Introduction. Remifentanil is becoming more and more popular for labor analgesia as an alternative for neuro-axial anesthesia. In this study we compared the severity of pain, patient satisfaction and side effects between two different types of labor analgesia.
Methods. Eightyprimiparous patients ASA I or II, atterm pregnancy, were included in the study and divided in two groups. The first group (35 patients) received intravenous remifentanil on patient control pump in bolus doses. The second group (45 patients) received intermittent epidural boluses with highly diluted local anesthetic and opioid (Bupivacain and Fentanil). We analyzed oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiration rate, heart rate, blood pressure, sedation, nausea and vomiting as well as patient pain scores and satisfaction scores through 2 different VAS.
Results. Mean SpO2 was significantly lower in the PCA remifentanil group 96.2%±1.6 versus 98.2±1.2 in the epidural group. Respiratory depression (RR<9 or SpO2 <90%) was not found in both groups. Sedation scores were significantly higher in the PCA remifentanil group, P<0.05. Incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar between the two groups, without significant difference. PCA remifentanil was inferior to epidural analgesia with respect to pain scores at all time points, but without significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups.
Conclusion. Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil provides satisfactory level of labor analgesia, with lower SpO2 and more sedation. It could be an excellent alternative to epidural analgesia but continuous monitoring and oxygen supply is mandatory.
1. Wong CA. Epidural and Spinal Analgesia/Anesthesia for Labor and Vaginal Delivery, em: Chestnut DH, et al. – Obstetric Anesthesia: Principles and Practice, 4ª Ed, Philadelphia, Mosby Elsevier 2009; 429-492.
2. Kan RE, HughesSC, Rosen MA, et al. Intravenous remifentanil: placental transfer, maternal and neonatal effects. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 1467-1474.
3. Egan TD. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil: an update in the year 2000. CurrOpinAnaesthesiol 2000; 13: 449-455.
4. Babenco HD, Conard PF, Gross JB. The pharmacodynamic effect of a remifentanil bolus on ventilatory control. Anesthesiology 2000; 92: 393-398.
5. Freeman LM, Bloemenkamp KW, Fransen MT, et al. Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial. BMJ 2015; 350: h846.
6. Lin R, Tao Y, Yu Y, et al. Intravenous remifentanil versus epidural ropivacaine with sufentanil for labour analgesia: A retrospective study. PLoS One 2014; 9(11): e112283.
7. Stourac P, Kosinova M, Harazim H, et al. The analgesic efficacy of remifentanil for labour. Systematic review of the recent literature. Biomed Pap Med FacUnivPalacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2016; 160(1): 30-38. doi: 10.5507/bp.2015.043. Epub 2015 Oct 7.
8. Stocki D, Matot I, Einav S, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Efficacy and Respiratory Effects of Patient-Controlled Intravenous Remifentanil Analgesia and Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia in Laboring Women. AnesthAnalg 2014; 118(3): 589-597.
9. Blair JM, Hill DA, Fee JP. Patient-controlled analgesia for labour using remifentanil: a feasibility study. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87(3): 415-420.
10. Volmanen P, Akural EI, Raudaskoski T, Alahuhta S. Remifentanil in obstetric analgesia: a dose-finding study. AnesthAnalg 2002; 94(4): 913-917.
11. Douma MR, Verwey RA, Kam-Endtz CE, et al. Obstetric analgesia: a comparison of patient-controlled meperidine, remifentanil, and fentanyl in labour. Br J Anaesth 2010; 104(2): 209-215.
12. Volmanen P, Sarvela J, Akural EI, et al. Intravenous remifentanil vs. epidural levobupivacaine with fentanyl for pain in early labour: a randomised, controlled, double blinded study. ActaAnaesthesiol Scand 2008; 52: 249-255.
13. Waring J, MahboobiSK, Tyagaraj K, Eddi D. Use of remifentanil for labor analgesia: the good and the bad. Anesth Analg 2007; 104(6): 1616-1617.
14. Bonner JC, McClymont W. Respiratory arrest in an obstetric patient using remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia. Anaesthesia 2012; 67(5): 538-540.
15. Marr R, Hyams J, Bythell V. Cardiac arrest in an obstetric patient using remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia. Anaesthesia 2013; 68(3): 283-287.
16. Kranke P, Smith AF. Correspodence to Cardiac arrest and remifentanil PCA. Anaesthesia 2013; 68(6): 640. doi: 10.1111/anae.12244.
17. Hughes D, Hodgkinson P. Remifentanil and labor anal-gesia. Anesthesia 2013; 68(3):298.
18. Stourac P, Suchomelova H, Stodulkova M, et al. Comparasion of parturient-controlled remifentanil with epidural bupivacaine and sufentanil for labor analgesia, randomized controlled trial. Biomed Pap Med FacUnivPalackyOlom Czech Rep 2014; 158(2): 227-232.
19. Volikas I, Butwick A, Wilkinson C, et al. Maternal and neonatal side-effects of remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia in labour. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95: 504-509.
20. Tveit TO, Halvorsen A, Seiler S, Rosland JH. Efficacy and side effects of intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia used in a stepwise approach for labour: an observational study. Int J ObstetAnesth 2013; 22: 19-25.
21. Balki M, Kasodekar S, Dhumne S, et al. Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia for labour: optimizing drug delivery regimens. Can J Anaesth 2007; 54: 626-633.
22. Schnabel A, Hahn N, Broscheit J, et al. Remifentanil for labour analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2012; 29: 177-185.
23. Rehberg B, Wickboldt N, Juillet C, Savoldelli G. Can remifentanil use in obstetrics be improved by optimal patient-controlled analgesia bolus timing? Br J Anaesth 2015; 114(2): 281-289. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu368. Epub 2014 Dec 5.
24. Ismail MT, Hassanin MZ. Neuraxial analgesia versus intravenous remifentanil for pain relief in early labor in nulliparous women. ArchGynecol Obstet 2012; 286: 1375-1381.
25. Frauenfelder S, van Rijn R, Radder CM, et al. Patient satisfaction between remifentanil PCA and epidural analgesia for labor pain. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94(9): 1014-1021. doi10.1111/aogs.12694. Epub 2015 Jul 7.