|
|
 |
|
 |
A Comparison
of Complications Which Occur Following Combined Spinal- Epidural or Continuous
Infusion Lumbar Epidural Analgesia for Labor
Authors: Ramasamy M, Birnbach DJ, Stein DJ, Bourlier RA, Danzer BI, Thys
DM Department of Anesthesiology, St. Luke's- Roosevelt Hospital Center,
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York
Introduction: Epidural and combined spinal epidural (CSE) techniques
are both being used to provide maternal analgesia during labor. Since
combined spinal-epidural analgesia for labor is a relatively new technique,
there are few studies which have evaluated its complications. We retrospectively
reviewed all cases of CSE and epidural analgesia for labor at our institution
during a six- month period, to compare the safety and efficacy of these
two currently used techniques.
Methods: A retrospective
review of all charts of patients who received labor analgesia during the
six month period from July 1994-January 1995 was completed. Each chart
was evaluated for the following complications at any time between initiation
of the block and discharge from the labor and delivery suite: failed block,
fetal distress within 15 minutes of initiation of the block, inadequate
block when attempt was made to bring up level for cesarean section, total
spinal, inability to phonate, inability to swallow, headache, intrathecal
placement of catheter, intravascular placement of catheter, or use of
less local anesthetic than expected to achieve a block when dosing for
cesarean section. Data were analyzed by chi-square testing.
Results: A
total of 752 patients requested epidural analgesia during the study
period. Of these patients, 296 (39%) received epidural analgesia and 456
(61 %) received CSE. Labor epidurals were initially dosed with
0.25% bupivacaine, followed by an infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine plus
fentanyl. CSE was performed with a standard epidural needle and 26
g Gertie Marx needle® (IMD, Utah), with subarachnoid administration
of 10 mcg of sufentanil.
|
Epdi
(296)
|
CSE
(456)
|
p
|
| failed
block |
8
|
5
|
>.05
|
| fetal
distress |
1
|
1
|
>.05
|
| failure
for C/S |
1
|
2
|
>.05
|
| high
spinal |
0
|
1
|
>.05
|
| inability
to phonate |
0
|
1
|
>.05
|
| inability
to swallow |
0
|
1
|
>.05
|
| headache |
2
|
1
|
>.05
|
| intra-thecal
catheter |
1
|
5
|
>.05
|
| intra-vascular
catheter |
1
|
1
|
>.05
|
| wet-taps |
5
|
1
|
<.05
|
less
local required
for anticipated blocks |
1
|
12
|
<.05
|
Of the parameters examined,
there was a statistically significant difference between groups only in
regards to wet taps and higher than anticipated blocks. Statistically
fewer patients in the CSE group experienced accidental dural punctures
and more patients in the CSE group had a T4 block after administration
of less than 12 ml of local anesthetic.
Discussion: Our data
suggests that CSE is as safe as epidural anesthesia for pain relief in
laboring patients. There were no major complications and minor complications,
other than pruritis, were not statistically different between epidural
and CSE groups. CSE may be protective against accidental dural punctures
by allowing an extra method of verification of needle location. Since
less local anesthetic may be required to provide a T4 block in CSE patients,
caution is necessary when supplementing the epidural catheter for an operative
delivery if CSE has been performed.

|
|