Epidural Versus Non-Epidural or No Analgesia for Pain Management in Labour
- PMID: 29781504
- PMCID: PMC6494646
- DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4
Epidural Versus Non-Epidural or No Analgesia for Pain Management in Labour
Abstract
Background: Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.
Search methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.
Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
Main results: Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I2 = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I2 = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I2 = 73%; Tau2 = 1.89; Chi2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.
Authors' conclusions: Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.
Conflict of interest statement
Millicent Anim‐Somuah: None known
Rebecca MD Smyth: None known
Allan M Cyna: None known
Anna Cuthbert: I am a research associate working in the editorial base of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth. I am employed by the University of Liverpool to work as a research associate in Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (who receives infrastructure funding from the NIHR, UK).
Figures
Update of
-
Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7;(12):CD000331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. PMID: 22161362 Updated. Review.
Similar articles
-
Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7;(12):CD000331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. PMID: 22161362 Updated. Review.
-
Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 13;4(4):CD011989. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011989.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28407220 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Assessment and support during early labour for improving birth outcomes.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 20;4(4):CD011516. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011516.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28426160 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Maternal position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 9;11(11):CD008070. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30411804 Free PMC article.
-
Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 5;6(6):CD007396. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007396.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29870574 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by 19 articles
-
Pregnant women's clinical characteristics, intrapartum interventions, and duration of labour in urban China: a multi-center cross-sectional study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Jul 2;20(1):386. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03072-x. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020. PMID: 32616073 Free PMC article.
-
Epidural analgesia in labour.CMAJ. 2020 May 11;192(19):E509. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.191372. CMAJ. 2020. PMID: 32575042 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for sickle cell disease: management of acute and chronic pain.Blood Adv. 2020 Jun 23;4(12):2656-2701. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001851. Blood Adv. 2020. PMID: 32559294 Free PMC article.
-
Variations in use of childbirth interventions in 13 high-income countries: A multinational cross-sectional study.PLoS Med. 2020 May 22;17(5):e1003103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003103. eCollection 2020 May. PLoS Med. 2020. PMID: 32442207 Free PMC article.
-
Duration of labor, delivery mode and maternal and neonatal morbidity after remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia compared with epidural analgesia.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2020 Jan 7;6:100106. doi: 10.1016/j.eurox.2019.100106. eCollection 2020 Apr. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2020. PMID: 32300757 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
