Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on June 27, 2009
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009 103(3):400-405; doi:10.1093/bja/aep174
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
103/3/400    most recent
aep174v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spiegel, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hess, P. E.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Spiegel, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hess, P. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournal.org

A randomized prospective study comparing two flexible epidural catheters for labour analgesia{dagger}

J. E. Spiegel*, A. Vasudevan, Y. Li and P. E. Hess

Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, Feld. 407 East Campus, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA

* Corresponding author. E-mail: jspiegel{at}bidmc.harvard.edu

Background: Previous studies evaluating stiff epidural catheters found that the three-holed design provided superior labour analgesia compared with an end-holed design. This was believed due to improved medication distribution. Recently, flexible epidural catheters with both designs have been shown to be superior to the stiff epidural catheters. We investigated the success of labour analgesia comparing the flexible three-holed with the flexible end-holed epidural catheter.

Methods: This was a prospective, single-blinded randomized study. We enrolled 500 parturients in active labour. The primary outcome was complete relief of labour pain assessed at 30 min. We also assessed the occurrence of paresthesias, intravascular and intrathecal placement, catheter replacement, and treatment of breakthrough pain during labour. Comparisons were made using Pearson's {chi}2, with significance determined at the 0.05 level.

Results: Four hundred and ninety-three subjects completed the study. Initial analgesia was similar (complete labour analgesia: end-holed=85% vs 80% 95% CI of difference: 13% to –3%; P=NS). The incidence of paresthesia was similar (end-holed=3.6% vs 5.3%; P=NS). There was one intrathecal and three intravascular catheters in the three-holed group and two intravascular catheters in the end-holed group. The number of supplemental boluses and catheter replacements required during labour was similar between the groups.

Conclusions: There were no differences in the initial analgesia success rate, complications, or labour analgesia between end-hole vs multi-hole flexible epidural catheters.

Keywords: anaesthetic techniques, epidural; anaesthesia, obstetric

{dagger} Presented in part at the 38th Annual SOAP Meeting, April 28, 2006, Hollywood, FL, USA.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.