Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) plus very low continuous epidural infusion (CEI) versus patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) plus continuous epidural infusion (CEI) in primiparous labour: a randomized trial

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Epidural maintenance technique for labour analgesia updates constantly. Thanks to infusion pumps, the recently developed programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) may reduce the use of anesthetic drugs and minimize unintended consequences such as cardio or neurotoxicity. Nevertheless, it is not yet a general practice. So far, there are no comparative studies in the literature that address levobupivacaine-based CEI + PCEA versus CEI + PIEB + PCEA. A randomized double-blind trial was carried out to evaluate if PIEB could reduce local anesthetic use compare to PCEA. Primiparous pregnant patients were divided into two groups: PIEB group (continuous infusion plus intermittent automatic doses) and PCEA group (continuous infusion plus PCEA). The primary objective was to analyze the differences between both groups regarding levobupivacaine total dose. The secondary objectives were to find out the differences concerning pain control, motor blockage, satisfaction score, labour time and delivery outcomes. Statistical analyses were done by protocol. The study recruited 200 patients (103 PIEB, 97 PCEA). The total dose administered was significantly higher in PIEB group: PCEA group 52.97 mg, IC 95% 45.65–60.28 mg and PIEB group 62.04 mg, IC 95% 55.46–68.61 mg (p = 0.021). PIEB group required fewer top up boluses (median value1; range 0–2) than CEI + PCEA group (median value 6; range 3–9) p < 0.05. Satisfaction scores were higher in PIEB group (p = 0.039, CI 95% 1.23–1.42). CEI + PIEB was found to be a good alternative to CEI + PCEA with very high rates of satisfaction in both groups although it was higher in PIEB group. PIEB group required fewer PCEA boluses. Further studies are needed to determine the best approach for epidural pain management.

Clinical Trial Number and Registry URL: NCT03133091 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03133091?term=MB+Rodriguez&rank=1).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gizzo S, Noventa M, Fagherazzi S, Lamparelli L, Ancona E, Di Gangi S, et al. Update on best available options in obstetrics anaesthesia: perinatal outcomes, side effects and maternal satisfaction. Fifteen years systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290:21–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Loubert C, Hinova A, Fernando R. Update on modern neuraxial analgesia in labour: a review of the literatura of the past 5 years. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:191–212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wong CA, Ratliff JT, Sullivan JT, Scavone BM, Toledo P, McCarthy RJ. A randomized comparison of programmed intermittent epidural bolus with continuous epidural infusion for labor analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:904–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sng BL, Sia AT, Lim Y, Woo D, Ocampo C. Comparison of computer-integrated patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled epidural analgesia with a basal infusion for labour and delivery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2009;37:46–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Epsztein K, Barret NM, Arzola C, Downey K, Ye XY, Carvalho JC. Programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labor analgesia during first stage of labor: a biased-coin up-and-down sequential allocation trial to determine the optimum interval time between boluses of a fixed volume of 10 mL of Bupivacaine 0.0625% With Fentanyl 2 µg/mL. Anesth Analg. 2017;124(2):537–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Leighton BL, Halpern SH. The effects of epidural analgesia on labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:S69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  7. George RB, Allen TK, Habib AS. Intermittent Epidural bolus compared with continuous epidural infusions for labor analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2013;116(1):133–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Capogna G, Camorcia M, Stirparo S, Farcomeni A. Programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion for labor analgesia: the effects on maternal motor function and labor outcome. A randomized double-blind study in nulliparous women. Anesth Analg 2011: 826–31.

  9. Chua SM, Sia AT. Automated Intermittent Epidural boluses to improve analgesia induced by intrathecal fentanyl during labor. Can J Anaesth. 2004;51:581–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Halpern SH, Carvalho B. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor. Anesth Analg. 2009;108(3):921–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heesen M, Böhmer J, Klöhr S, Hofmann T, Rossaint R, Straube S. The effect of adding a background infusion to patient-controlled epidural labor analgesia on labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2015;121(1):149–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Irestedt LL, Ekblom A, Olofsson C, Dahlström AC, Emanuelsson BM. Pharmacocinetic and clinical effect during continuous epidural infusion Ropivacaine 2.5 mg/ml, or bupivacaine 2.5 mg/ml for labour pain relief. Acta-Anest Scand. 1998;42(8):890–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fischer C, Blanié P, Jaouën E, Vayssière C, Kaloul I, Coltat JC. Ropivacaine. 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, versus bupivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, using patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor: a double-blind comparison. Anesthesiology. 2000;92(6):1588–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Polley LS, Columb MO, Naughton NN, Wagner DS, van de Ven CJ. Relative analgesic potencies of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labor: implications for therapeutic indexes. Anesthesiology. 1999;90(4):944–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Comparative Obstetric Mobile Epidural Trial (COMET), Study Group UK. Effect of Low dose mobile versus traditional epidrual techniques on mode of delivery. A randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;358:19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ, ALSPAC Study Team. Prenatal risk factors for caesarean section. Analyses of ALSPAC cohort for 12.944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(2):353–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC) et al. Review Article Studies Comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;41(6):1073–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Halpern SH, Breen TW, Campbell DC, Muir HA, Kronberg J, Nunn R, Fick GH. A multicenter, randomizad, controlled trial comparing bupivacaine with ropivacaine for labor analgesia. Anesthesiology. 2003;98(6):1431–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leo S, Ocampo CE, Lim Y, Sia AT. A randomized comparison of automated intermittent mandatory boluses with a basal infusion in combination with patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor and delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2010;19:357–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin Y, Li Q, Liu J. Comparison of continous epidural infusion and programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor analgesia. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016;12:1107–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kimmich N, Juhasova J, Haslinger C, Ochsenbein-Kölble N, Zimmermann R. Impact factors on fetal descent rates in the active phase of labor: a retrospective cohort study. J Perinat Med. 2018;46(6):579–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Proctor A, Marshall P. Does a policy of earlier induction affect labour outcomes in women induced for postmadurity? A retrospective analysis in a tertiary hospital in the North of England. Midwifery. 2017;50:246–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lim Y, Sia AT, Ocampo C. Automated regular boluses for epidural analgesia: a comparison with continuous infusion. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2005;14:305–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McKenzie CP, Cobb B, Riley ET. Carvalho B. Programmed intermittent epidural boluses for maintenance of labor analgesia: an impact study. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2016;26:32–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Onuoha OC. Epidural analgesia for labor: continuous infusion versus programmed intermittent bolus. Anesthesiol Clin. 2017;35:1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bullingham A, Liang S, Edmonds E, Mathur S, Sharma S. Continuous epidural infusion vs programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labour analgesia: a prospective, controlled, before-and-after cohort study of labour outcomes. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(2):432–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nunes J, Nunes S, Veiga M, Cortez M, Seifert I. A prospective, randomized, blinded-endpoint, controlled study—continuous epidural infusion versus programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor analgesia. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2016;66(5):439–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Silanos R, Carlevaro S, Gratarola A, Venturini PL, Ferrero S, Pelosi P. Programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion for pain relief during termination of pregnancy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2016;25:37–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Delgado C, Ciliberto C, Bollag L, Sedensky M, Landau R. Continuous epidural infusion versus programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labor analgesia: optimal configuration of parameters to reduce physician-administered top-ups. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(4):649–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sng BL, Sia ATH. Maintenance of epidural labour analgesia: the old, the new and the future. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2017;31:15–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Missant C, Teunkens A, Vandermeersch E, Van de Velde M. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia following combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour: the effects of adding a continuous epidural infusion. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005;33:452–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brogly N, Schiraldi R, Vazquez B, Perez J, Guasch E, Gilsanz F. A randomized control trial of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with and without a background infusion using levobupivacaine and fentanyl. Minerva Anestesiol. 2011;77:1149–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sia AT, Lim Y, Ocampo C. A comparison of a basal infusion with automated mandatory boluses in parturient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:673–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Norman G. Likert Scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of stadistics. Adv Health Sci Edcu Theory Pract. 2010;15(5): 625–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sharma SK, McIntire DD, Wiley J, Leveno KJ. Labour analgesia and cesarean delivery: an individual patient meta-analysis of nulliparous women. Anesthesiology. 2014;100(1):142.8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Critical Care, Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega (HURH), C/Dulzaina 2, 47012, Valladolid, Spain

    Maria Belen Rodríguez-Campoó, Antonio Curto & Cesar Aldecoa

  2. Research Unit. Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega (HURH), C/Dulzaina2, 47012, Valladolid, Spain

    Manuel González

Authors
  1. Maria Belen Rodríguez-Campoó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Curto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cesar Aldecoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesar Aldecoa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 433 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodríguez-Campoó, M.B., Curto, A., González, M. et al. Patient intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) plus very low continuous epidural infusion (CEI) versus patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) plus continuous epidural infusion (CEI) in primiparous labour: a randomized trial. J Clin Monit Comput 33, 879–885 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0229-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0229-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation