Ambulation during Neuraxial Analgesia in Obese Patients: A Pilot Study.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1055/a-2516-2292
Sunitha Suresh, F Arran Seiler, David Arnolds, Maritza Gonzalez, Naida Cole, Richard Silver, Barbara Scavone, Annie Dude
{"title":"Ambulation during Neuraxial Analgesia in Obese Patients: A Pilot Study.","authors":"Sunitha Suresh, F Arran Seiler, David Arnolds, Maritza Gonzalez, Naida Cole, Richard Silver, Barbara Scavone, Annie Dude","doi":"10.1055/a-2516-2292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prior studies have yielded mixed results regarding ambulation with neuraxial analgesia and labor outcomes, and studies did not include a significant obese population. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of ambulation with optimized neuraxial analgesia in laboring nulliparous obese patients.This was a pilot study at the University of Chicago (approval no.: IRB 19-1600, CT NCT04504682). Inclusion criteria were delivery BMI of ≥35 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, nulliparity, and term gestation. Contraindications to ambulation or vaginal delivery conferred ineligibility. Combined spinal-epidural analgesia was initiated per our institution's policy. Following epidural catheter placement, serial blood pressure measurements and motor assessments including a straight leg test and a step stool test were completed per safety protocol. Patients who passed these assessments were enrolled. Patients were encouraged to ambulate for 20 minutes every hour while on fetal and uterine telemetry. Ambulation was discouraged after complete dilation. Demographics and delivery outcomes were collected. Our primary objective was to evaluate feasibility through acceptability, and safety via the number of falls, and percentage of patients with any ambulation. The study was closed early due to enrollment difficulties and in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic.A total of 105 patients were identified for the trial: 20 were ineligible for the study, 20 could not be approached, and 40 declined study participation, leaving 25 patients who consented. Of those 25, 14 completed the study. Out of 14 participants, 11 were ambulated. The average BMI of these participants was 43 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. No patients fell during the trial.A pilot trial of ambulation during neuraxial analgesia among an obese nulliparous population demonstrated no safety concerns, but with concern regarding feasibility as there was low acceptance. · Pilot trial of ambulation with neuraxial analgesia among obese patients had limited enrollment.. · Trial of ambulation with epidural among obese nulliparous patients demonstrated no safety concerns.. · Further studies are needed for efficacy..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":"122-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2516-2292","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prior studies have yielded mixed results regarding ambulation with neuraxial analgesia and labor outcomes, and studies did not include a significant obese population. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of ambulation with optimized neuraxial analgesia in laboring nulliparous obese patients.This was a pilot study at the University of Chicago (approval no.: IRB 19-1600, CT NCT04504682). Inclusion criteria were delivery BMI of ≥35 kg/m2, nulliparity, and term gestation. Contraindications to ambulation or vaginal delivery conferred ineligibility. Combined spinal-epidural analgesia was initiated per our institution's policy. Following epidural catheter placement, serial blood pressure measurements and motor assessments including a straight leg test and a step stool test were completed per safety protocol. Patients who passed these assessments were enrolled. Patients were encouraged to ambulate for 20 minutes every hour while on fetal and uterine telemetry. Ambulation was discouraged after complete dilation. Demographics and delivery outcomes were collected. Our primary objective was to evaluate feasibility through acceptability, and safety via the number of falls, and percentage of patients with any ambulation. The study was closed early due to enrollment difficulties and in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic.A total of 105 patients were identified for the trial: 20 were ineligible for the study, 20 could not be approached, and 40 declined study participation, leaving 25 patients who consented. Of those 25, 14 completed the study. Out of 14 participants, 11 were ambulated. The average BMI of these participants was 43 kg/m2. No patients fell during the trial.A pilot trial of ambulation during neuraxial analgesia among an obese nulliparous population demonstrated no safety concerns, but with concern regarding feasibility as there was low acceptance. · Pilot trial of ambulation with neuraxial analgesia among obese patients had limited enrollment.. · Trial of ambulation with epidural among obese nulliparous patients demonstrated no safety concerns.. · Further studies are needed for efficacy..

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
肥胖患者在轴向镇痛期间的活动:一项初步研究。
目的:先前的研究得出了关于轴向镇痛和分娩结局的混合结果,并且研究没有包括显著的肥胖人群。我们试图评估优化的神经轴镇痛在分娩肥胖患者中行走的可行性。研究设计:这是芝加哥大学的一项试点研究(批准号:: irb 19-1600, ct nct04504682)。纳入标准为分娩BMI≥35 kg/m2、无产和足月妊娠。不能下床或阴道分娩的禁忌症。根据我们机构的政策,我们开始了脊髓-硬膜外联合镇痛。硬膜外导管放置后,根据安全方案完成一系列血压测量和运动评估,包括直腿测试和阶梯粪便测试。通过这些评估的患者被纳入研究。鼓励患者每小时走动20分钟,同时进行胎儿和子宫遥测。完全扩张后不鼓励走动。收集人口统计数据和交付结果。我们的主要目标是通过可接受性来评估可行性,通过跌倒次数和患者走动的百分比来评估安全性。由于招募困难和COVID-19大流行的背景,该研究提前结束。结果:共有105例患者被确定为试验:20例不符合研究条件,20例无法接近,40例拒绝参与研究,剩下25例患者同意。在这25人中,有14人完成了这项研究。在14名参与者中,有11人是走动的。这些参与者的平均BMI为43 kg/m2。试验期间没有患者摔倒。结论:在肥胖未产人群中进行的一项中试试验表明,在轴向镇痛期间走动没有安全性问题,但由于接受度低,值得关注可行性。·对肥胖患者进行轴向镇痛下床的试点试验,入选人数有限。·在肥胖无产患者中进行硬膜外活动的试验表明没有安全问题。有效性需要进一步的研究。
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
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Optimal Timing of Delivery in Pregnant Individuals with Pregestational Diabetes Mellitus. Predictive Factors of Fetal Cardiac Manifestations of Neonatal Lupus in Anti-SSA/Ro and/or SSB/La Antibody-Positive Pregnant Women. Perinatal Outcomes in Pregnancies Immediately following Stillbirth: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study. Association of Placental Pathology and Antibiotic Exposure after Birth with the Severity of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Infants: A Case-Control Study. Effect of the 2022 AAP Guideline for Managing Hyperbilirubinemia in the Newborn.
×
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