Cargando…

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial

Objective To determine women’s satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. Design Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. Setting 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Women with an intermedia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Freeman, Liv M, Bloemenkamp, Kitty W, Franssen, Maureen T, Papatsonis, Dimitri N, Hajenius, Petra J, Hollmann, Markus W, Woiski, Mallory D, Porath, Martina, van den Berg, Hans J, van Beek, Erik, Borchert, Odette W H M, Schuitemaker, Nico, Sikkema, J Marko, Kuipers, A H M, Logtenberg, Sabine L M, van der Salm, Paulien C M, Oude Rengerink, Katrien, Lopriore, Enrico, van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske, le Cessie, Saskia, van Lith, Jan M, Struys, Michel M, Mol, Ben Willem J, Dahan, Albert, Middeldorp, Johanna M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4353278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h846
_version_ 1782360586547363840
author Freeman, Liv M
Bloemenkamp, Kitty W
Franssen, Maureen T
Papatsonis, Dimitri N
Hajenius, Petra J
Hollmann, Markus W
Woiski, Mallory D
Porath, Martina
van den Berg, Hans J
van Beek, Erik
Borchert, Odette W H M
Schuitemaker, Nico
Sikkema, J Marko
Kuipers, A H M
Logtenberg, Sabine L M
van der Salm, Paulien C M
Oude Rengerink, Katrien
Lopriore, Enrico
van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske
le Cessie, Saskia
van Lith, Jan M
Struys, Michel M
Mol, Ben Willem J
Dahan, Albert
Middeldorp, Johanna M
author_facet Freeman, Liv M
Bloemenkamp, Kitty W
Franssen, Maureen T
Papatsonis, Dimitri N
Hajenius, Petra J
Hollmann, Markus W
Woiski, Mallory D
Porath, Martina
van den Berg, Hans J
van Beek, Erik
Borchert, Odette W H M
Schuitemaker, Nico
Sikkema, J Marko
Kuipers, A H M
Logtenberg, Sabine L M
van der Salm, Paulien C M
Oude Rengerink, Katrien
Lopriore, Enrico
van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske
le Cessie, Saskia
van Lith, Jan M
Struys, Michel M
Mol, Ben Willem J
Dahan, Albert
Middeldorp, Johanna M
author_sort Freeman, Liv M
collection PubMed
description Objective To determine women’s satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. Design Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. Setting 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. Intervention Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. Results 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −2.8, 95% confidence interval −6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −10.4, −13.9 to −7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO(2) <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. Conclusion In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4353278
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43532782015-03-18 Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial Freeman, Liv M Bloemenkamp, Kitty W Franssen, Maureen T Papatsonis, Dimitri N Hajenius, Petra J Hollmann, Markus W Woiski, Mallory D Porath, Martina van den Berg, Hans J van Beek, Erik Borchert, Odette W H M Schuitemaker, Nico Sikkema, J Marko Kuipers, A H M Logtenberg, Sabine L M van der Salm, Paulien C M Oude Rengerink, Katrien Lopriore, Enrico van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske le Cessie, Saskia van Lith, Jan M Struys, Michel M Mol, Ben Willem J Dahan, Albert Middeldorp, Johanna M BMJ Research Objective To determine women’s satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. Design Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. Setting 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. Intervention Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. Results 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −2.8, 95% confidence interval −6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −10.4, −13.9 to −7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO(2) <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. Conclusion In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2015-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4353278/ /pubmed/25713015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h846 Text en © Freeman et al 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Freeman, Liv M
Bloemenkamp, Kitty W
Franssen, Maureen T
Papatsonis, Dimitri N
Hajenius, Petra J
Hollmann, Markus W
Woiski, Mallory D
Porath, Martina
van den Berg, Hans J
van Beek, Erik
Borchert, Odette W H M
Schuitemaker, Nico
Sikkema, J Marko
Kuipers, A H M
Logtenberg, Sabine L M
van der Salm, Paulien C M
Oude Rengerink, Katrien
Lopriore, Enrico
van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske
le Cessie, Saskia
van Lith, Jan M
Struys, Michel M
Mol, Ben Willem J
Dahan, Albert
Middeldorp, Johanna M
Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial
title Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial
title_full Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial
title_fullStr Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial
title_full_unstemmed Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial
title_short Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial
title_sort patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4353278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h846
work_keys_str_mv AT freemanlivm patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT bloemenkampkittyw patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT franssenmaureent patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT papatsonisdimitrin patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT hajeniuspetraj patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT hollmannmarkusw patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT woiskimalloryd patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT porathmartina patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT vandenberghansj patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT vanbeekerik patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT borchertodettewhm patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT schuitemakernico patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT sikkemajmarko patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT kuipersahm patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT logtenbergsabinelm patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT vandersalmpauliencm patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT ouderengerinkkatrien patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT loprioreenrico patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT vandenakkervanmarlemelske patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT lecessiesaskia patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT vanlithjanm patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT struysmichelm patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT molbenwillemj patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT dahanalbert patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial
AT middeldorpjohannam patientcontrolledanalgesiawithremifentanilversusepiduralanalgesiainlabourrandomisedmulticentreequivalencetrial