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
Practice Guideline
. 2025 Feb 1;42(2):96-112.
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002108. Epub 2025 Jan 2.

ESAIC focused guidelines for the management of the failing epidural during labour epidural analgesia

Affiliations
Free article
Practice Guideline

ESAIC focused guidelines for the management of the failing epidural during labour epidural analgesia

Nicolas Brogly et al. Eur J Anaesthesiol. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: Labour epidural analgesia reportedly fails in up to 10 to 25% of cases. A joint taskforce of European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) experts was created to develop this focused guideline on the management of failing epidural analgesia in a previously well functioning epidural catheter.

Design: Six clinical questions were defined using a PICO (Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome) strategy to conduct a systematic literature search. The questions pertained to clinical management of failing epidural (PICOs 1, 2 and 3), human resource and team training (PICOs 4 and 5) and clinical management of a failing epidural for intrapartum caesarean delivery (PICO 6). The taskforce produced recommendations and clinical practice statements (CPS) and validated them through a Delphi process. The final version of the guideline was submitted to all ESAIC members for critical review and approved by the Guidelines Committee and the ESAIC Board of Directors.

Results: In the initial search, 3737 titles were identified, 93 were retained for complete article analysis and 56 were finally allocated to the PICOs. The full-text analysis of the selected articles precluded extraction of significant data for all PICOs except for PICO 6, for which six articles were identified. Based on the experience, knowledge and opinion of the experts, the task force proposed and validated two recommendations and 11 CPSs.

Conclusion: This guideline complemented other recently published expert opinion papers. We hope that this new guidance will serve clinicians to increase parturient safety and quality of care during labour and delivery, while at the same time provide inspiration for further research to fill the current knowledge gaps.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

References

    1. Halliday L, Kinsella M, Shaw M, et al. Comparison of ultra-low, low and high concentration local anaesthetic for labour epidural analgesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2022; 77:910–918.
    1. Ezeonu PO, Anozie OB, Onu FA, et al. Perceptions and practice of epidural analgesia among women attending antenatal clinic in FETHA. Int J Womens Health 2017; 9:905–911.
    1. Van Leugenhaege L, Degraeve J, Jacquemyn Y, et al. Factors associated with the intention of pregnant women to give birth with epidural analgesia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023; 23:598.
    1. Baghirzada L, Archer D, Walker A, Balki M. Anesthesia-related adverse events in obstetric patients: a population-based study in Canada. Can J Anaesth 2022; 69:72–85.
    1. Comparative Obstetric Mobile Epidural Trial Study Group UK. Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001; 358:19–23.

Publication types