‘Walking epidural’: comparison of the analgesic efficacy of levobupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL versus ropivacaine 0.075% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL
Introduction Epidural infusion with low local anesthetic concentrations with opiates decrease the severity of the motor blockade associated. The present study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy and the motor blockade between two local anesthetic epidural infusions: levobupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL versus ropivacaine 0.075% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL. Materials and methods In a single-blind prospective randomized study, 60 laboring parturient had continuous epidural analgesia as follows: 30 of them received levobupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL and 30 of them received ropivacaine 0.075% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL and rates of infusion were adjusted to the height. Analgesic, motor blockade and satisfaction records were collected as well as maternal and neonate adverse events. Results After 2 h of the catheter placement, patients who received levobupivacaine showed a mean VAS of 3.2 [1.8–4.6] versus 1.8 [1.2–2.5] (p = 0.05) in patients who received ropivacaine. In addition, patients who received levobupivacaine showed a punctuation in Bromage scale of 0.0 [0.0–1.0] versus 0.0 [0.0–0.0] (p = 0.04) in patients who received ropivacaine. Finally, the parturient who received levobupivacaine scored a mean satisfaction index of 8.1 [7.3–8.9] versus 9.3 [8.7–9.8] (p = 0.02) in those who received ropivacaine. We did not register maternal nor neonate adverse events. Conclusion Both infusions (levobupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL and ropivacaine 0.075% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL) are effective for labor analgesia. However, ropivacaine would present a better pharmacodynamic profile with less motor blockade and decreased need for analgesic rescue hence improving patient’s satisfaction..
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:23 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
BMC anesthesiology - 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Aug. |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Mingote, Álvaro [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
Volltext [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| BKL: | |
|---|---|
| Themen: |
| Anmerkungen: |
© The Author(s) 2023 |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s12871-023-02222-w |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
OLC2144804389 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2144804389 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240322130837.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240118s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12871-023-02222-w |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2144804389 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s12871-023-02222-w-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 44.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Mingote, Álvaro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a ‘Walking epidural’: comparison of the analgesic efficacy of levobupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL versus ropivacaine 0.075% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2023 | ||
| 520 | |a Introduction Epidural infusion with low local anesthetic concentrations with opiates decrease the severity of the motor blockade associated. The present study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy and the motor blockade between two local anesthetic epidural infusions: levobupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL versus ropivacaine 0.075% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL. Materials and methods In a single-blind prospective randomized study, 60 laboring parturient had continuous epidural analgesia as follows: 30 of them received levobupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL and 30 of them received ropivacaine 0.075% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL and rates of infusion were adjusted to the height. Analgesic, motor blockade and satisfaction records were collected as well as maternal and neonate adverse events. Results After 2 h of the catheter placement, patients who received levobupivacaine showed a mean VAS of 3.2 [1.8–4.6] versus 1.8 [1.2–2.5] (p = 0.05) in patients who received ropivacaine. In addition, patients who received levobupivacaine showed a punctuation in Bromage scale of 0.0 [0.0–1.0] versus 0.0 [0.0–0.0] (p = 0.04) in patients who received ropivacaine. Finally, the parturient who received levobupivacaine scored a mean satisfaction index of 8.1 [7.3–8.9] versus 9.3 [8.7–9.8] (p = 0.02) in those who received ropivacaine. We did not register maternal nor neonate adverse events. Conclusion Both infusions (levobupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL and ropivacaine 0.075% + fentanyl 2mcg/mL) are effective for labor analgesia. However, ropivacaine would present a better pharmacodynamic profile with less motor blockade and decreased need for analgesic rescue hence improving patient’s satisfaction. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Walking epidural | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Levobupivacaine | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ropivacaine | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Fentanyl | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Labor | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zamora Moreno, Eloísa |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a García Díaz, Andrés |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chiara Graciani, Guillermo |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Elbal Sánchez, Carlos |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Guadalix Sánchez, Cristina |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gutiérrez Martínez, Diego |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a García - Fernández, Javier |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fornet Ruiz, Inocencia |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC anesthesiology |d BioMed Central, 2001 |g 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Aug. |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)355422115 |w (DE-600)2091252-3 |w (DE-576)10701520X |x 1471-2253 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:23 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g day:01 |g month:08 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02222-w |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2446 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.00 |j Medizin: Allgemeines |j Medizin: Allgemeines |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 23 |j 2023 |e 1 |b 01 |c 08 | ||