International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia
Volume 15, Issue 3 , Pages 217-222 , July 2006

A survey of labor patient-controlled epidural anesthesia practice in California hospitals

  • B. Carvalho

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Brendan Carvalho, MBBCh, FRCA, Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford, California 94305, Tel.: +650 861 8607; fax: +650 725 8544.
    • ,
  • P. Wang
    • ,
  • S.E. Cohen

,Accepted 13 March 2006.

References 

  1. Gambling DR, Yu P, Cole C, McMorland GH, Palmer L. A comparative study of patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and continuous infusion epidural analgesia (CIEA) during labour. Can J Anaesth. 1988;35:249–254
  2. van der Vyver M, Halpern S, Joseph G. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus continuous infusion for labour analgesia: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2002;89:459–465
  3. Viscomi C, Eisenach JC. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77:348–351
  4. Gambling DR, McMorland GH, Yu P, Laszlo C. Comparison of patient-controlled epidural analgesia and conventional intermittent “top-up” injections during labor. Anesth Analg. 1990;70:256–261
  5. Ferrante FM, Lu L, Jamison SB, Datta S. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia: demand dosing. Anesth Analg. 1991;73:547–552
  6. Ledin Eriksson S, Gentele C, Olofsson CH. PCEA compared to continuous epidural infusion in an ultra-low-dose regimen for labor pain relief: a randomized study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003;47:1085–1090
  7. Carvalho B, Cohen SE, Giarrusso K, Durbin M, Riley ET, Lipman S. “Ultra-light” patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor: effects of varying regimens on analgesia and physician workload. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2005;14:223–229
  8. Hawkins JL, Gibbs CP, Orleans M, Martin-Salvaj G, Beaty B. Obstetric anesthesia work force survey, 1981 versus 1992. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:135–143
  9. Bucklin BA, Hawkins JL, Anderson JR, Ullrich FA. Obstetric anesthesia workforce survey: twenty-year update. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:645–653
  10. Khor LJ, Jeskins G, Cooper GM, Paterson-Brown S. National obstetric anaesthetic practice in the UK 1997/1998. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:1168–1172
  11. Stamer UM, Messerschmidt A, Wulf H, Hoeft A. Practice of epidural analgesia for labour pain: a German survey. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1999;16:308–314
  12. Chan YK, Ng KP, Chiu CL. Trends in obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia over a ten year period in the University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2002;11:176–179
  13. Lee BB, Chen PP, Ngan Kee WD. Status of obstetric epidural analgesia services in Hong Kong public hospitals: postal questionnaire survey. Hong Kong Med J. 2003;9:407–414
  14. Oyston J. Obstetrical anaesthesia in Ontario. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:1117–1125
  15. Halpern SH, Walsh V. Epidural ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for labor: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2003;96:1473–1479
  16. Practice guidelines for obstetrical anesthesia: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Task Force on Obstetrical Anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1999;90:600–611.
  17. Wilson MJ, Cooper G, MacArthur C, Shennan A. COMET study group, UK. Randomized controlled trial comparing traditional with two “mobile” epidural techniques: anesthetic and analgesic efficacy. Anesthesiology. 2002;97:1567–1575
  18. James KS, McGrady E, Quasim I, Patrick A. Comparison of epidural bolus administration of 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.1% bupivacaine with 0.0002% fentanyl for analgesia during labour. Br J Anaesth. 1998;81:507–510
  19. Chestnut DH, Owen CL, Bates JN, Ostman LG, Choi WW, Geiger MW. Continuous infusion epidural analgesia during labor: a randomized, double-blind comparison of 0.0625% bupivacaine/0.0002% fentanyl versus 0.125% bupivacaine. Anesthesiology. 1988;68:754–759
  20. Ferrante FM, Rosinia FA, Gordon C, Datta S. The role of continuous background infusions in patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor and delivery. Anesth Analg. 1994;79:80–84
  21. Paech M. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour – is a continuous infusion of benefit?. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1992;20:15–20
  22. Petry J, Vercauteren M, Van Mol I, Van Houwe P, Adriaensen HA. Epidural PCA with bupivacaine 0.125%, sufentanil 0.75 microgram and epinephrine 1/800.000 for labor analgesia: is a background infusion beneficial?. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2000;51:163–166
  23. Boselli E, Debon R, Cimino Y, Rimmele T, Allaouchiche B, Chassard D. Background infusion is not beneficial during labor patient-controlled analgesia with 0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil. Anesthesiology. 2004;100:968–972
  24. Paech M. Epidural analgesia in labour: contant infusion plus patient-controlled boluses. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1991;19:32–39
  25. Ferrante FM, Rosinia FA, Gordon C, Datta S. The role of continuous background infusions in patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor and delivery. Anesth Analg. 1994;79:80–84
  26. Bremerich DH, Waibel HJ, Mierdl S, et al. Comparison of continuous background infusion plus demand dose and demand-only parturient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using ropivacaine combined with sufentanil for labor and delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2005;14:114–120

☆ The study was conducted at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. This study was funding internally by the Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University School of Medicine. The authors involved in this study and the preparation of the manuscript received no external funding.

☆ Findings from this study were presented in part at the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP), 37th Annual Meeting in Palm Springs, May 2005.

☆ A copy of the online survey is available on request from the corresponding author.

PII: S0959-289X(06)00048-3

doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2006.03.006

International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia
Volume 15, Issue 3 , Pages 217-222 , July 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution