Original Article
The Risk of Cesarean Delivery with Neuraxial Analgesia Given Early versus Late in Labor
N Engl J Med 2005; 352:655-665February 17, 2005
- Abstract
Background
Epidural analgesia initiated early in labor (when the cervix is less than 4.0 cm dilated) has been associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery. It is unclear, however, whether this increase in risk is due to the analgesia or is attributable to other factors.
Methods
We conducted a randomized trial of 750 nulliparous women at term who were in spontaneous labor or had spontaneous rupture of the membranes and who had a cervical dilatation of less than 4.0 cm. Women were randomly assigned to receive intrathecal fentanyl or systemic hydromorphone at the first request for analgesia. Epidural analgesia was initiated in the intrathecal group at the second request for analgesia and in the systemic group at a cervical dilatation of 4.0 cm or greater or at the third request for analgesia. The primary outcome was the rate of cesarean delivery.
Results
The rate of cesarean delivery was not significantly different between the groups (17.8 percent after intrathecal analgesia vs. 20.7 percent after systemic analgesia; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, –9.0 to 3.0 percentage points; P=0.31). The median time from the initiation of analgesia to complete dilatation was significantly shorter after intrathecal analgesia than after systemic analgesia (295 minutes vs. 385 minutes, P<0.001), as was the time to vaginal delivery (398 minutes vs. 479 minutes, P<0.001). Pain scores after the first intervention were significantly lower after intrathecal analgesia than after systemic analgesia (2 vs. 6 on a 0-to-10 scale, P<0.001). The incidence of one-minute Apgar scores below 7 was significantly higher after systemic analgesia (24.0 percent vs. 16.7 percent, P=0.01).
Conclusions
Neuraxial analgesia in early labor did not increase the rate of cesarean delivery, and it provided better analgesia and resulted in a shorter duration of labor than systemic analgesia.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Analgesic Interventions in the Study.Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier Curves for the Duration of Labor.Article Activity
- Article
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that “when feasible, obstetrical practitioners should delay the administration of epidural anesthesia in nulliparous women until the cervical dilatation reaches at least 4.0 to 5.0 cm and that other forms of analgesia should be used until that time.”1 This recommendation is based on studies that found an association between the initiation of epidural analgesia early in labor and an increased rate of cesarean delivery.2,3 The nature of this association is uncertain. Neuraxial analgesia may directly or indirectly influence the progress of labor. Alternatively, the request for analgesia early in labor may be a marker for some other risk factor for cesarean delivery, such as dysfunctional labor.
On the basis of this recommendation, women who request analgesia early in labor frequently receive systemic opioid analgesia. However, the analgesia is often incomplete, and it has potential side effects for both the mother and the fetus, including maternal and neonatal respiratory depression, especially when neuraxial opioids are administered concomitantly.4
We hypothesized that initiating and maintaining neuraxial analgesia early in labor with intrathecal opioid as part of a low-dose local anesthetic technique would not increase the risk of cesarean delivery when compared with systemic opioid analgesia. We designed this trial to compare the rate of cesarean delivery in nulliparous women in spontaneous labor or with spontaneous rupture of the membranes who requested analgesia early in labor and were randomly assigned to receive intrathecal or systemic opioid analgesia.
Methods
The study was approved by the Northwestern University institutional review board. All healthy nulliparous women with term, singleton pregnancies who presented in spontaneous labor or with spontaneous rupture of the membranes at Prentice Women's Hospital in Chicago between November 2000 and December 2003 and who desired neuraxial analgesia were eligible to participate. Exclusion criteria were a nonvertex presentation, scheduled induction of labor, any contraindication to opioid analgesia, and cervical dilatation of 4.0 cm or greater. The subjects were asked to participate soon after admission and gave written informed consent before any request for analgesia.
When subjects requested analgesia, the cervix was examined. If the cervix was dilated less than 4.0 cm, the subjects were randomly assigned in a single block by means of a computer-generated, random-number list to either intrathecal or systemic analgesia. Group assignments were sealed in sequentially numbered, opaque envelopes that were opened only after cervical dilatation was determined to be less than 4.0 cm. Patients and care providers were not blinded to the group assignment.
Analgesic Interventions and Management
Analgesia was initiated in the intrathecal group by a combined spinal–epidural technique. Intrathecal fentanyl (25 μg) was injected, an epidural catheter placed, and an epidural test dose administered. At the second request for analgesia, the cervix was again examined. Epidural analgesia was then initiated as follows: if the cervix was less than 4.0 cm in diameter, a 15-ml epidural bolus of bupivacaine (0.625 mg per milliliter) with fentanyl (2 μg per milliliter) was given, and if the cervix was 4.0 cm or greater in diameter, a 15-ml epidural bolus of bupivacaine (1.25 mg per milliliter) was given (Figure 1Figure 1
Analgesic Interventions in the Study.). In both instances, patient-controlled epidural analgesia was then begun.Analgesia was initiated in the systemic-analgesia group with hydromorphone given intramuscularly (1 mg) and intravenously (1 mg). If the cervix was less than 4.0 cm in diameter at the second request for analgesia, these doses of hydromorphone were given again. If the cervix was 4.0 cm or greater, epidural analgesia was initiated. Epidural analgesia was given at the third analgesia request, regardless of cervical dilatation.
If no cervical examination was performed at the second request for analgesia, the cervix was assumed to be at least 4.0 cm dilated. Thereafter, patient-controlled epidural analgesia was maintained in both groups until delivery (Figure 1).
Subjects were asked by study personnel to rate their pain according to an 11-point verbal rating score for pain (in which 0 represented no pain and 10 the worst pain imaginable) at the first and second requests for analgesia. At the second request, subjects were asked to rate their “average contraction pain” since the beginning of the analgesic intervention, as well as to rate their nausea (as none, mild, moderate, or severe) and to report any vomiting.
Obstetrical Management
Decisions regarding obstetrical management were made by the obstetricians and midwives. Most of the subjects had continuous external electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring and tocodynamometry. Internal fetal-scalp electrodes were placed when the external tracing was not interpretable. Intrauterine pressure catheters were used when necessary to document the intensity of contractions. Nurses titrated oxytocin infusions according to guidelines set by the obstetrical management team. The decision to proceed to operative delivery was made by the obstetrical team according to maternal or fetal indications. Apgar scores were assigned by personnel responsible for neonatal assessment. Umbilical-cord blood gases were measured at the discretion of the obstetrical team.
Other Data
The following data about the subjects were collected: age, race (as declared by the patient), type of insurance, gestational age, weight, height, time of membrane rupture, maximal dose of oxytocin, time of complete cervical dilatation (10.0 cm), time of delivery, method of delivery (cesarean, instrumental, or spontaneous vaginal), primary indication for cesarean delivery, if applicable, and maximal maternal body temperature during labor. Fetal heart-rate tracings beginning 30 minutes before the first analgesic intervention until 30 minutes afterward were assessed by a perinatologist; patient identification was removed from the tracings, and they were not accompanied by treatment information.
Outcomes
The primary outcome was the method of delivery. Prespecified secondary outcomes were the indication for cesarean delivery, the method of vaginal delivery, the quality of analgesia, the use or nonuse of oxytocin, the duration of labor, the incidence of nonreassuring fetal status (i.e., fetal heart-rate patterns that do not reassure the clinician with regard to the status of the fetus), and the neonatal outcome.
Statistical Analysis
The study was designed to have 80 percent power to detect a difference of 50 percent in the rate of cesarean delivery, with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The sample size required to detect this difference was 350 subjects per group. The baseline cesarean rate (17 percent) was estimated from institutional data. The 50 percent increase in the cesarean-delivery rate was a conservative estimate based on the increased rate associated with early neuraxial analgesia observed previously in our institution.5 To account for expected losses in participation, 750 subjects underwent randomization. A planned interim analysis after the enrollment of 225 subjects found no difference in the cesarean-delivery rate between the groups, and so the planned study recruitment was completed.6
Categorical data were analyzed with use of a chi-square test. Student's t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test were used to analyze interval and ordinal data. Binary logistic-regression analysis of the primary outcome was performed to identify characteristics of the subjects that were associated with cesarean delivery. The intervals from the first request for analgesia until delivery were analyzed by the Kaplan–Meier method and the log-rank test. To assess the interaction between baseline characteristics and assigned analgesia with respect to the duration of labor, a Cox regression analysis was performed. Data were analyzed according to the intention to treat. All reported P values are two-sided. A P value of less than 0.05 was required to reject the null hypothesis.
Results
Eight hundred eighty-four women consented to participate (Figure 1). One hundred thirty-four women were excluded because their cervical dilatation was 4.0 cm or greater at the first request for analgesia. Twenty-two subjects were excluded after randomization because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining 728 subjects were included in the analysis.
One hundred one obstetrical providers attended the subjects' deliveries. The median number of deliveries per provider was 7 (range, 1 to 33). The groups were similar at baseline, except that the systemic-analgesia group had a greater percentage of subjects with cervical dilatation that was less than or equal to 1.5 cm at the first request for analgesia (although the median cervical dilatation in each group was 2.0 cm, and fetal station was not significantly different between the groups); the systemic-analgesia group also had a higher incidence of spontaneous rupture of the membranes more than 12 hours before oxytocin administration (Table 1Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of the Subjects.). The median cervical dilatation at the initiation of neuraxial analgesia was lower in the intrathecal-analgesia group than in the systemic-analgesia group.Labor and Delivery Outcomes
The rate of cesarean delivery was not significantly different between the groups (difference in the rate after intrathecal analgesia as compared with systemic analgesia, –2.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, –9.0 to 3.0; P=0.31) (Table 2Table 2
Primary and Secondary Outcomes.). There was also no significant difference in the rate of instrumental vaginal delivery between the groups (difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval –2.9 to 10.1; P=0.13). There were no significant differences in the indications for cesarean delivery or in the percentages of subjects who received oxytocin; however, the maximal rate of oxytocin infusion was higher in the systemic-analgesia group. The cesarean-delivery rate was not significantly different between privately insured and publicly insured subjects (P=0.90), nor was it significantly different among different obstetrical providers (P=0.33).The median times from the initial analgesic intervention to complete dilatation and to vaginal delivery were significantly shorter after intrathecal analgesia than after systemic analgesia (Figure 2Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier Curves for the Duration of Labor.). The use of intrathecal rather than systemic analgesia predicted a shorter interval to complete cervical dilatation, even after adjustment for cervical dilatation and fetal station at the time the analgesic intervention was begun and for other potential confounders (data not shown). There were no significant differences between the groups in the duration of the second stage of labor or in the time to delivery in subjects who delivered by cesarean section.Other Outcomes
The average pain score between the first and second requests for analgesia was significantly lower in the intrathecal-analgesia group than in the systemic-analgesia group, but the interval between the first and second requests was longer in the systemic-analgesia group (Table 2). The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the severity of nausea were lower in the intrathecal-analgesia group. There was no significant difference in the maximal temperature during labor. However, the duration of neuraxial analgesia was longer in the intrathecal-analgesia group.
The incidence of fetal heart-rate tracings that would lead to an obstetrical intervention if observed in real time by the perinatologist (referred to here as nonreassuring tracings) was not significantly different between the groups either before or after the initiation of analgesia (Table 3Table 3
Fetal Heart-Rate Patterns.). There was a higher incidence of prolonged and late decelerations in heart rate in the intrathecal group after the initiation of analgesia. One subject in the systemic-analgesia group had a cesarean delivery because of prolonged deceleration of the fetal heart rate after randomization, but before she had received analgesia. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different between the groups, except that there was a greater incidence of one-minute Apgar scores below 7 in the systemic-analgesia group (Table 2).Baseline variables significantly associated with cesarean delivery in the multivariate analysis included age (relative risk for each one-year increase, 1.02; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.03), height (relative risk for each 1-cm increase, 1.05; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.08), weight (relative risk for each 1-kg increase, 1.02; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.03), and maximal oxytocin-infusion rate (relative risk for each increase by 1 mU per minute, 1.05; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.07). The method of providing analgesia was not a significant independent predictor of cesarean delivery.
Discussion
In this randomized trial, intrathecal opioid analgesia, as compared with systemic opioid analgesia, in early labor did not increase the rate of cesarean delivery. These results extend those reported by Chestnut et al., who found no difference in the cesarean-delivery rate between nulliparous women randomly assigned to early epidural analgesia (at a cervical dilatation of greater than 3.0 cm but less than 5.0 cm) or late epidural analgesia (at a cervical dilatation of 5.0 cm or greater after systemic opioid administration).7,8 In these studies, the median cervical dilatation in the early groups was 3.5 and 4.0 cm, as compared with 2.0 cm in the current study. Similarly, in a study of 60 nulliparous women, no difference in the cesarean-delivery rate was found between those who received epidural analgesia early and those who received it late (mean cervical dilatation, 2.3 cm and 4.5 cm, respectively).9
The absence of an association between neuraxial analgesia given early in labor and an increased cesarean-delivery rate suggests that an early request for analgesia, or increased use of analgesics early in labor, may be markers for other risk factors for cesarean delivery.10,11 Presumably, women who have more pain and require more analgesia are at increased risk for cesarean delivery. For example, fetal macrosomia, a risk factor for cesarean delivery, was associated with a greater rate of breakthrough pain during epidural analgesia.12 The requirements for epidural local anesthetics were higher among women who underwent cesarean delivery for dystocia than in women who delivered vaginally.13
A clinically important finding of the current study is that the duration of the first stage of labor was approximately 90 minutes shorter after intrathecal opioid administration than after systemic opioid administration. Previous studies have found that epidural, as compared with systemic opioid, analgesia is associated with a prolonged first stage of labor.2,14 Factors that influence the progress of labor are not well understood. Autonomic imbalance has been proposed as an explanation of the association between epidural analgesia and prolonged labor.15 Tocodynamic parasympathetic efferent nerves are blocked by neuraxial local anesthetics, but presumably not by neuraxial opioids. This difference may explain why cervical dilation was faster in women who were randomly assigned to combined spinal–epidural analgesia as compared with those assigned to epidural analgesia.16 Furthermore, the presence or degree of autonomic imbalance may be influenced by the type of epidural analgesia (for example, the concentration of local anesthetics). In the current study, epidural analgesia was not identical among all the subjects, and this discrepancy may have been a factor in the observed difference in the progress of labor.
Analgesia may have indirect effects on the progress of labor. Intrathecal fentanyl decreased the maternal concentration of circulating epinephrine,17 but systemic meperidine did not.18 It is possible that the decrease in circulating epinephrine levels associated with intrathecal analgesia decreases epinephrine-induced tocolysis, resulting in faster labor. An alternative explanation is that systemic opioid analgesia negatively influences the progress of labor. Opioids decreased uterine activity both in humans in active labor19 and in pregnant baboons.20
The prolonged infusion of an epidural anesthetic may result in motor blockade and may increase the risk of instrumental vaginal delivery.21 In the current study, the rate of instrumental vaginal delivery was not significantly different between the groups, although the subjects in the intrathecal group received neuraxial analgesia for a longer period. Neuraxial analgesia initiated with an opioid and maintained with low-dose epidural bupivacaine is unlikely to result in motor blockade.
A positive association between epidural analgesia and the use of oxytocin to augment labor has been reported.2,22 We did not find a difference between the groups in the rate of oxytocin use, but most of the subjects received oxytocin before their first request for analgesia — a finding consistent with our pattern of institutional practice. Women who received systemic opioids early in labor required a higher oxytocin-infusion rate than those who received intrathecal opioids, perhaps because of slower labor progress.
The authors of a meta-analysis comparing intrathecal with nonintrathecal techniques for administering opioid neuraxial analgesia concluded that intrathecal opioid analgesia was associated with fetal bradycardia.23 In the current study, prolonged, persistent variable, and late fetal heart-rate decelerations developed within 30 minutes after the first analgesic intervention more often in the intrathecal-analgesia group than in the systemic-analgesia group. However, the incidence of an unfavorable fetal heart rate was low, did not differ between groups, and did not result in any adverse neonatal outcomes or in the need for emergency cesarean delivery.
In a previous study, neonates delivered by women randomly assigned to receive systemic opioid analgesia had lower one-minute Apgar scores than neonates whose mothers received epidural analgesia.24 Although both groups in the current study received epidural analgesia, neonates in the systemic-analgesia group were more likely than those in the intrathecal-analgesia group to have low one-minute Apgar scores, even though the opioid was administered early in labor, usually hours before delivery.
Epidural analgesia lasting more than five hours in women in labor is associated with elevated maternal temperature.25,26 Although women randomly assigned to early intrathecal analgesia had neuraxial analgesia for a longer duration than those assigned to systemic analgesia, the maximal temperature during labor was not significantly different between the groups.
There are several limitations to our study. The study was not powered to detect a small difference between the groups in the rate of cesarean delivery. However, the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between the groups suggests that plausible differences between the groups would not exceed 9 percentage points if the rate in the intrathecal group were lower or 3 percentage points if the rate in the intrathecal group were higher. We studied nulliparous women in spontaneous labor or with spontaneous rupture of the membranes, and our results may not apply to other populations. In addition, the faster progress of labor after intrathecal analgesia, as compared with systemic analgesia, may have been influenced by the greater cervical dilatation at the initiation of analgesia. Multivariate modeling, however, indicated that the type of analgesia was an independent predictor of the progress of labor.
Different obstetrical providers and management styles (including the pattern of oxytocin use) may influence the outcome of labor, and we did not adjust for these factors. Finally, the study was not blinded. It is unlikely, however, that knowledge of the type of analgesia biased obstetricians' decisions regarding the method of delivery. Cesarean deliveries were performed only when there was arrest of dilatation or arrest of descent or when the fetal status was nonreassuring, and none of these factors were associated with the type of analgesia.
Techniques for administering neuraxial analgesia during labor vary, and various techniques may affect the outcome of labor differently. For example, epidural analgesia consisting of bupivacaine at a dose of 2.5 mg per milliliter resulted in a higher rate of instrumental vaginal delivery than bupivacaine at a dose of 0.625 mg per milliliter with fentanyl.21 The results obtained with these analgesia regimens may not be applicable to other regimens. Similarly, opioids have been observed in vitro to have different effects on uterine contractile activity.27,28 It is not clear whether these differences exist in vivo as well.
In summary, the results of this randomized trial suggest that nulliparous women in spontaneous labor or with spontaneous rupture of membranes who request pain relief early in labor can receive neuraxial analgesia at that time without adverse consequences. When compared with systemic opioid analgesia, initiation of early neuraxial analgesia does not increase the risk of cesarean delivery and may shorten labor.
Supported by the Department of Anesthesiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University.
We are indebted to our obstetrics, nursing, and anesthesiology colleagues for their support and assistance during this study.
Source Information
From the Departments of Anesthesiology (C.A.W., B.M.S., R.J.M., J.T.S., N.T.D., E.Y., R.L.M., S.S.S., M.T.S., M.Y., R.P., C.R., S.G.) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (A.M.P.), Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Wong at the Department of Anesthesiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 251 E. Huron, F 5-704, Chicago, IL 60611, or at c-wong2@northwestern.edu.
- References
References
1
Goetzl LM . ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 36: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists: obstetric analagesia and anesthesia. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:177-191
CrossRef | Medline2
Thorp JA ,Hu DH ,Albin RM , et al. The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:851-858
Web of Science | Medline3
Nageotte MP ,Larson D ,Rumney PJ ,Sidhu M ,Hollenbach K . Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1715-1719
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline4
Hughes SC . Respiratory depression following intraspinal narcotics: expect it! Int J Obstet Anesth 1997;6:145-146
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Seyb ST ,Berka RJ ,Socol ML ,Dooley SL . Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:600-607
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Wong CA ,Scavone BM ,Sullivan JT , et al. Randomized trial of neuraxial vs. systemic analgesia for latent phase labor: effect on incidence of Cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology 2002;96:Suppl 1:01-1 abstract.
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Chestnut DH ,McGrath JM ,Vincent RD Jr , et al. Does early administration of epidural analgesia affect obstetric outcome in nulliparous women who are in spontaneous labor? Anesthesiology 1994;80:1201-1208
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Chestnut DH ,Vincent RD Jr ,McGrath JM ,Choi WW ,Bates JN . Does early administration of epidural analgesia affect obstetric outcome in nulliparous women who are receiving intravenous oxytocin? Anesthesiology 1994;80:1193-1200
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Luxman D ,Wolman I ,Groutz A , et al. The effect of early epidural block administration on the progression and outcome of labor. Int J Obstet Anesth 1998;7:161-164
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Alexander JM ,Sharma SK ,McIntire DD ,Wiley J ,Leveno KJ . Intensity of labor pain and cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 2001;92:1524-1528
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Hess PE ,Pratt SD ,Soni AK ,Sarna MC ,Oriol NE . An association between severe labor pain and cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 2000;90:881-886
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Hess PE ,Pratt SD ,Lucas TP , et al. Predictors of breakthrough pain during labor epidural analgesia. Anesth Analg 2001;93:414-418
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Panni MK ,Segal S . Local anesthetic requirements are greater in dystocia than in normal labor. Anesthesiology 2003;98:957-963
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Halpern SH ,Leighton BL ,Ohlsson A ,Barrett JFR ,Rice A . Effect of epidural vs parenteral opioid analgesia on the progress of labor: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1998;280:2105-2110
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Leighton BL ,Halpern SH ,Wilson DB . Lumbar sympathetic blocks speed early and second stage induced labor in nulliparous women. Anesthesiology 1999;90:1039-1046[Erratum, Anesthesiology 1999;91:602.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Tsen LC ,Thue B ,Datta S ,Segal S . Is combined spinal-epidural analgesia associated with more rapid cervical dilation in nulliparous patients when compared with conventional epidural analgesia? Anesthesiology 1999;91:920-925
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Cascio M ,Pygon B ,Bernett C ,Ramanathan S . Labour analgesia with intrathecal fentanyl decreases maternal stress. Can J Anaesth 1997;44:605-609
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Neumark J ,Hammerle AF ,Biegelmayer C . Effects of epidural analgesia on plasma catecholamines and cortisol in parturition. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1985;29:555-559
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Petrie RH ,Yeh S ,Barron BA , et al. Dose-response effects of intravenous meperidine on uterine activity. J Maternal Fetal Med 1993;2:159-164
CrossRef20
Kowalski WB ,Parsons MT ,Pak SC ,Wilson L Jr . Morphine inhibits nocturnal oxytocin secretion and uterine contractions in the pregnant baboon. Biol Reprod 1998;58:971-976
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Comparative Obstetric Mobile Epidural Trial (COMET) Study Group UK
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Gambling DR ,Sharma SK ,Ramin SM , et al. A randomized study of combined spinal-epidural analgesia versus intravenous meperidine during labor: impact on cesarean delivery rate. Anesthesiology 1998;89:1336-1344
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Mardirosoff C ,Dumont L ,Boulvain M ,Tramer MR . Fetal bradycardia due to intrathecal opioids for labour analgesia: a systematic review. BJOG 2002;109:274-281
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Sharma SK ,Alexander JM ,Messick G , et al. Cesarean delivery: a randomized trial of epidural analgesia versus intravenous meperidine analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. Anesthesiology 2002;96:546-551
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Lieberman E ,Lang JM ,Frigoletto F Jr ,Richardson DK ,Ringer SA ,Cohen A . Epidural analgesia, intrapartum fever, and neonatal sepsis evaluation. Pediatrics 1997;99:415-419
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Camann WR ,Hortvet LA ,Hughes N ,Bader AM ,Datta S . Maternal temperature regulation during extradural analgesia for labour. Br J Anaesth 1991;67:565-568
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Sivalingam T ,Pleuvry BJ . Actions of morphine, pethidine and pentazocine on the oestrus and pregnant rat uterus in vitro. Br J Anaesth 1985;57:430-433
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Yoo KY ,Lee J ,Kim HS ,Jeong SW . The effects of opioids on isolated human pregnant uterine muscles. Anesth Analg 2001;92:1006-1009
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (70)
Citing Articles
1
Peter Kranke, Patricia Lavand’homme. (2012) The relief of pain in labour and the role of remifentanil. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 29:3, 116-120
CrossRef2
Gilbert J. Grant. 2012. Obstetric Analgesia and Anesthesia. , 434-438.
CrossRef3
Felicity Plaat. 2012. Analgesia, Anaesthesia and Resuscitation. , 356-361.
CrossRef4
Mark D. Rollins, Mark A. Rosen. 2012. Obstetric Analgesia and Anesthesia. , 159-171.
CrossRef5
Millicent Anim-Somuah, Rebecca MD Smyth, Leanne Jones, Millicent Anim-Somuah. 2011. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. .
CrossRef6
Yuki Hosokawa, Hiroshi Morisaki, Itsuo Nakatsuka, Saori Hashiguchi, Kei Miyakoshi, Mamoru Tanaka, Yasunori Yoshimura, Junzo Takeda. (2011) Retrospective evaluation of intravenous fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia during labor. Journal of Anesthesia
CrossRef7
MC Klein. (2011) Early versus late epidural analgesia and the risk of instrumental delivery in nulliparous women. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 118:12, 1540-1541
CrossRef8
MMLH Wassen, J Zuijlen, FJME Roumen, LJM Smits, MA Marcus, JG Nijhuis. (2011) Early versus late epidural analgesia and the risk of instrumental delivery in nulliparous women. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 118:12, 1541-1542
CrossRef9
2011. Cesarean Delivery. , 227-249.
CrossRef10
Javier Pascual-Ramirez, Javier Haya, Faustino R. Pérez-López, Silvia Gil-Trujillo, Rosa A. Garrido-Esteban, Ginés Bernal. (2011) Effect of combined spinal–epidural analgesia versus epidural analgesia on labor and delivery duration. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 114:3, 246-250
CrossRef11
M. Boutonnet, V. Faitot, H. Keïta. (2011) Gestion des voies aériennes en obstétrique. Annales Françaises d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation 30:9, 651-664
CrossRef12
2011. , 129-194.
CrossRef13
Lena Mariann Eriksen, Ellen A. Nohr, Hanne Kjaergaard. (2011) Mode of Delivery after Epidural Analgesia in a Cohort of Low-Risk Nulliparas. Birthno-no
CrossRef14
Lena S. Sun. (2011) Labor Analgesia and the Developing Human Brain. Anesthesia & Analgesia 112:6, 1265-1267
CrossRef15
Lorraine Chow, Michaela K. Farber, William R. Camann. (2011) Anesthesia in the Pregnant Patient with Hematologic Disorders. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 25:2, 425-443
CrossRef16
J.M. Mhyre. (2011) What’s new in obstetric anesthesia?. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 20:2, 149-159
CrossRef17
MMLH Wassen, J Zuijlen, FJME Roumen, LJM Smits, MA Marcus, JG Nijhuis. (2011) Early versus late epidural analgesia and risk on instrumental delivery in nulliparous women: a systematic review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecologyno-no
CrossRef18
Cynthia A. Wong. (2011) Neuraxial Labor Analgesia and Pregnancy Outcome. ASA Refresher Courses in Anesthesiology 39:1, 155-161
CrossRef19
C. R. Cambic, C. A. Wong. (2010) Labour analgesia and obstetric outcomes. British Journal of Anaesthesia 105:Supplement 1, i50-i60
CrossRef20
Scott Segal. (2010) Labor Epidural Analgesia and Maternal Fever. Anesthesia & Analgesia 111:6, 1467-1475
CrossRef21
M L Chichester, M K Hoffman, G H C Colmorgen, P A Shlossman. (2010) Labor analgesia for patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. Journal of Perinatology 30:10, 650-654
CrossRef22
Yvan Touitou, Garance Dispersyn, Laure Pain. (2010) Labor Pain, Analgesia, and Chronobiology. Anesthesia & Analgesia 111:4, 838-840
CrossRef23
Roz Ullman, Lesley A Smith, Ethel Burns, Rintaro Mori, Therese Dowswell, Roz Ullman. 2010. Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour. .
CrossRef24
Shobana Chandrasekhar, Maya S. Suresh. 2010. Anesthesia Considerations for the Critically Ill Parturient with Cardiac Disease. , 639-655.
CrossRef25
Uyen-Sa D. T. Nguyen, Kenneth J. Rothman, Serkalem Demissie, Debra J. Jackson, Janet M. Lang, Jeffrey L. Ecker. (2010) Epidural Analgesia and Risks of Cesarean and Operative Vaginal Deliveries in Nulliparous and Multiparous Women. Maternal and Child Health Journal 14:5, 705-712
CrossRef26
Richard W Hong. (2010) Less Is More: The Recent History of Neuraxial Labor Analgesia. American Journal of Therapeutics 17:5, 492-497
CrossRef27
F. Wang, X. Shen, X. Guo, Y. Peng, X. Gu. (2010) Epidural Analgesia in the Latent Phase of Labor and the Risk of Cesarean Delivery: A 5-year Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetric Anesthesia Digest 30:3, 185-187
CrossRef28
Christopher W. G. Redman, Sig-Linda Jacobson, Robin Russell. 2010. Hypertension in Pregnancy. , 153-181.
CrossRef29
A. Bagheri, S. Shmygalev, A. Werschy, A.R. Heller. (2010) Frühzeitige Epiduralanästhesie in der Geburtshilfe. Der Anaesthesist 59:6, 564-565
CrossRef30
&NA;. (2010) Epidural Analgesia in the Latent Phase of Labor and the Risk of Cesarean Delivery. Survey of Anesthesiology 54:3, 117
CrossRef31
Stephen H Halpern, Faraj W Abdallah. (2010) Effect of labor analgesia on labor outcome. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 23:3, 317-322
CrossRef32
Hawkins, Joy L., . (2010) Epidural Analgesia for Labor and Delivery. New England Journal of Medicine 362:16, 1503-1510
Full Text33
FuZhou Wang, XiaoFeng Shen, XiRong Guo, YuZhu Peng, XiaoQi Gu, ShiQin Xu. (2010) Early Labor Neuraxial Analgesia: Effects on the Progress and Outcome of Labor. Anesthesiology 112:4, 1054-1055
CrossRef34
U. Stamer. (2010) Geburtshilfliche epidurale Analgesie. Der Schmerz 24:2, 167-168
CrossRef35
Cynthia A. Wong, Barbara M. Scavone, John T. Sullivan, Robert J. McCarthy. (2010) Early Labor Neuraxial Analgesia: Effects on the Progress and Outcome of Labor. Anesthesiology 112:4, 1053-1054
CrossRef36
C.A. Wong, R.J. McCarthy, J.T. Sullivan, B.M. Scavone, S.E. Gerber, E.A. Yaghmour. (2010) Early Compared With Late Neuraxial Analgesia in Nulliparous Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetric Anesthesia Digest 30:1, 60-62
CrossRef37
Barbara M. Scavone, Robert J. McCarthy, Cynthia A. Wong, John T. Sullivan. (2009) The Influence of Time of Day of Administration on Duration of Opioid Labor Analgesia. Anesthesia & Analgesia1
CrossRef38
Jozef Debiec, Jessamyn Conell-Price, Jennifer Evansmith, Steven L. Shafer, Pamela Flood. (2009) Mathematical Modeling of the Pain and Progress of the First Stage of Nulliparous Labor. Anesthesiology 111:5, 1093-1110
CrossRef39
Geraldine O’Sullivan. (2009) Epidural analgesia and labor. European Journal of Pain Supplements 3:2, 65-70
CrossRef40
Yaakov Beilin, Diana Mungall, Sabera Hossain, Carol A. Bodian. (2009) Labor Pain at the Time of Epidural Analgesia and Mode of Delivery in Nulliparous Women Presenting for an Induction of Labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology 114:4, 764-769
CrossRef41
Pamela Flood. (2009) Primary versus Secondary Outcomes in Gargantuan Studies. Anesthesiology 111:4, 704-705
CrossRef42
FuZhou Wang, XiaoFeng Shen, XiRong Guo, YuZhu Peng, XiaoQi Gu. (2009) Epidural Analgesia in the Latent Phase of Labor and the Risk of Cesarean Delivery. Anesthesiology 111:4, 871-880
CrossRef43
Michael Paech, Peter Pan. (2009) New recipes for neuraxial labor analgesia: simple fare or gourmet combos?. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 18:3, 201-203
CrossRef44
Stephanie R. Goodman, Richard M. Smiley, Maria A. Negron, Paula A. Freedman, Ruth Landau. (2009) A Randomized Trial of Breakthrough Pain During Combined Spinal-Epidural Versus Epidural Labor Analgesia in Parous Women. Anesthesia & Analgesia 108:1, 246-251
CrossRef45
&NA;. (2008) Gerard W. Ostheimer "What's New in Obstetric Anesthesia" Lecture. Survey of Anesthesiology 52:6, 292-295
CrossRef46
Eric Cappiello, Nollag OʼRourke, Scott Segal, Lawrence C. Tsen. (2008) A Randomized Trial of Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Compared with the Standard Epidural Technique for Labor Analgesia. Anesthesia & Analgesia 107:5, 1646-1651
CrossRef47
Haim A. Abenhaim, William D. Fraser. (2008) Impact of pain level on second-stage delivery outcomes among women with epidural analgesia: results from the PEOPLE study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199:5, 500.e1-500.e6
CrossRef48
P. Toledo, R.J. McCarthy, M.J. Ebarvia, C.A. Wong. (2008) A retrospective case-controlled study of the association between request to discontinue second stage labor epidural analgesia and risk of instrumental vaginal delivery. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 17:4, 304-308
CrossRef49
J. Nicolet, A. Miller, I. Kaufman, M. C. Guertin, A. Deschamps. (2008) Maternal factors implicated in fetal bradycardia after combined spinal epidural for labour pain. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 25:9, 721-725
CrossRef50
Sng Ban Leong, Yvonne Lim, Alex T Sia, Sng Ban Leong. 2008. Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour. .
CrossRef51
Nikki Koklanaris, Andrew P. MacKenzie, M. Elizabeth Fino, Alan A. Arslan, David E. Seubert. (2008) Debate Preparation/Participation: An Active, Effective Learning Tool. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 20:3, 235-238
CrossRef52
Anna Stålhammar, Barbro Boström. (2008) Policies for labour management – existence and content. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 22:2, 259-264
CrossRef53
Rolf Alexander Schlichter, Valerie A Arkoosh. 2007. Analgesia and anesthesia in pregnancy. , 75-86.
CrossRef54
Massimo Marucci, Gilda Cinnella, Gaetano Perchiazzi, Nicola Brienza, Tommaso Fiore. (2007) Patient-requested Neuraxial Analgesia for Labor. Anesthesiology 106:5, 1035-1045
CrossRef55
Roshan Fernando. (2007) Gerard W. Ostheimer ???What???s New in Obstetric Anesthesia??? Lecture. Anesthesiology 106:3, 615-621
CrossRef56
Roanne Preston. (2007) The role of combined spinal epidural analgesia for labour: is there still a question?. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 54:1, 9-14
CrossRef57
Kanakarajan Saravanakumar, Sudarsan Gururaja Rao, Griselda M Cooper. (2006) The challenges of obesity and obstetric anaesthesia. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 18:6, 631-635
CrossRef58
Richard J. Bodnar, Gad E. Klein. (2006) Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2005. Peptides 27:12, 3391-3478
CrossRef59
Evangelos Tziavrangos, Stephan A Schug. (2006) Regional anaesthesia and perioperative outcome. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 19:5, 521-525
CrossRef60
D CHESTNUT. (2006) Cesarean delivery on maternal request: implications for anesthesia providers. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 15:4, 269-272
CrossRef61
Michael Nageotte. (2006) Timing of conduction analgesia in labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 194:3, 598-599
CrossRef62
M. Eikermann, T. H.C. Kruger, B. Schiffer, M. Beiderlinden, M. Forsting, M. Schedlowski. (2006) Importance of non-pharmacological mechanism of analgesia with spinal puncture. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 50:3, 389-389
CrossRef63
John A. Thomas, Peter H. Pan, Lynne C. Harris, Medge D. Owen, Robert D???Angelo. (2005) Dural Puncture with a 27-Gauge Whitacre Needle as Part of a Combined Spinal???Epidural Technique Does Not Improve Labor Epidural Catheter Function. Anesthesiology 103:5, 1046-1051
CrossRef64
Millicent Anim-Somuah, Rebecca MD Smyth, Charlotte J Howell, Millicent Anim-Somuah. 2005. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. .
CrossRef65
Uma Munnur, Ben de Boisblanc, Maya S. Suresh. (2005) Airway problems in pregnancy. Critical Care Medicine 33:Supplement, S259-S268
CrossRef66
Jane Cleary-Goldman, Maria Negron, Jason Scott, Ruth Ann Downing, William Camann, Lynn Simpson, Pamela Flood. (2005) Prophylactic Ephedrine and Combined Spinal Epidural. Obstetrics & Gynecology 106:3, 466-472
CrossRef67
Brenda A. Bucklin, Joy L. Hawkins, James R. Anderson, Fred A. Ullrich. (2005) Obstetric Anesthesia Workforce Survey. Anesthesiology 103:3, 645-653
CrossRef68
Gilbert J. Grant, Abraham H. Grant, Charles J. Lockwood. (2005) Simpson, Semmelweis, and Transformational Change. Obstetrics & Gynecology 106:2, 384-387
CrossRef69
(2005) Hot Papers in the Literature. Journal of Women's Health 14:4, 351-356
CrossRef70
Camann, William, . (2005) Pain Relief during Labor. New England Journal of Medicine 352:7, 718-720
Full Text
