It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique offers multiple benefits over continuous epidural infusion (CEI), but controversy still exists when it is used in conjunction with a parturient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) regimen. A systematic review and meta-analysis was thus conducted using the Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases with the aim of identifying those randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that performed a comparison between PIEB and CEI in healthy parturients using a PCEA regimen with regard to the duration of labor, labor pain, anesthesia interventions, maternal satisfaction and main side effects. The data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Eleven eligible trials were included, in which 717 participants were allocated to the PIEB + PCEA group and 650 patients were allocated to the CEI + PCEA group. The rate of instrumental delivery, incidence of breakthrough pain, PCEA usage rates and local anesthetic usage were significantly reduced, the labor duration was statistically shorter, and the maternal satisfaction score was significantly improved in the PIEB + PCEA group compared with that in the CEI + PCEA group. There were no differences in the side effects between the two groups. The results of the present study suggest that the PIEB technique in conjunction with the PCEA regimen was more advantageous than CEI + PCEA, but additional studies should be conducted to consistently demonstrate an improvement in the maternal and fetal obstetric outcomes.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China (GRID:grid.33199.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 7223); North Sichuan Medical College Affiliated Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Nanchong, China (GRID:grid.449525.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1798 4472); Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Institute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China (GRID:grid.33199.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 7223)
2 Red Cross central blood station of Nanchong, Sichuan, China (GRID:grid.33199.31)
3 Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China (GRID:grid.33199.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 7223); Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Institute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China (GRID:grid.33199.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 7223)
4 Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Institute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China (GRID:grid.33199.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 7223)
5 North Sichuan Medical College Affiliated Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Nanchong, China (GRID:grid.449525.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1798 4472)