File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A double-blind randomised comparison of intravenous patient-controlled remifentanil with intramuscular pethidine for labour analgesia

TitleA double-blind randomised comparison of intravenous patient-controlled remifentanil with intramuscular pethidine for labour analgesia
Authors
Issue Date2011
Citation
Anaesthesia, 2011, v. 66, n. 9, p. 796-801 How to Cite?
AbstractIn a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia using remifentanil (25-30 μg per bolus) with intramuscular pethidine (50-75 mg) for labour analgesia in 69 parturients. Parturients receiving patient-controlled analgesia reported less pain than those receiving intramuscular pethidine throughout the study period (p < 0.001), with maximal reduction in visual analogue pain score at 2 h after commencement of analgesia (mean (SD) 20 (17) in the patient-controlled analgesia group and 36 (22) in the intramuscular pethidine group. The median (95% CI) time to the first request for rescue analgesics was significantly longer with patient-controlled analgesia (8.0 (6.8-9.2) h) compared with intramuscular pethidine (4.9 (3.8-5.4) h, p < 0.001). Maternal satisfaction scores were also higher with remifentanil compared with intramuscular pethidine (p= 0.001). There was no report of sedation, aponea or oxygen desaturation in either group, and Apgar scores were similar between groups. We conclude that patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil provides better labour analgesia and maternal satisfaction than intramuscular pethidine. At this dose, maternal and fetal side effects were uncommon. © 2011 The Authors. Anaesthesia © 2011 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/280541
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 7.5
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.400
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNg, T. K.T.-
dc.contributor.authorCheng, B. C.P.-
dc.contributor.authorChan, W. S.-
dc.contributor.authorLam, K. K.-
dc.contributor.authorChan, M. T.V.-
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-17T14:34:18Z-
dc.date.available2020-02-17T14:34:18Z-
dc.date.issued2011-
dc.identifier.citationAnaesthesia, 2011, v. 66, n. 9, p. 796-801-
dc.identifier.issn0003-2409-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/280541-
dc.description.abstractIn a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia using remifentanil (25-30 μg per bolus) with intramuscular pethidine (50-75 mg) for labour analgesia in 69 parturients. Parturients receiving patient-controlled analgesia reported less pain than those receiving intramuscular pethidine throughout the study period (p < 0.001), with maximal reduction in visual analogue pain score at 2 h after commencement of analgesia (mean (SD) 20 (17) in the patient-controlled analgesia group and 36 (22) in the intramuscular pethidine group. The median (95% CI) time to the first request for rescue analgesics was significantly longer with patient-controlled analgesia (8.0 (6.8-9.2) h) compared with intramuscular pethidine (4.9 (3.8-5.4) h, p < 0.001). Maternal satisfaction scores were also higher with remifentanil compared with intramuscular pethidine (p= 0.001). There was no report of sedation, aponea or oxygen desaturation in either group, and Apgar scores were similar between groups. We conclude that patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil provides better labour analgesia and maternal satisfaction than intramuscular pethidine. At this dose, maternal and fetal side effects were uncommon. © 2011 The Authors. Anaesthesia © 2011 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAnaesthesia-
dc.titleA double-blind randomised comparison of intravenous patient-controlled remifentanil with intramuscular pethidine for labour analgesia-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06790.x-
dc.identifier.pmid21707564-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-80051787049-
dc.identifier.volume66-
dc.identifier.issue9-
dc.identifier.spage796-
dc.identifier.epage801-
dc.identifier.eissn1365-2044-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000293794800008-
dc.identifier.f100013293973-
dc.identifier.issnl0003-2409-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats