Comparison of analgesic effects between programmed intermittent epidural boluses and continuous epidural infusion after cesarean section: a randomized controlled study.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Korean Journal of Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-14 DOI:10.4097/kja.23726
Yu Jeong Bang, Heejoon Jeong, RyungA Kang, Ji-Hee Sung, Suk-Joo Choi, Soo-Young Oh, Tae Soo Hahm, Young Hee Shin, Yeon Woo Jeong, Soo Joo Choi, Justin Sangwook Ko
{"title":"Comparison of analgesic effects between programmed intermittent epidural boluses and continuous epidural infusion after cesarean section: a randomized controlled study.","authors":"Yu Jeong Bang, Heejoon Jeong, RyungA Kang, Ji-Hee Sung, Suk-Joo Choi, Soo-Young Oh, Tae Soo Hahm, Young Hee Shin, Yeon Woo Jeong, Soo Joo Choi, Justin Sangwook Ko","doi":"10.4097/kja.23726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the analgesic effects of programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) and continuous epidural infusion (CEI) for postoperative analgesia after elective cesarean section (CS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-four women who underwent elective CS were randomized to receive either PIEB or CEI. The PIEB group received 4 ml-intermittent boluses of 0.11% ropivacaine every hour at a rate of 120 ml/h. The CEI group received a constant rate of 4 ml/h of 0.11% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was the pain score at rest at 36 h after CS. Secondary outcomes included the pain scores during mobilization, time-weighted pain scores, the incidence of motor blockade, and complications-related epidural analgesia during 36 h after CS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The pain score at rest at 36 h after CS was significantly lower in the PIEB group compared with that in the CEI group (3.0 vs. 0.0; median difference: 2, 95% CI [1, 2], P < 0.001). The mean time-weighted pain scores at rest and during mobilizations were also significantly lower in the PIEB group than in the CEI group (pain at rest; mean difference [MD]: 37.5, 95% CI [24.6, 50.4], P < 0.001/pain during mobilization; MD: 56.6, 95% CI [39.8, 73.5], P < 0.001). The incidence of motor blockade was significantly reduced in the PIEB group compared with that in the CEI group (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PIEB provides superior analgesia with less motor blockade than CEI in postpartum women after CS, without any apparent adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":17855,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"374-383"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11150112/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.23726","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the analgesic effects of programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) and continuous epidural infusion (CEI) for postoperative analgesia after elective cesarean section (CS).

Methods: Seventy-four women who underwent elective CS were randomized to receive either PIEB or CEI. The PIEB group received 4 ml-intermittent boluses of 0.11% ropivacaine every hour at a rate of 120 ml/h. The CEI group received a constant rate of 4 ml/h of 0.11% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was the pain score at rest at 36 h after CS. Secondary outcomes included the pain scores during mobilization, time-weighted pain scores, the incidence of motor blockade, and complications-related epidural analgesia during 36 h after CS.

Results: The pain score at rest at 36 h after CS was significantly lower in the PIEB group compared with that in the CEI group (3.0 vs. 0.0; median difference: 2, 95% CI [1, 2], P < 0.001). The mean time-weighted pain scores at rest and during mobilizations were also significantly lower in the PIEB group than in the CEI group (pain at rest; mean difference [MD]: 37.5, 95% CI [24.6, 50.4], P < 0.001/pain during mobilization; MD: 56.6, 95% CI [39.8, 73.5], P < 0.001). The incidence of motor blockade was significantly reduced in the PIEB group compared with that in the CEI group (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: PIEB provides superior analgesia with less motor blockade than CEI in postpartum women after CS, without any apparent adverse events.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
剖宫产术后程序化间歇硬膜外注射与连续硬膜外输注镇痛效果的比较:随机对照研究。
背景:本研究旨在比较程序性间歇硬膜外栓剂(PIEB)和连续硬膜外输液(CEI)对择期剖宫产术(CS)术后镇痛的效果:74名接受择期剖宫产术的女性被随机分配到PIEB或CEI组。PIEB 组每小时以 120 毫升/小时的速度间歇注射 4 毫升 0.11% 罗哌卡因。CEI组接受4毫升/小时的0.11%罗哌卡因恒定注射。主要结果是 CS 后 36 小时休息时的疼痛评分。次要结果包括活动时的疼痛评分、时间加权疼痛评分、运动阻滞发生率和 CS 后 36 小时内硬膜外镇痛相关并发症:CS后36小时静息时的疼痛评分,PIEB组明显低于CEI组(3.0 vs. 0.0;中位数差异,2;95% CI:1,2;P < 0.001)。PIEB组在休息时和活动时的平均时间加权疼痛评分也显著低于CEI组(休息时疼痛:平均差异,37.5;95% CI,[24.6,50.4];P <0.001;活动时疼痛:平均差异,56.6;95% CI,[39.8,73.5];P <0.001)。与CEI组相比,PIEB组的运动阻滞发生率明显降低(P < 0.001):结论:与CEI相比,PIEB能为CS后的产后妇女提供更好的镇痛效果,同时减少运动阻滞,且无任何明显的不良反应。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.90%
发文量
84
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Sevoflurane degradation is accelerated by ozone: water trap removal of degradation products. Inhalational versus total intravenous anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: a comparative review of clinical outcomes. Injectate distribution patterns in posterior infrazygomatic and transoral approaches to the pterygopalatine fossa. Association between preoperative hyperglycemia and adverse cardiac events after non-cardiac surgery: a multicenter cohort study. Role of frailty in predicting postoperative pulmonary complications in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a retrospective cohort study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1