4.3 Article

A biased coin up-and-down sequential allocation trial to determine the optimum programmed intermittent epidural bolus time interval between 5 mL boluses of bupivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 μg•mL-1

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-019-01407-7

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The optimal epidural mixtures and settings for programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) labour analgesia have yet to be determined. A previous study by our group demonstrated that 10 mL boluses of bupivacaine 0.0625% with fentanyl 2 mu g center dot mL(-1) administered every 40 min provided effective analgesia during the first stage of labour for 90% of women, without breakthrough pain. We wanted to determine the effective PIEB time interval of 5 mL boluses of bupivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 mu g center dot mL(-1) under the same study circumstances, aiming at a future comparative study. Methods This double-blind dose-finding study used the biased coin up-and-down sequential allocation method to determine the effective PIEB interval 90% (EI90) needed to provide effective analgesia without breakthrough pain during the first stage of labour. We used fixed 5 mL boluses of bupivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 mu g.mL(-1) and studied time intervals of 60, 50, 40, and 30 min. The first patient was assigned an interval of 60 min and the remaining intervals were assigned as per the biased coin up-and-down method. Results The estimated EI90 was 36.5 min (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.0 to 39.0) by the truncated Dixon and Mood method and 34.2 min (95% CI, 30.8 to 41.5) by the isotonic regression method. We found that 20/40 women had an upper sensory block to ice above T6, 34/40 women had no motor block, and no woman required treatment for hypotension. Conclusion The EI90 between 5 mL boluses of bupivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 mu g center dot mL(-1) during the first stage of labour is approximately 35 min.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available