Intrathecal catheterisation after observed accidental dural puncture in labouring women: update of a meta-analysis and a trial-sequential analysis.
Accidental dural puncture
Epidural blood patch
Intrathecal catheter
Labour epidural analgesia
Post-dural puncture headache
Journal
International journal of obstetric anesthesia
ISSN: 1532-3374
Titre abrégé: Int J Obstet Anesth
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9200430
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
22
02
2019
revised:
11
07
2019
accepted:
05
08
2019
pubmed:
17
9
2019
medline:
9
3
2021
entrez:
17
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Our meta-analysis from 2013 showed that inserting a catheter intrathecally after an observed accidental dural puncture can reduce the need for epidural blood patch in labouring women requesting epidural analgesia. We updated our conventional meta-analysis and added a trial-sequential analysis (TSA). A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that compared inserting the catheter intrathecally with an epidural catheter re-site or with no intervention. The extracted data were pooled and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for the incidence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) was calculated, using the random effects model. A contour-enhanced funnel plot was constructed. A TSA was performed and the cumulative Z score, monitoring and futility boundaries were constructed. Our search identified 13 studies, reporting on 1653 patients, with a low risk of bias. The RR for the incidence of PDPH was 0.82 (95%CI 0.71 to 0.95) and the RR for the need for epidural blood patch was 0.62 (95%CI 0.49 to 0.79); heterogeneity of both analyses was high. The TSA showed that the monitoring or futility boundaries were not crossed, indicating insufficient data to exclude a type I error of statistical analysis. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were symmetric, suggesting no publication bias. Conventional meta-analyses showed for the first time that intrathecal catheterisation can reduce the incidence of PDPH. However, TSA did not corroborate this finding. Despite increasing use in clinical practice there is no firm evidence on which to base a definite conclusion.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Our meta-analysis from 2013 showed that inserting a catheter intrathecally after an observed accidental dural puncture can reduce the need for epidural blood patch in labouring women requesting epidural analgesia. We updated our conventional meta-analysis and added a trial-sequential analysis (TSA).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that compared inserting the catheter intrathecally with an epidural catheter re-site or with no intervention. The extracted data were pooled and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for the incidence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) was calculated, using the random effects model. A contour-enhanced funnel plot was constructed. A TSA was performed and the cumulative Z score, monitoring and futility boundaries were constructed.
RESULTS
Our search identified 13 studies, reporting on 1653 patients, with a low risk of bias. The RR for the incidence of PDPH was 0.82 (95%CI 0.71 to 0.95) and the RR for the need for epidural blood patch was 0.62 (95%CI 0.49 to 0.79); heterogeneity of both analyses was high. The TSA showed that the monitoring or futility boundaries were not crossed, indicating insufficient data to exclude a type I error of statistical analysis. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were symmetric, suggesting no publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Conventional meta-analyses showed for the first time that intrathecal catheterisation can reduce the incidence of PDPH. However, TSA did not corroborate this finding. Despite increasing use in clinical practice there is no firm evidence on which to base a definite conclusion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31522933
pii: S0959-289X(19)30104-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2019.08.001
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
71-82Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.