Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Mar;21(3):186-92.
doi: 10.1017/s0265021504003047.

Perispinal analgesia for labour followed by patient-controlled infusion with bupivacaine and sufentanil: combined spinal-epidural vs. epidural analgesia alone

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Perispinal analgesia for labour followed by patient-controlled infusion with bupivacaine and sufentanil: combined spinal-epidural vs. epidural analgesia alone

L Vernis et al. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004 Mar.

Abstract

Background and objective: Combined spinal-epidural is an alternative technique to epidural analgesia for labour, but its benefits are not clearly identified.

Methods: A prospective, blinded, randomized study was undertaken involving 113 women attending a university hospital obstetric department. Analgesia was initiated with intrathecal bupivacaine 0.25% 1 mL + sufentanil 5 microg in the combined spinal-epidural group (n = 54), and with bupivacaine 0.125% + epinephrine 2.5 microg mL(-1) + sufentanil 7.5 microg in the epidural group (n = 59). In both cases this was followed by patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine 0.125% (+ sufentanil 0.25 microg mL(-1)). Duration of labour, quality of analgesia and side-effects were compared between groups.

Results: In the combined spinal-epidural group, the onset of analgesia was faster (5 vs. 15 min, P < 0.001), the consumption of bupivacaine was lower (7.5 vs. 11.3 mg h(-1), P = 0.003) and there was less unilateral analgesia (14.8% vs. 40.7%, P = 0.002) than in the epidural group. The characteristics of labour were similar in both groups. However, in the combined spinal-epidural group, there was a higher incidence of posterior presentation (25.9% vs. 10%, P = 0.03), pruritus (P < 0.001), hypotension (P = 0.002), somnolence (P = 0.01), nausea (P = 0.02) and one case of meningitis.

Conclusions: The combined spinal-epidural technique provided more effective analgesia during labour than epidural analgesia alone but offered no other advantage. It induced more adverse effects and this should be considered before routinely using the combined spinal-epidural technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources