Comparison of patient-controlled epidural analgesia and epidural morphine for post-cesarean section analgesia: experience from a tertiary center in China.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and epidural morphine (EM) for post-cesarean section analgesia in real-world experience from China.

Methods: Parturients receiving one dose of EM (1-2 mg), PCEA, or both EM and PCEA from Peking Union Medical College Hospital were retrospectively recruited. Logistic models were used to identify risk factors.

Results: Of 1079 parturients enrolled, 919 (85.2%) parturients received only EM, 105 (9.7%) parturients received PCEA, and 55 (5.1%) parturients received both EM and PCEA. Significantly more parturients from EM group requested supplementary analgesia than those from PCEA and PCEA + EM group (583, 63.4% vs 52, 49.5% vs 25, 45.5%, P = 0.001) with more times of supplementary analgesia (1, IQR: 0-2 vs 0, IQR: 0-1 vs 0, IQR: 0-1 times, P < 0.001) and larger amounts of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (50, IQR: 0-100 mg vs 0, IQR: 0-50 mg vs 0, IQR: 0-50 mg, P < 0.001). In multivariable Logistic regression for the supplementary analgesia risk, the application of PCEA (OR: 0.557, 95%CI 0.396-0.783, P = 0.001) and the use of NSAIDs intraoperatively (OR: 2.996, 95%CI 1.811-4.957, P < 0.001) were identified as independent predictors. A total of 1040 (96.4%) patients received prophylactic antiemetic therapy during surgery. Only 13 (1.2%) and 7 (0.6%) patients in our cohort requested antiemetic and antipruritic drugs, respectively.

Conclusion: The use of PCEA was an independent protective factor for supplementary analgesia during the post-cesarean section. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy may reduce the side effects of post-cesarean analgesia.