Key result
Combined spinal-epidural provided significantly faster effective labor analgesia than epidural alone (4.46 vs 15.09 minutes; P<0.001) in parturients with rheumatic heart disease.
Why the study?
Does combined spinal-epidural technique improve labor analgesia compared to epidural technique in parturients with rheumatic valvular heart disease?
RCT (n=25)
randomized
Does combined spinal-epidural technique improve labor analgesia compared to epidural technique in parturients with rheumatic valvular heart disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.46% vs 15.09%
p-value: p=<0.001
Combined spinal-epidural provides a faster onset of labor analgesia compared to epidural alone in parturients with rheumatic valvular heart disease, with comparable safety and overall efficacy.
Supports CSE preference for rapid labor analgesia in RHD parturients; extends RCT evidence to this high-risk valvular group.
Background: Hemodynamic changes induced by labor pain and apprehension in addition to physiological changes may pose risk to parturients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Therefore, it is important to provide adequate pain relief during labor in these patients. We planned this study to compare the efficacy and safety of epidural (E) versus combined spinal - epidural (CSE) for labor analgesia in parturients with rheumatic valvular heart disease. Methods: Twenty-five parturients with RHD included in this study were randomized to one of the two groups - E group (n = 12), received 6 mL of 0.0625% bupivacaine with 25 μg fentanyl or CSE group (n = 13), received 25 μg of fentanyl with 1.25 mg bupivacaine diluted to 1 mL in subarachnoid space. Afterward, a continuous infusion of 0.1% bupivacaine with 2 μg/mL fentanyl was started at 6-8 mL/h. Primary outcome, analgesic efficacy, was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. VAS ≤ 3 was considered as effective analgesia. Rescue analgesia in the form of epidural bolus was given if VAS > 3. Results: Demographic characteristics of the patients were comparable. Mitral stenosis was the predominant valvular lesion. The VAS at which the parturients received analgesia was comparable. The mean time to achieve effective analgesia was significantly faster in CSE group (4.46 ± 0.87 min) compared with group E (15.09 ± 5.7 min) (P < 0.001). Significantly lower median pain scores were recorded until the initial 15 min in CSE group. Afterward, median VAS for pain was comparable between the groups. VAS for pain was significantly low at all time intervals than baseline in both the groups. Maternal satisfaction and incidence of cesarean rate and complication were comparable between the groups. Conclusion: Both epidural and CSE are equally effective and safe for labor analgesia in parturients with rheumatic valvular heart disease. However, CSE technique provides a faster onset of analgesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghai et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in rheumatic valvular heart disease (n=25). Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) vs. Epidural (6 mL of 0.0625% bupivacaine with 25 μg fentanyl, then same infusion) was evaluated on Mean time to achieve effective analgesia (VAS ≤ 3) (p=<0.001). Combined spinal-epidural provided significantly faster effective labor analgesia than epidural alone (4.46 vs 15.09 minutes; P<0.001) in parturients with rheumatic heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: