Associacao de opioides lipofilicos a bupivacaina na anestesia peridural. Ha vantagem no aumento da dose do opioide?

Background and Objectives: - The effects of associating lipophilic opioids to local anesthetics in epidural anesthesia are not well defined. There are still questions and controversies about opioid doses to be used and their major effects in the epidural block. This study aimed at evaluating the epidural block effects in humans of the association of different fentanyl and sufentanil doses to bupivacaine with 1:200.000 epinephrine. Methods: - A double-blind randomized study was performed in 94 patients of both genders, physical status ASA I, aged between 18 and 60 years, submitted to lower abdomen, perineal or lower limb surgery. Patients without preanesthetic medication were epidurally injected with 100 mg (20 ml) 0.5% bupivacaine, 0.1 mg (0.1 ml) 1%o epinephrine plus a combination of the following drugs: BUPI Group (15 patients): 2 ml of 0.9% saline solution (SS); FENT50 Group (19 patients): 50 μg (1 ml) fentanyl + 1 ml SS; FENT100 Group (20 patients): 100 μg (2 ml) fentanyl; SUF30 Group (20 patients): 30 μg (0.6 ml) sufentanil + SS (1.4 ml); SUF100 Group (20 patients): 50 μg (1 ml) sufentanil + SS (1 ml). The following parameters were studied: onset of sensory block, analgesic block (onset time) in T12, T10 and T8, analgesic block duration in T10 and T12, motor block degree, consciousness degree, need for supplemental perioperative sedation and analgesia, hypotension, bradycardia and peri and post operative side-effects, analgesia duration, proportion of patients needing supplemental analgesia and evaluation of postoperative pain (pain analog visual scale). Results: Groups were demographically uniform. The addition of fentanyl or sufentanil did not alter major characteristics of perioperative epidural block and has not significantly increased postoperative analgesia duration as compared to the use of bupivacaine only. However, the addition of lipophilic opioids has increased the quality of perioperative anesthetic block, translated into a lesser need for supplemental analgesia (p < 0.02). The increased dose of fentanyl and especially of sufentanil has increased the incidence of perioperative drowsiness (p < 0.001) without significant increase in other side effects. Conclusions: In the conditions and doses used, the addition of lipophilic opioids to bupivacaine and the increased dose of lipophilic opioids have improved anesthetic block quality without changes in the epidural block characteristics or a significant increase in side effects, with the exception of drowsiness mainly caused by sufentanil. However, they were not able to provide a significant increase in postoperative analgesia duration.

Profilaxia do prurido causado pela administração subaracnóidea de sufentanil: efeitos do droperidol, da nalbufina, do ondansetron e da combinação deles

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: O uso espinhal de opióides pode causar alguns efeitos indesejáveis, dentre os quais, o mais freqüente é o prurido que, apesar de sua baixa morbidade, pode proporcionar desconforto intenso ao paciente e prolongar o período de internação. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar diversas opções terapêuticas no tratamento profilático do prurido após administração de sufentanil por via subaracnóidea. MÉTODO: Foram distribuídos de maneira aleatória, por sorteio, 100 pacientes a serem submetidos à intervenção cirúrgica não-obstétricas em cinco grupos, de acordo com o tratamento utilizado: controle (ausência de tratamento - C); droperidol 2,5 mg (D); nalbufina 10 mg (N); associação dos medicamentos anteriores (DN) e ondansetron 8 mg (O). O prurido foi avaliado quantitativamente 30 minutos, 1, 2, e 3 horas após a administração subaracnóidea de sufentanil. RESULTADOS: Os grupos C e O apresentaram incidência significativamente maior de prurido em relação aos grupos D, N e DN. Entretanto, não houve diferença significativa na necessidade de tratamento específico com naloxona entre os grupos tratados. CONCLUSÕES: O tratamento profilático do prurido neste estudo, independentemente do fármaco utilizado, diminuiu sua intensidade e limitou a necessidade de tratamento específico com naloxona.

Efeitos adversos do sufentanil associado ao anestésico local pelas vias subaracnóidea e peridural em pacientes submetidas à analgesia de parto

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Comparacao da recuperacao de anestesia venosa com propofol e anestesia inalatoria com sevoflurano para laparoscopia ginecologica

Backgrounds and Objectives: Both continuous venous anesthesia with propofol and inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane propitiate fast arousal with few side effects. The aim of this study was to compare the arousal and post anesthestic recovery times in patients submitted to these two agents. Methods: Forty three patient aged 18 to 50 years, physical status I or II, submitted to gynecological laparoscopy were distributed in two groups: G1 - propofol in continuous infusion of 115 μg.kg -1.min -1 and G2 sevoflurane. All the patients were pre-medicated with 7.5 mg midazolam, sufentanil 0.5 μg.kg -1, propofol 2 mg.kg -1, atracurium 0.5 mg.kg -1, N 2O in 50% of oxygen in a no-rebreathing system. The depth of the anesthesia and arousal time were assessed by the Bispectral index (BIS). The time between end of anesthesia and eye opening, time for command response and time for orientation were also evaluated. Results: The times recorded in minutes were: G1 - eye opening 8.2 ± 2.9, command response 8.6 ± 3.1, orientation 9.8 ± 3.4, recovery 31.6 ± 3.8; G2 - eye opening 4.5 ± 3, command response 4.9 ± 3.4, orientation 6.2 ± 3.4, recovery 66 ± 8. Except the recovery time, all the values were larger in G1. Conclusions: Both intravenous propofol or inhalational sevoflurane were considered excellent anesthetic techniques as to recovery time and recovery room discharge. Sevoflurane provided an earlier arousal with a longer recovery room stay as compared to propofol.

Morfina nasal: Avaliacao da analgesia e dos efeitos colaterais no tratamento da dor pos-operatoria em criancas

Background and Objectives - Postoperative pain is one of the major discomforts but often under treated, especially in the pediatric patient. The aim of this study was to evaluate nasal morphine postoperative analgesia as an alternative drug administration route and show its applicability, effectiveness, tolerability and side effects. Methods - Participated in this study 20 patients aged 3 to 13 years, physical status ASA I and II sequentially submitted the different small and medium-size surgeries. Analgesia was obtained with nasal morphine hydrochloride in aqueous solution in variable concentrations of 2%, 1%, 0.5%, 0.25% and 0.125%. The dose for each instillation has been 0.1 mg.kg -1 at three-hour intervals for 36 postoperative hours. Quality of analgesia in pre-verbal age patients was evaluated by a pain intensity scale based on facial expression and crying, sleep, motor activity, sociability and food ingestion was used. Standardized evaluations were performed at 3-hour intervals. A four-grade scale was used to evaluate tolerability, where: 1) Good; 2) Regular; 3) Bad; 4) Very bad. Result - Postoperative analgesia results have proven to be good and safe, especially from the third evaluation on (6 hours). Drug tolerability has been good, although side effects were observed, especially nausea and vomiting. Conclusions - Patients and relatives accepted the method very well. The nasal route was considered an adequate way for opioid administration although more studies are needed to accept it as a routine for postoperative morphine analgesia.

Association Of Lipophilic Opioids And Hyperbaric Bupivacaine In Spinal Anesthesia For Elective Cesarean Section. Randomized Controlled Study.

To evaluate the efficacy and side-effects of fentanyl and sufentanil combined with hyperbaric spinal bupivacaine in elective cesarean section. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study with 64 term parturients, distributed into 2 groups according to the opioid combined with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (10mg): GF - fentanyl (25 µg) and GS - sufentanil (5.0 µg). The latency and maximum sensory block level; degree and duration of motor block; duration and quality of analgesia; maternal-fetal repercussions were evaluated. This was an intention-to-treat analysis with a 5% significance level. The latency period, maximum sensory block level, motor block degree and perioperative analgesia were similar in both groups. Motor block and analgesia had a longer duration in the sufentanil group. Maternal adverse effects and neonatal repercussions were similar. The incidence of hypotension was higher in the fentanyl group. In both groups, there was a predominance of patients who were awake and either calm or sleepy. The addition of fentanyl and sufentanil to hyperbaric subarachnoid bupivacaine was shown to be effective for the performance of cesarean section, and safe for the mother and fetus. Analgesia was more prolonged with sufentanil.

Eficácia analgésica da dexmedetomidina comparada ao sufentanil em cirurgias intraperitoneais: estudo comparativo

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A dexmedetomidina, agonista alfa2-adrenérgico com especificidade alfa1:alfa2 1:1620, não determina depressão respiratória, sendo utilizada no intra-operatório como sedativo e analgésico. Esse fármaco tem sido empregado com os opióides em anestesia de procedimentos com elevado estímulo doloroso, como os abdominais intraperitoneais, não havendo referências sobre seu uso como analgésico único. Comparou-se a dexmedetomidina ao sufentanil em procedimentos intraperitoneais, de pacientes com mais de 60 anos de idade. MÉTODO: Foram estudados 41 pacientes divididos aleatoriamente em dois grupos: GS (n = 21), que recebeu sufentanil, e GD (n = 20), dexmedetomidina, ambos na indução e manutenção da anestesia. Os pacientes receberam etomidato (GS e GD) com midazolam (GD) na indução, isoflurano e óxido nitroso na manutenção da anestesia. Foram avaliados os atributos hemodinâmicos (pressão arterial média e freqüência cardíaca), tempos de despertar e de extubação ao final da anestesia, locais onde os pacientes foram extubados - sala de operação (SO) ou sala de recuperação pós-anestésica (SRPA), tempo de permanência na SRPA, necessidade de analgesia suplementar e antiemético na SRPA, complicações apresentadas na SO e SRPA, índice de Aldrete-Kroulik na alta da SRPA e a necessidade de máscara de oxigênio na alta da SRPA. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferença quanto à estabilidade hemodinâmica e GD apresentou menor tempo de permanência na SRPA e menor necessidade de máscara de oxigênio na alta da SRPA. CONCLUSÕES: A dexmedetomidina pode ser utilizada como analgésico isolado em operações intraperitoneais em pacientes com mais de 60 anos, determinando estabilidade hemodinâmica semelhante à do sufentanil, com melhores características de recuperação.

Dexmedetomidina e sufentanil como analgésicos per-operatórios: estudo comparativo

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A utilização das drogas agonistas dos alfa2-adrenoceptores para controlar a pressão arterial e freqüência cardíaca, propiciar menores respostas hemodinâmicas à intubação e extubação traqueal e poupar anestésicos já está difundida na literatura desde a introdução da clonidina. O desenvolvimento de agentes providos de maior seletividade alfa2-adrenoceptora que, por isso, determinam menos efeitos adversos, como a dexmedetomidina, recentemente liberada para utilização clínica, possibilitou que ocorressem maior sedação e analgesia com o seu uso. Despertou-se, então, o interesse em sua utilização como substitutos dos opióides, conhecidos por determinarem potente analgesia e sedação. O objetivo deste trabalho foi comparar a analgesia promovida pela dexmedetomidina e pelo sufentanil, utilizados em infusões contínuas durante anestesias de procedimentos otorrinolaringológicos e de cabeça e pescoço. MÉTODO: Os 60 pacientes estudados foram divididos em dois grupos de 30: G1, recebendo sufentanil e G2, dexmedeto- midina, na indução e manutenção anestésicas. Para a manutenção da anestesia utilizaram-se, também, o óxido nitroso e o propofol, em infusão contínua alvo-controlada. Foram avaliados os parâmetros hemodinâmicos (pressões arteriais sistólica e diastólica e freqüência cardíaca), tempos de despertar e de extubação após interrupção do propofol, locais onde foram extubados os pacientes, sala de operação (SO) ou sala de recuperação pós-anestésica (SRPA), tempo de permanência na SRPA, índice de Aldrete e Kroulik e as complicações apresentadas na SO e SRPA. RESULTADOS: G1 apresentou menores valores de pressões arteriais sistólica, diastólica e freqüência cardíaca, tempos de despertar e extubação maiores, maior número de extubações na SRPA, maior tempo de permanência na SRPA, valores mais baixos para Aldrete e Kroulik na alta da SRPA e mais complicações per e pós-operatórias. CONCLUSÕES: A utilização de dexmedetomidina como analgésico per-operatório apresentou melhores resultados que a de sufentanil, nos procedimentos selecionados neste trabalho, com relação à estabilidade hemodinâmica e às condições de despertar e de recuperação anestésica.

REDUCAO DA CONCENTRACAO ALVEOLAR MINIMA DO ISOFLURANO E DO SEVOFLURANO PELO SUFENTANIL

Background and Objectives - Inhalational anesthetics have a mild analgesic effect. The reduction of alveolar concentration (MAC) of potent volatile anesthesics by increasing plasma concentrations of opioids is desired in inhalational anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to determine the role of sufentanil in reducing sevoflurane and isoflurane MAC. Methods - Thirty eight adult patients of both genders, physical status ASA I or II, submitted to major abdominal procedures were randomly allocated into two groups. Group I (n = 24) received inahalational anesthesia with sevoflurane and Group II (n = 14) received inhalational anesthesia with isoflurane, both diluted in a mixture of N2O (1 liter) and O2 (0.5 liter). A semi-closed system with CO2 absorber and partial reinhalation was used. Ventilation was mechanically controlled. Sufentanil infusion was administered aiming at obtaining 0.5 ng.ml-1 of plasma concentration. Sufentanil plasma concentration was previously calculated by a computer software. End-tidal concentrations were obtained through a gas analyzer and measured at 15 minutes (M1), 30 minutes (M2), 60 minutes (M3), 90 minutes (M4) and 120 minutes (M5). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) and heart rate (RR) were measured during the same periods with the addition of M0 (pre-anesthetic period). Hourly consumption of the inhalational anesthetic agent (IAC), extubation time (ET = time between admission to the recovery room and extubation) and stay in the post anesthesia recovery room (PA-RR) were also measured. Results - Type and duration of surgeries were similar for both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in MAC, SBP, DBP, RR, IAC, TE and PA-RR between groups. Systolic blood pressure in group I (sevoflurane) showed differences among periods F = 3.82 p < O.05; (M2 = M3)(M4 = M5) and M1 had a intermediate value. MAC in group I showed differences among periods F = 9.0 p < 0.05; M1 < M3. MAC in group II also showed differences among periods F = 13.03 p < O.05; M1 < (M2,M3,M4,M5). Conclusions - Both groups had similar behavior when associated to sufentanil in major abdominal surgeries. Group II showed a higher cardiac and circulatory stability.

Infusão contínua de propofol associado ao fentanil ou sufentanil em cadelas submetidas a ovariosalpingo-histerectomia

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if patients suffer from severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on pain and function and the safety of oral or transdermal opioids as compared with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Studies of tramadol were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. Trials were combined using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials with 2268 participants were included. Oral codeine was studied in three trials, transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine in one trial each, oral oxycodone in four, and oral oxymorphone in two trials. Overall, opioids were more effective than control interventions in terms of pain relief (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.26) and improvement of function (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.21). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency (strong or weak), daily dose, duration of treatment or follow up, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Adverse events were more frequent in patients receiving opioids compared to control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.70) for any adverse event (4 trials), 4.05 (95% CI 3.06 to 5.38) for dropouts due to adverse events (10 trials), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials). Withdrawal symptoms were more severe after fentanyl treatment compared to placebo (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small to moderate beneficial effects of non-tramadol opioids are outweighed by large increases in the risk of adverse events. Non-tramadol opioids should therefore not be routinely used, even if osteoarthritic pain is severe.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

Effects of opioids on human serotonin transporters.

The serotonin (5-hydroxtryptamine, 5-HT) system plays a role in analgesia and emesis. The aim of this study was to test whether opioids or ketamine inhibit the human 5-HT transporter and whether this increases free plasma 5-HT concentrations. HEK293 cells, stably transfected with the human 5-HT transporter cDNA, were incubated with morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, alfentanil, pethidine (meperidine), tramadol, ketamine, and the reference substance citalopram (specific 5-HT transporter inhibitor). The uptake of [(3)H]5-HT was measured by liquid scintillation counting. In a second series of experiments, study drugs were incubated with plasma of ten healthy blood donors and change of 5-HT plasma-concentrations were measured (ELISA). The end point was the inhibition of the 5-HT transporter by different analgesics either in HEK293 cells or in human platelets ex vivo. Tramadol, pethidine, and ketamine suppressed [(3)H]5-HT uptake dose-dependently with an IC50 of 1, 20.9, and 230 μM, respectively. These drugs also prevented 5-HT uptake in platelets with an increase in free plasma 5-HT. Free 5-HT concentrations in human plasma were increased by citalopram 1 μM, tramadol 20 μM, pethidine 30 μM, and ketamine 100 μM to 280 [248/312]%, 269 [188/349]%, and 149 [122/174]%, respectively, compared to controls without any co-incubation (means [95 % CI]; all p < 0.005). No change in both experimental settings was observed for the other opioids. Tramadol and pethidine inhibited the 5-HT transporter in HEK293 cells and platelets. This inhibition may contribute to serotonergic effects when these opioids are given in combination, e.g., with monoamine oxidase inhibitors or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Cognitive impairment in cancer pain patients receiving opioids

This study aimed to compare cognitive function of cancer pain patients being given opioids during their cancer treatment (n = 14) with that of patients receiving treatment without opioids (n = 12). Correlations between cognitive function, pain intensity, and opioid dose were analyzed. Patients were assessed 3 times in a I-month period, using the Trail-Making Test, Mini-Mental State Examination, Digit Span, and Brief Cognitive Screening Battery. Opioid use was not associated with clear cognitive impairment. Patients being treated without opioids did perform better in the Digit Span Test reverse-order test (P = .029) and the clock drawing test (P = .023), but the differences arose in just I assessment in each case. Pain intensity correlated negatively with scores in the Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .001) and some Brief Cognitive Screening Battery tests (incidental recall, immediate recall, and late recall; P <= .042) in the group receiving opioids. Opioid dose did not correlate with any of the measures of cognitive performance. However, the patients with the worst performance scores were those with more severe pain. Further studies are needed to clearly distinguish between the effects of opioids versus the effects of pain.

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.