Epidural

硬膜外
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    UNASSIGNED: In 2014, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM) published an Obstetric Care Consensus for safe prevention of primary cesarean delivery. We aimed to assess whether these guidelines decreased the primary CD rate during the second stage of labor, in our department.
    UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cohort study of all women reaching the second stage of labor, at term, in a single university-affiliated medical center between2010 and 2017.
    UNASSIGNED: We compared maternal and neonatal outcomes over three year\'s periods:-pre-guidelines (2010-2013) vs. 2nd period - post-guidelines (2014-2017).
    UNASSIGNED: CD rate at 2ndstage of labor.
    UNASSIGNED: The study included 11,464 women. The CD rate in the 2nd stage of labor has increased significantly from 4% to 5.9% in the post-guidelines period (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16-1.89, p = .001). After a sub-analysis of specific subgroups, and adjustment for confounders, the increase was solely observed in nulliparous women (aOR 1.418, 95% CI 1.067-1.885, p = .016). Furthermore, increased odds for vaginal operative delivery were observed in the multiparous women in the post-guidelines period (2.7% vs. 4.1%, p = .046).
    UNASSIGNED: The implementation of the new ACOG and SMFM guidelines was not associated with a change in the CD rate performed at the 2nd stage of labor in the whole study population. However, there was a rise in the CD rate performed at the 2nd stage in nulliparous women. Furthermore, there was an increase in operative deliveries in the whole study population, especially in multiparous women, without an apparent increase in other immediate adverse neonatal or maternal outcomes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Practice Guideline
    背景:这些指南涉及分娩期间的水合作用以及区域和全身疼痛管理方面的产妇健康。
    方法:基于文献分析和专家共识制定指南。
    结果:在分娩和产后允许饮用透明液体,没有体积限制,在低风险的患者全身麻醉(B级)。在劳动活动阶段不建议食用固体食物(共识协议)。建议促进局部镇痛以防止吸入(A级)。使用区域镇痛缓解疼痛是正常分娩的一部分。建议为希望使用这些技术的产妇提供区域镇痛。区域镇痛是母亲(A级)和儿童(B级)最安全,最有效的镇痛方法。建议告知女性镇痛技术,尊重他们的选择,并考虑产妇在产科情况下或在难以处理的疼痛情况下改变策略的权利(共识)。建议执行尊重分娩经验的“低剂量”区域镇痛(A级),并使用患者控制的硬膜外镇痛技术(A级)维持。不存在允许硬膜外镇痛的最小宫颈扩张(A级)。在快速劳动或交付修订后的情况下,可以使用脊髓或联合脊髓硬膜外(C级)。硬膜外麻醉不得在出生前结束(共识)。必须在诱导后每3分钟监测血压和胎儿心率,和/或每次10mL推注,然后每小时监测一次(共识)。如果仅由于局部镇痛(B级),则不需要系统和预防性液体负荷。在没有运动阻滞的情况下,允许下床活动或姿势,必须追踪,并且不要改变区域镇痛的分布(C级)。分娩的姿势不会改变区域镇痛传播(NP2)。低剂量区域镇痛对产科分娩时间没有影响,也不是工具性分娩或剖腹产的比率(NP1)。由于硬膜外镇痛,系统使用催产素既不有用也不推荐(AE)。局部镇痛对胎儿或新生儿(NP1)没有副作用。如果区域镇痛是禁忌的或在等待时间内,替代镇痛药物(恩托诺克斯,可以使用纳布啡和曲马多或阴部阻滞),但它们的镇痛效率仍然中等至中等,并且与不良的母体副作用,尤其是新生儿副作用(NP2)有关。瑞芬太尼,氯胺酮和挥发性麻醉药被排除在这些建议之外.
    结论:本指南旨在更新正常分娩期间正常产妇的健康状况:建议使用水合作用,低剂量患者控制的区域(硬膜外和脊髓)镇痛是最有效和最安全的镇痛方法。
    BACKGROUND: These guidelines deal with the parturient wellbeing in terms of hydration and regional and systemic pain management during labour.
    METHODS: Guidelines were established based on literature analysis and experts consensus.
    RESULTS: Clear liquids consumption is permitted all along labor and postpartum, without volume limitation, in patients at low risk of general anesthesia (grade B). The consumption of solid foods is not recommended during the active stage of labor (consensus agreement). It is recommended to promote on regional analgesia to prevent inhalation (grade A). Pain relief using regional analgesia is a part of normal childbirth. It is recommended to provide regional analgesia to parturient who wish these technics. Regional analgesia is the safest and most effective analgesic method for the mother (grade A) and the child (grade B). It is recommended to inform women on the analgesic technics, to respect their choice and consider the right for a parturient to change her strategy in obstetrical circumstances or in cases of untractable pain (consensus agreement). It is recommended to perform a \"low-dose\" regional analgesia that respects the experience of childbirth (grade A) and maintain it with a patient controlled epidural analgesia technics (grade A). There is no minimum cervical dilation to allow epidural analgesia (grade A). In cases of rapid labor or after delivery for revision, spinal or combined spinal epidural can be used (grade C). Epidural has not to be ended before birth (consensus agreement). Blood pressure and fetal heart rate must be monitored every 3minutes after induction and/or each 10mL bolus then hourly (consensus agreement). Systematic and preventive fluid loading is not needed if only due to regional analgesia (grade B). Deambulation or postures are allowed in the absence of motor block and must be traced and do not alter the distribution of the regional analgesia (grade C). The postures of childbirth do not alter regional analgesia spread (NP2). There is no effect low dose regional analgesia on the duration of obstetric labor, nor the rate of instrumental births or caesarean section (NP1). Systematic use of oxytocin due to epidural analgesia is neither useful nor recommended (AE). Regional analgesia has no side effect on the fetus or newborn (NP1). If regional analgesia is contraindicated or during the waiting time, alternatives analgesic drugs (entonox, nalbuphine and tramadol or pudendal block) can be used but their analgesic efficiency remains mediocre to moderate and they are associated with adverse maternal and especially neonatal side effects (NP2). Remifentanil, ketamine and volatile anesthetics are excluded from these recommendations.
    CONCLUSIONS: The present guidelines were established to update wellbeing of normal parturient during normal labor: hydration is recommended and low dose patient-controlled regional (epidural and spinal) analgesia is the most effective and safest analgesic method.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    由于全国剖宫产率的提高,建议的劳动管理实践最近发生了重大变化。最重要的变化之一是由2014年产科护理共识颁布的,“初次剖宫产的安全预防,“建议重新考虑第二阶段和第一阶段的分娩时间上限。我们之前发表了一份2016年的临床意见,对第二阶段的实践变革提出了挑战。在过去的两年里,至少有5份报告和2份国家组织声明支持第二阶段劳工的修订管理。我们现在重新讨论第二阶段问题,因为我们认为,必须认真澄清协商一致声明所产生的现状以及科学证据的演变现状。我们使用问题构建了此临床意见,以记录如何取代使用了50多年的第二阶段分娩的产科戒律的故事。我们是如何到达这里的?当前的证据是什么?从这一经验中可以学到什么?美国产科现在是否应该“退回”到先前存在的产科戒律,以管理第二阶段的分娩,按照产科护理共识的建议,将可接受的第二阶段分娩时间延长至4小时?我们认为,自2016年临床意见以来公布的数据支持了我们最初的立场,即延长第二阶段超过历史戒律是不安全的.
    There has been a recent significant evolution in suggested practices for the management of labor because of the increased national cesarean delivery rate. One of the most significant changes was promulgated by the 2014 Obstetric Care Consensus entitled, \"Safe Prevention of Primary Cesarean Delivery,\" which recommended reconsideration of the upper limits of the length of labor in the second stage as well as the first stage. We previously published a 2016 Clinical Opinion challenging the second-stage practice change. Over the past 2 years, there have been at least 5 reports as well as 2 national organization statements supporting revised management of second-stage labor. We now revisit the second-stage issue because we believe that it is important to carefully clarify the current status resulting from consensus statements as well as the evolving current status of scientific evidence. We structured this Clinical Opinion using questions in an effort to chronicle the story of how obstetric precepts on second-stage labor in use for more than 50 years were being replaced. How did we get here? What is the current evidence? What can be learned from this experience? Should American obstetrics now \"fall back\" to pre-existing obstetric precepts for the management of second-stage labor after having \"sprung forward\" an additional hour-namely, lengthening the duration of acceptable second-stage labor to 4 hours as recommended by the Obstetric Care Consensus? We believe that the data published since our 2016 Clinical Opinion buttress our original position that prolongation of the second stage beyond historical precepts is unsafe.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Editorial
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Consensus Development Conference
    BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes.
    METHODS: The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations.
    RESULTS: The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87.
    CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation.
    CONCLUSIONS: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty.
    UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO CRD42018099935.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Guideline
    目的:当保守疗法如止痛药或运动疗法失败时,对于腰骶部脊柱疼痛患者,可能需要进行侵入性治疗。荷兰麻醉师学会,与荷兰骨科协会和荷兰神经外科学会合作,已经主动制定了“脊柱下腰痛”的指南,“描述了关于最常见的脊柱下腰痛综合征的诊断和侵入性治疗的证据,也就是说,小关节疼痛,骶髂关节疼痛,尾骨痛,源自椎间盘的疼痛,和失败的背部手术综合征。
    方法:本指南的目的是确定在保守治疗失败时,对于每种纳入的疼痛综合征,首选哪种侵入性治疗。使用EBRO标准评估诊断研究,对治疗的研究进行了评估,开发和评估系统。为了评估侵入性治疗方案,指导委员会决定,疼痛的结局指标,函数,生活质量是最重要的。
    结果:定义,流行病学,病理生理机制,诊断,报告了每种脊柱背痛综合征的侵入性治疗建议。
    结论:指南委员会得出结论,将下腰痛分类为仅特异性或非特异性,对下腰痛问题的认识不足,并且不能充分反映哪种疗法对疼痛综合征的潜在疾病有效。根据指南“脊柱下腰痛,“小关节疼痛,骶髂关节疼痛,椎间盘疼痛将成为计划中的全国成本效益研究的一部分。
    OBJECTIVE: When conservative therapies such as pain medication or exercise therapy fail, invasive treatment may be indicated for patients with lumbosacral spinal pain. The Dutch Society of Anesthesiologists, in collaboration with the Dutch Orthopedic Association and the Dutch Neurosurgical Society, has taken the initiative to develop the guideline \"Spinal low back pain,\" which describes the evidence regarding diagnostics and invasive treatment of the most common spinal low back pain syndromes, that is, facet joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, coccygodynia, pain originating from the intervertebral disk, and failed back surgery syndrome.
    METHODS: The aim of the guideline is to determine which invasive treatment intervention is preferred for each included pain syndrome when conservative treatment has failed. Diagnostic studies were evaluated using the EBRO criteria, and studies on therapies were evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. For the evaluation of invasive treatment options, the guideline committee decided that the outcome measures of pain, function, and quality of life were most important.
    RESULTS: The definition, epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanism, diagnostics, and recommendations for invasive therapy for each of the spinal back pain syndromes are reported.
    CONCLUSIONS: The guideline committee concluded that the categorization of low back pain into merely specific or nonspecific gives insufficient insight into the low back pain problem and does not adequately reflect which therapy is effective for the underlying disorder of a pain syndrome. Based on the guideline \"Spinal low back pain,\" facet joint pain, pain of the sacroiliac joint, and disk pain will be part of a planned nationwide cost-effectiveness study.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号