Induced Labor– Is There an Increased Risk of Perinatal Infection?

Objectives: To assess induced labor-associated perinatal infection risk at Hospital D.Estefânia from January to June of 2010 at Hospital de D. Estefânia’s delivery rooms, reviewing the indications for inducing labor as well as the techniques used. Material and Methods: Performing an historical prospective study searching the clinical processes as well as the mother and newborn’s computer database from January to June of 2010. An exposed and an unexposed group were created; the first group comprises pregnant women and their newborns whose labor was induced. The unexposed group is constituted by newborns and pregnant women whose labor was spontaneous. Labor induction was performed using intra-vaginal prostaglandins in women who didn’t start it spontaneously; perinatal infection was defined either clinically or using blood tests. The gestational age was ≥ 37 weeks for both groups. 19 variables were studied for both groups. Results: A total of 190 mother-newborn pairs were included: 55 in the exposed group and 135 in the unexposed group. 3 cases of perinatal infection were reported, two in the exposed group and one in the unexposed group. Preliminary data resulted in a perinatal infection rate of 3.6% in the exposed group and 0.7% in the unexposed group; preliminary data suggest that the risk of perinatal infection may be increased in up to 5-fold when labor is inducted. Conclusions: A larger series of patients and a multivariable analysis using logistic regression are both necessary in order to perform a more thorough assessment of labor induction’s role in perinatal infection risk. One must also try to distinguish labor inducing- and clinical practicesrelated factors.

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.