Ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl

A double blind comparison for analgesia during labour

M. Dresner, Judith (Judy) Freeman, C. Calow, A. Quinn, J. Bamber

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We have performed a randomized, double-blind comparison of two epidural drug regimens for analgesia in labour. In the bupivacaine group (BUPIV), 101 healthy parturients received 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg ml-1. In the ropivacaine group (ROPIV), 102 women received 0.2% ropivacaine. Both groups received an initial loading dose of 15 ml, a continuous infusion of 8 ml h-1, and top-ups of 10 ml. Breakthrough pain not responding to a routine top-up was treated with an 'escape' top-up of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine. The two groups were compared for complete analgesia at 30 min, routine and 'escape' top-up requirements, midwife assessment of analgesic efficacy, delivery mode, patient visual analogue scores (VAS) for first and second stage analgesia, overall satisfaction, and patient assessment of motor blockade. Patients receiving ropivacaine received fewer routine top-ups (median 1.0 vs. 2.0, P=0.001) and fewer escape top-ups (9.8% vs. 21.8%, P=0.02). The ropivacaine group was more likely to be pain free in the first stage (51% vs. 33.7%, P=0.01). There were no significant differences in patients' assessment of motor block or mode of delivery between the groups. Pain relief and satisfaction scores from midwives and patients were consistently better in the ropivacaine group, but did not reach statistical significance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)826-829
Number of pages4
JournalBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume85
Issue number6
StatePublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Bupivacaine
Fentanyl
Analgesia
Midwifery
Breakthrough Pain
Patient Satisfaction
Analgesics
ropivacaine
Parturition
Pain
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • Anaesthesia, obstetric
  • Anaesthetic techniques, epidural
  • Anaesthetic techniques, regional
  • Anaesthetics local, ropivacaine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl : A double blind comparison for analgesia during labour. / Dresner, M.; Freeman, Judith (Judy); Calow, C.; Quinn, A.; Bamber, J.

In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 85, No. 6, 2000, p. 826-829.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dresner, M, Freeman, JJ, Calow, C, Quinn, A & Bamber, J 2000, 'Ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl: A double blind comparison for analgesia during labour', British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 826-829.
Dresner, M. ; Freeman, Judith (Judy) ; Calow, C. ; Quinn, A. ; Bamber, J. / Ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl : A double blind comparison for analgesia during labour. In: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2000 ; Vol. 85, No. 6. pp. 826-829.
@article{aa1b2e23eb2e45ceb72f7484576ddfb8,
title = "Ropivacaine 0.2{\%} versus bupivacaine 0.1{\%} with fentanyl: A double blind comparison for analgesia during labour",
abstract = "We have performed a randomized, double-blind comparison of two epidural drug regimens for analgesia in labour. In the bupivacaine group (BUPIV), 101 healthy parturients received 0.1{\%} bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg ml-1. In the ropivacaine group (ROPIV), 102 women received 0.2{\%} ropivacaine. Both groups received an initial loading dose of 15 ml, a continuous infusion of 8 ml h-1, and top-ups of 10 ml. Breakthrough pain not responding to a routine top-up was treated with an 'escape' top-up of 10 ml 0.25{\%} bupivacaine. The two groups were compared for complete analgesia at 30 min, routine and 'escape' top-up requirements, midwife assessment of analgesic efficacy, delivery mode, patient visual analogue scores (VAS) for first and second stage analgesia, overall satisfaction, and patient assessment of motor blockade. Patients receiving ropivacaine received fewer routine top-ups (median 1.0 vs. 2.0, P=0.001) and fewer escape top-ups (9.8{\%} vs. 21.8{\%}, P=0.02). The ropivacaine group was more likely to be pain free in the first stage (51{\%} vs. 33.7{\%}, P=0.01). There were no significant differences in patients' assessment of motor block or mode of delivery between the groups. Pain relief and satisfaction scores from midwives and patients were consistently better in the ropivacaine group, but did not reach statistical significance.",
keywords = "Anaesthesia, obstetric, Anaesthetic techniques, epidural, Anaesthetic techniques, regional, Anaesthetics local, ropivacaine",
author = "M. Dresner and Freeman, {Judith (Judy)} and C. Calow and A. Quinn and J. Bamber",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "826--829",
journal = "British Journal of Anaesthesia",
issn = "0007-0912",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl

T2 - A double blind comparison for analgesia during labour

AU - Dresner, M.

AU - Freeman, Judith (Judy)

AU - Calow, C.

AU - Quinn, A.

AU - Bamber, J.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - We have performed a randomized, double-blind comparison of two epidural drug regimens for analgesia in labour. In the bupivacaine group (BUPIV), 101 healthy parturients received 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg ml-1. In the ropivacaine group (ROPIV), 102 women received 0.2% ropivacaine. Both groups received an initial loading dose of 15 ml, a continuous infusion of 8 ml h-1, and top-ups of 10 ml. Breakthrough pain not responding to a routine top-up was treated with an 'escape' top-up of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine. The two groups were compared for complete analgesia at 30 min, routine and 'escape' top-up requirements, midwife assessment of analgesic efficacy, delivery mode, patient visual analogue scores (VAS) for first and second stage analgesia, overall satisfaction, and patient assessment of motor blockade. Patients receiving ropivacaine received fewer routine top-ups (median 1.0 vs. 2.0, P=0.001) and fewer escape top-ups (9.8% vs. 21.8%, P=0.02). The ropivacaine group was more likely to be pain free in the first stage (51% vs. 33.7%, P=0.01). There were no significant differences in patients' assessment of motor block or mode of delivery between the groups. Pain relief and satisfaction scores from midwives and patients were consistently better in the ropivacaine group, but did not reach statistical significance.

AB - We have performed a randomized, double-blind comparison of two epidural drug regimens for analgesia in labour. In the bupivacaine group (BUPIV), 101 healthy parturients received 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg ml-1. In the ropivacaine group (ROPIV), 102 women received 0.2% ropivacaine. Both groups received an initial loading dose of 15 ml, a continuous infusion of 8 ml h-1, and top-ups of 10 ml. Breakthrough pain not responding to a routine top-up was treated with an 'escape' top-up of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine. The two groups were compared for complete analgesia at 30 min, routine and 'escape' top-up requirements, midwife assessment of analgesic efficacy, delivery mode, patient visual analogue scores (VAS) for first and second stage analgesia, overall satisfaction, and patient assessment of motor blockade. Patients receiving ropivacaine received fewer routine top-ups (median 1.0 vs. 2.0, P=0.001) and fewer escape top-ups (9.8% vs. 21.8%, P=0.02). The ropivacaine group was more likely to be pain free in the first stage (51% vs. 33.7%, P=0.01). There were no significant differences in patients' assessment of motor block or mode of delivery between the groups. Pain relief and satisfaction scores from midwives and patients were consistently better in the ropivacaine group, but did not reach statistical significance.

KW - Anaesthesia, obstetric

KW - Anaesthetic techniques, epidural

KW - Anaesthetic techniques, regional

KW - Anaesthetics local, ropivacaine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033652291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033652291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 85

SP - 826

EP - 829

JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia

JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia

SN - 0007-0912

IS - 6

ER -