Effects of Local Anesthetic on the Time Between Analgesic Boluses and the Duration of Labor in Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia: Prospective Study of Two Ultra-Low Dose Regimens of Ropivacaine and Sufentanil

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with low concentrations of anesthetics is effective in reducing labor pain. The aim of this study was to assess and compare two ultra-low dose regimens of ropivacaine and sufentanil (0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil vs. 0.06% ropivacaine plus 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil) on the intervals between boluses and the duration of labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this non-randomized prospective study, conducted between January and July 2010, two groups of parturients received patient-controlled epidural analgesia: Group I (n = 58; 1 mg.ml-1 ropivacaine + 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil) and Group II (n = 57; 0.6 mg.ml-1 ropivacaine + 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil). Rescue doses of ropivacaine at the concentration of the assigned group without sufentanil were administered as necessary. Pain, local anesthetic requirements, neuraxial blockade characteristics, labor and neonatal outcomes, and maternal satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: The ropivacaine dose was greater in Group I (9.5 [7.7-12.7] mg.h-1 vs. 6.1 [5.1-9.8 mg.h-1], p < 0.001). A time increase between each bolus was observed in Group I (beta = 32.61 min, 95% CI [25.39; 39.82], p < 0.001), whereas a time decrease was observed in Group II (beta = -1.40 min, 95% CI [-2.44; -0.36], p = 0.009). The duration of the second stage of labor in Group I was significantly longer than that in Group II (78 min vs. 65 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Parturients receiving 0.06% ropivacaine exhibited less evidence of cumulative effects and exhibited faster second stage progression than those who received 0.1% ropivacaine.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Score: Still Useful After 60 Years? Results of the EuSOS Study

OBJECTIVE: The European Surgical Outcomes Study described mortality following in-patient surgery. Several factors were identified that were able to predict poor outcomes in a multivariate analysis. These included age, procedure urgency, severity and type and the American Association of Anaesthesia score. This study describes in greater detail the relationship between the American Association of Anaesthesia score and postoperative mortality. METHODS: Patients in this 7-day cohort study were enrolled in April 2011. Consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery with a recorded American Association of Anaesthesia score in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations were included and followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Decision tree analysis with the CHAID (SPSS) system was used to delineate nodes associated with mortality. RESULTS: The study enrolled 46,539 patients. Due to missing values, 873 patients were excluded, resulting in the analysis of 45,666 patients. Increasing American Association of Anaesthesia scores were associated with increased admission rates to intensive care and higher mortality rates. Despite a progressive relationship with mortality, discrimination was poor, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.658 (95% CI 0.642 - 0.6775). Using regression trees (CHAID), we identified four discrete American Association of Anaesthesia nodes associated with mortality, with American Association of Anaesthesia 1 and American Association of Anaesthesia 2 compressed into the same node. CONCLUSION: The American Association of Anaesthesia score can be used to determine higher risk groups of surgical patients, but clinicians cannot use the score to discriminate between grades 1 and 2. Overall, the discriminatory power of the model was less than acceptable for widespread use.