Document Detail

A randomized prospective study comparing two flexible epidural catheters for labour analgesia.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  19561345     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: Previous studies evaluating stiff epidural catheters found that the three-holed design provided superior labour analgesia compared with an end-holed design. This was believed due to improved medication distribution. Recently, flexible epidural catheters with both designs have been shown to be superior to the stiff epidural catheters. We investigated the success of labour analgesia comparing the flexible three-holed with the flexible end-holed epidural catheter. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-blinded randomized study. We enrolled 500 parturients in active labour. The primary outcome was complete relief of labour pain assessed at 30 min. We also assessed the occurrence of paresthesias, intravascular and intrathecal placement, catheter replacement, and treatment of breakthrough pain during labour. Comparisons were made using Pearson's chi(2), with significance determined at the 0.05 level. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-three subjects completed the study. Initial analgesia was similar (complete labour analgesia: end-holed=85% vs 80% 95% CI of difference: 13% to -3%; P=NS). The incidence of paresthesia was similar (end-holed=3.6% vs 5.3%; P=NS). There was one intrathecal and three intravascular catheters in the three-holed group and two intravascular catheters in the end-holed group. The number of supplemental boluses and catheter replacements required during labour was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the initial analgesia success rate, complications, or labour analgesia between end-hole vs multi-hole flexible epidural catheters.
J E Spiegel; A Vasudevan; Y Li; P E Hess
Related Documents :
22878405 - Effects of pitavastatin on cardiac structure and function and on prevention of atrial f...
14644515 - The pathway study: results of a pilot feasibility study in patients suspected of having...
16140005 - Inadvertent intrathecal injection of labetalol in a patient undergoing post-partum tuba...
8024475 - Technology and clinical application of large-bore and implantable catheters.
7777305 - Corneal topography of phase iii excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. optical zone...
25167325 - Retrospective review of combined sirolimus and simvastatin therapy in lymphangioleiomyo...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't     Date:  2009-06-27
Journal Detail:
Title:  British journal of anaesthesia     Volume:  103     ISSN:  1471-6771     ISO Abbreviation:  Br J Anaesth     Publication Date:  2009 Sep 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2009-08-14     Completed Date:  2009-09-03     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0372541     Medline TA:  Br J Anaesth     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  400-5     Citation Subset:  IM    
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, Feld. 407 East Campus, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Analgesia, Epidural / adverse effects,  instrumentation*
Analgesia, Obstetrical / adverse effects,  instrumentation*
Equipment Design
Middle Aged
Pain Measurement / methods
Paresthesia / etiology
Prospective Studies
Single-Blind Method
Young Adult

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Comparative methylation of ERVWE1/syncytin-1 and other human endogenous retrovirus LTRs in placenta ...
Next Document:  Developmental changes in spatial distribution of in vivo fluorescence and epidermal UV absorbance ov...