) Preclinical development studies Translational animal models Mechanisms of action and signalling pathways Toxicology Gene therapy, cell therapy and immunotherapy Personalized medicine and pharmacogenomics Clinical drug evaluation Patient safety and sustained use of medicines.
×
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