British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2002, Vol. 88, No. 3 374-378
© 2002 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia
Clinical Investigations |
Remifentanil by patient-controlled analgesia compared with intramuscular meperidine for pain relief in labour
1Department of Anaesthesia, Southmead Hospital, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, UK. 2Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, UK. 3Department of Anaesthesia, Frenchay Hospital, Frenchay Park Road, Bristol, UK*Corresponding author: Department of Anaesthesia, Taunton and Somerset Hospital, Musgrove Park, Taunton TA1 5DA, UK
Accepted for publication: November 9, 2001
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background. The pharmacokinetics of remifentanil suggests that it may be suitable for analgesia during labour.
Methods. In an open pilot study, 36 women requesting meperidine for analgesia were recruited early in labour and randomized to receive either meperidine i.m. or remifentanil given as patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Pain severity, sedation and anxiety were assessed with visual analogue scales and overall effective analgesia was assessed by the woman and midwife.
Results. The pain scores were lower in the remifentanil group: median pain score at 60 min was 72 mm for meperidine and 48 mm for remifentanil (P=0.004) and median maximum pain score during the first 2 h was 82.5 mm for the meperidine group and 66.5 mm for the remifentanil group (P=0.009). Both the midwives’ and the women’s assessments of overall effective analgesia were higher in the remifentanil group [Likert scale (5 = excellent to 1 = poor): 
2=12.10, P=0.002 for mothers’ assessment; 2=12.80, P=0.002 for midwives’ assessment].
Conclusion. In this pilot study, remifentanil by PCA gave better pain relief to mothers in labour than intramuscular meperidine. However, remifentanil is a potent respiratory depressant and adequate continuous monitoring is necessary.
Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 374–8
Keywords: analgesics opioid, meperidine; analgesics opioid, remifentanil; analgesia, obstetric
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Most women who deliver in modern obstetric units request some form of pharmacological pain relief. There are many treatment options available to relieve the pain of childbirth. Some are more effective than others. Non-pharmacological forms of analgesia, such as breathing exercises and transcutaneous nerve stimulation, can be inadequate for established and augmented labour. Entonox may also be inadequate. Epidural analgesia offers the best pain relief for many women in labour. If an epidural is contraindicated or a woman does not wish to have an epidural, meperidine is the main alternative but, although widely used, it is a poor analgesic and the main effect is sedation.1 2
Remifentanil’s rapid onset and offset of effect3 4 should make it an ideal drug for the intermittent painful contractions of labour. It has been used as an i.v. infusion during non-urgent Caesarean section as an adjunct to epidural anaesthesia. It does cross the placenta (mean uterine vein:maternal artery ratio=0.88) but is rapidly metabolized, redistributed or both (mean uterine artery:uterine vein ratio=0.29), with no clinically adverse effects on the neonate.5
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) techniques are not new to obstetrics: PCA is the standard delivery system for Entonox. Meperidine,6 butorphanol tartrate,7 tramadol,8 nalbuphine9 and fentanyl10 11 have all been given by PCA in labour. Remifentanil may have an advantage compared with these because of its rapid onset time and rate of hydrolysis. There are case reports of remifentanil PCA in labour in parturients with known platelet abnormalities.12 13 Intravenous PCA should be better than intermittent i.m. injections because it avoids the pain of injection and allows better matching of analgesic delivery to the pain.
We conducted an open randomized pilot study to compare the analgesic effect of remifentanil given as PCA with i.m. meperidine during labour.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
After local ethics committee approval, we recruited women aged between 18 and 40 years, of mixed parity, between 38 and 42 weeks gestation in early labour. Women weighing less than 50 kg or more than 100 kg were excluded. After they had given written informed consent, women were assigned randomly to one of two groups by sequentially numbered, sealed opaque envelopes prepared by an independent practitioner. Patients in group M were assigned i.m. meperidine 100 mg and an antiemetic and those in group R were assigned i.v. remifentanil via PCA (20 µg bolus over 20 s, 3 min lockout and no background infusion); full instructions were given to the mother and attending midwife. A dedicated i.v. cannula was sited in a forearm vein in women in group R. A dosing study was conducted before the study proper to ascertain the dose and lockout period required to relieve the pain of labour without obvious clinical side-effects. Starting with a 5 µg bolus, an increasing dose of remifentanil was given at the beginning of each painful contraction until the contraction was pain-free, and the time to the next painful contraction was noted.
Pain was assessed with a continuous visual analogue scale (VAS; 100 mm, marked ‘no pain’ to ‘worse pain imaginable’). Women were asked to mark on the line the worst pain they had felt during their last contraction after it had finished. Sedation and anxiety were assessed similarly, using the terms ‘wide awake’ to ‘very sleepy’ for sedation, and ‘very calm’ to ‘very anxious’ for anxiety. Nausea scores and the physiological variables of blood pressure, pulse rate, ventilatory rate and oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry were also measured.
Baseline recordings were made and then measurements were taken every 30 min after analgesia was started. Although measurements were recorded every 30 min, all women were observed throughout by their attending midwife, and one of the investigators was available in the delivery suite at all times during the study. All patients were monitored by continuous pulse oximetry.
If the assigned analgesia was inadequate for the patient at any time, an alternative was offered and further study recordings were discontinued.
The foetus was monitored by continuous cardiotocography and Apgar scores were noted at delivery. All women had access to Entonox at all times.
The overall effective analgesia was rated after delivery by the mother and attending midwife within 2 h of delivery on a five-point verbal scale ranging from excellent to poor (Likert scale: 5=excellent, 4=very good, 3=good, 2=fair, 1=poor).
A power calculation was performed at the design stage of the study. We estimated that the probability of a woman who was receiving remifentanil reporting a lower pain score than a woman receiving meperidine was 0.85. Assuming that the pain scores would be compared using a Wilcoxon rank sum test, for a two-sided 5% level of statistical significance and 90% power we estimated that we needed to recruit 30 patients in total, 15 in each group.
The overall effective analgesia rating (Likert scale) was analysed using the 2 test. Fisher’s exact test was applied to the nausea and vomiting scores and epidural conversion rates. The combined influence of drug treatment and other postrandomization events was assessed by analysis of variance. All other non-parametric data were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Parametric data were analysed with the t-test. Analysis was performed using Stata for Windows (Stata Corporation, Texas, USA) and Microsoft Excel for Windows.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Forty-one women were asked to take part in the study. Five women refused, stating that they preferred to have meperidine. Thirty-six patients were recruited and there were no withdrawals. Eighteen patients were randomized to each treatment group (Table 1). The number of primigravid patients in each group was similar (13/18 in each group). Details of labour in the two groups are summarized in Table 2.
|
|
The pain scores at 60 min and the maximum pain scores during the first 2 h after analgesia commenced were significantly lower in the remifentanil group (Table 3).
|
There was no difference in Entonox usage between the two groups (P=0.11).
There was no difference between the two groups in the pain scores at 1 h or maximum pain score over the first 2 h in relation to artificial rupture of membranes (P=0.86, P=0.31) or Syntocinon usage (P=0.77, P=0.35).The midwives’ and mothers’ assessments of ‘overall effective analgesia’ were both higher in the remifentanil group (P=0.002) (Figs 1 and 2). There were no other significant differences between the two groups.
|
|
For two women receiving meperidine and seven receiving remifentanil, haemoglobin oxygen saturations of less than or equal to 94% were recorded. The lowest for meperidine was 89% and the lowest for remifentanil 92%. The minimum saturation did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.08) but the impression was that the overall saturation may have been lower for women receiving remifentanil.
There was no significant difference in the recorded minimum ventilatory rate between the two groups (P=0.60), although rates less than 8 between contractions were recorded for three patients receiving remifentanil; these responded quickly to verbal stimulation.
All women receiving meperidine were given an antiemetic at the same time (promethazine 25 mg or prochlorperazine 12.5 mg). No antiemetic was given to women receiving remifentanil unless indicated clinically. Ten women receiving meperidine and five receiving remifentanil experienced nausea and vomiting (P=0.06). Three women receiving remifentanil went on to receive an antiemetic (either promethazine 25 mg or prochlorperazine 12.5 mg).
Three women receiving meperidine later received an epidural, while seven receiving remifentanil required additional analgesia and later an epidural (P>0.05).
There were more non-spontaneous vaginal deliveries in the remifentanil group (P=0.04). The three Caesarean sections in the women receiving remifentanil were not related in time to the use of remifentanil and all three women needed epidural analgesia because of inadequate pain relief. The time to section after the epidural was sited was between 2 and 8 h. Three of the four ventouse deliveries in the women receiving remifentanil were not related in time to the use of remifentanil and all three women needed epidural analgesia because of inadequate pain relief. The time to ventouse delivery after the epidural was sited was between 3 and 7 h. If this information is taken into account, there would be one non-spontaneous vaginal delivery in each group. The results of ventouse deliveries and Caesarean sections are summarized in Table 2.
There were no differences in Apgar scores between the two groups (epidural conversions excluded).
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In this pilot study, remifentanil by PCA provided better pain relief to mothers in labour than i.m. meperidine, judged by VAS pain scores and overall assessments by mothers and attending midwives. Although pain scores were recorded every 30 min, the comparative recordings at 60 min were analysed because it was thought that this may be when i.m. meperidine would have its maximum analgesic effect. However, to ensure an effect was not missed, the maximum pain score within the first 2 h was also analysed. Pain scores after 2 h were not analysed statistically as after this time the analgesic effects of meperidine would begin to wear off, whereas the analgesic effects of remifentanil PCA would continue.
This pilot study compared two different pharmacological regimes of analgesic administration, and this may limit the usefulness of its clinical findings. Using a PCA device can improve satisfaction scores in the clinical setting and itself affect the severity of pain. When visited the following day, almost all women who had received remifentanil commented spontaneously on the controllability of the PCA, which they considered to be an advantage. PCA meperidine and remifentanil have recently been compared in labour, but poor Apgar scores in the meperidine group terminated the study prematurely.14
Seven women receiving remifentanil went on to have an epidural compared with three women receiving meperidine. This was an unexpected finding as pain scores were significantly lower in the remifentanil group. The difference in epidural conversion rate between the two groups was not significant, but our sample size was small. Meperidine is a sedative. This may have some influence on women requesting an epidural. In our pilot study, a fixed bolus dose of remifentanil was used. Ideally, the dose should be tailored to the individual patient and adjustments made as necessary with the progression of labour, especially as acute tolerance can develop with prolonged use of remifentanil.15
More women using remifentanil had lower haemoglobin oxygen saturations and some women had low ventilatory rates. Remifentanil is a potent opioid with potentially serious side-effects. It has a rapid onset, with a time to peak effect of 60–80 s.3 From clinical observations, we suggest that the mothers must be encouraged to make a demand at the start of contractions rather than when the contractions become painful. If pressed too late, the maximum analgesic effect will occur after the peak of the contraction, along with the side-effects. It is then that ventilatory depression, if it does occur, is more likely. There must be close communication between mother, attending midwife and anaesthetist to ensure proper use of the PCA for best effect with least side-effects.
Remifentanil may be an acceptable alternative to meperidine when epidural analgesia is unsuitable. However, it is a potent respiratory depressant and adequate continuous monitoring is advisable.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1 Olofsson C, Ekman-Ordeberg G, Hjelm A, Irestedt L. Lack of analgesic effect of systemically administered morphine or pethidine on labour pain. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 968–72[Web of Science][Medline]
2 Reynolds F, Crowhurst JA. Opioids in labour—no analgesic effect. Lancet 1997: 346: 4–5
3
Glass PSA, Hardman D, Kamiyama Y, et al. Preliminary pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an ultra-short-acting opioid: remifentanil (G187084B) Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 1031–40
4 Selinger K, Nation RL, Smith GA. Enzymatic and chemical hydrolysis of remifentanil. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: A385
5 Kan RE, Hughes SC, Rosen MA, Kessin C, Preston PG, Lobo EP. Intravenous remifentanil. Placental transfer, maternal and neonatal effects. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 1467–74[Web of Science][Medline]
6 Evans JM, McCarthy JP, Rosen M, Hogg MIJ. Apparatus for patient-controlled administration of intravenous narcotics during labour. Lancet 1976; 1: 17–18[Web of Science][Medline]
7 Vogelsang J, Hayes SR. Butorphanol tartrate (stadol): a review. J Post Anesth Nurs 1991; 6: 129–35[Medline]
8
Lewis KS, Han NH. Tramadol: a new centrally acting analgesic. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 643–5
9 Frank M, McAteer EJ, Cattermole R, Loughnan B, Stafford LB, Hitchcock AM. Nalbuphine for obstetric analgesia. A comparison of nalbuphine with pethidine for pain relief in labour when administered by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Anaesthesia 1987; 42: 697–703[Web of Science][Medline]
10 Kleiman SJ, Weisel S, Tessler MJ. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) using fentanyl in a parturient with a platelet function abnormality. Can J Anaesth 1991; 38: 489–91
11 Rosaeg OP, Kitts JB, Koren G, Byford LJ. Maternal and fetal effects of intravenous patient-controlled fentanyl during labour in a thrombocytopenic parturient. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39: 277–81[Web of Science][Medline]
12 Jones R, Pegrum A, Stacey RGW. Patient-controlled analgesia using remifentanil in the parturient with thrombocytopaenia. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 461–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
13
Thurlow JA, Waterhouse P. Patient-controlled analgesia in labour using remifentanil in two parturients with platelet abnormalities. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 411–3
14 Volikas I, Male D. A comparison of pethidine and remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia in labour. Int J Obstet Anesth 2001; 10: 86–90[Web of Science][Medline]
15 Vinik HR, Kissin I. Rapid development of tolerance to analgesia during remifentanil infusion in humans. Anaesth Analg 1998; 86: 1307–1311[Abstract]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Hinova and R. Fernando Systemic Remifentanil for Labor Analgesia Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2009; 109(6): 1925 - 1929. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. D'Onofrio, A. M. M. Novelli, F. Mecacci, and G. Scarselli The Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Intravenous Administration of Remifentanil for Birth Pain Relief: An Open Study of 205 Parturients Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2009; 109(6): 1922 - 1924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Grass Patient-Controlled Analgesia Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2005; 101(5S_Suppl): S44 - 61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Volikas, A. Butwick, C. Wilkinson, A. Pleming, and G. Nicholson Maternal and neonatal side-effects of remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia in labour Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2005; 95(4): 504 - 509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Fortescue and M. Y. Wee Analgesia in labour: non-regional techniques CEACCP, February 1, 2005; 5(1): 9 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Evron, M. Glezerman, O. Sadan, M. Boaz, and T. Ezri Remifentanil: A Novel Systemic Analgesic for Labor Pain Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2005; 100(1): 233 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Wiertlewski, A. Magot, S. Drapier, J.-M. Malinovsky, and Y. Pereon Worsening of Neurologic Symptoms After Epidural Anesthesia for Labor in a Guillain-Barre Patient Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2004; 98(3): 825 - 827. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||