The effect of labor epidural analgesia on labor, delivery, and neonatal outcomes: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single Japanese institute.
Assisted vaginal delivery
Cesarean section
Epidural labor
Labor
Propensity score-matched analysis
Journal
JA clinical reports
ISSN: 2363-9024
Titre abrégé: JA Clin Rep
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101682121
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jun 2019
18 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
05
03
2019
accepted:
11
06
2019
entrez:
7
2
2020
pubmed:
7
2
2020
medline:
7
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lumbar epidural analgesia (LEA) is the most widely used method in reducing labor pain. Previous RCTs have shown that LEA does not increase cesarean section rates; however, the results are inconsistent and may vary depending on the different backgrounds. Therefore, we aimed to study whether LEA would affect the course of labor in our institute. Delivery records from October 2013 to April 2016 were collected. Deliveries at gestational age < 36 weeks and multiple pregnancies were excluded. All cases were divided into the non-epidural labor (NEL) group or the epidural labor (EL) group. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to balance intergroup differences. Our primary outcome was a mode of delivery (spontaneous, assisted vaginal, cesarean). Secondary outcomes were lengths of labor and outcomes of the neonates. During the study period, 2632 cases met the inclusion criteria. All analyses were performed after propensity score matching (218 pairs). The percentage of assisted vaginal delivery increased by the use of LEA (11.5% in NEL group vs 25.7% in EL group; p < 0.001), but the rate of cesarean section was similar (12.8% vs 17.0%; p = 0.23). The durations of the first and second stages of labor were prolonged by the use of LEA in both primipara and multipara women. Outcomes of the neonates were similar in both groups. Use of LEA did not increase the rate of cesarean section when analyzed by propensity score-matched analysis in our institute.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32026970
doi: 10.1186/s40981-019-0260-z
pii: 10.1186/s40981-019-0260-z
pmc: PMC6967033
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
40Références
Anesth Analg. 2016 Jun;122(6):1939-46
pubmed: 27088993
N Engl J Med. 1989 Mar 16;320(11):706-9
pubmed: 2922015
Eur Heart J. 2012 Aug;33(15):1893-901
pubmed: 22711757
Anesthesiology. 1998 Dec;89(6):1336-44
pubmed: 9856707
Anesteziol Reanimatol. 2007 Nov-Dec;(6):17-20
pubmed: 18326251
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Dec;177(6):1465-70
pubmed: 9423752
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 07;(12):CD000331
pubmed: 22161362
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003 Dec;43(6):463-8
pubmed: 14712952
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Dec;179(6 Pt 1):1527-33
pubmed: 9855591
J Formos Med Assoc. 2000 Jul;99(7):549-53
pubmed: 10925565
Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Feb;20(4):539-45
pubmed: 20394251
J Anesth. 2013 Feb;27(1):43-7
pubmed: 22965331
Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Nov;86(5):783-9
pubmed: 7566849
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Aug;118(2):145-8
pubmed: 22613492