Key result
Continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine did not significantly differ from saline in the duration of the second stage of labor (73 vs 76 minutes) or frequency of perineal anesthesia.
Why the study?
Does continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine improve analgesia or prolong the second stage of labor in nulliparous women?
RCT (n=53)
Double-blind
Does continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine improve analgesia or prolong the second stage of labor in nulliparous women?
Continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine during the second stage of labor does not improve analgesia or prolong labor compared to saline.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Offers no benefit over saline for second-stage analgesia; challenges presumed efficacy of lidocaine infusion in nulliparous labor.
A randomized double-blind study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and influence of maintaining a continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine during the second stage of labor in nulliparous women. When the cervix was 8 cm or more dilated, unidentified study solution was substituted for the known 0.75% lidocaine solution and continued until delivery. The study solution for 26 patients was 0.75% lidocaine; 27 subjects received saline. During the first stage of labor, 88% of women in the lidocaine group and 81% of women in the saline group had analgesia of excellent or good quality, a nonsignificant difference. During the second stage, there was a tendency (not statistically significant) toward improved analgesia quality in the lidocaine patients, but there was no significant difference in the frequency of perineal anesthesia (23% lidocaine, 7% saline). There was no difference between the groups in the duration of the second stage of labor (73 +/- 63 versus 76 +/- 48 minutes). Operative delivery frequency was similar (31 and 37%), as were umbilical cord blood acid-base values. It is concluded that maintenance of the continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine did not prolong the second stage of labor, but it also did not significantly differ from saline in quality of second stage analgesia or frequency of perineal anesthesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dh et al. (1988) conducted an RCT in Labor (n=53). Lidocaine vs. Saline was evaluated on Duration of the second stage of labor (minutes) (p=nonsignificant). Continuous epidural infusion of 0.75% lidocaine did not significantly differ from saline in the duration of the second stage of labor (73 vs 76 minutes) or frequency of perineal anesthesia.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: