Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Scientific Article

Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block

Bloqueio combinado raquiperidural para analgesia de parto. Estudo comparativo com bloqueio peridural contínuo

Angélica de Fátima de Assunção Braga; Vanessa Henriques Carvalho; Franklin Sarmento da Silva Braga; Rosa Inês Costa Pereira

Downloads: 0
Views: 137


Abstract Introduction: Lumbar epidural block is an effective and routinely used technique for labor pain relief, and the combined spinal-epidural block has the benefit of using lower doses of local anesthetics and rapid onset of analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two anesthetic techniques: combined spinal-epidural block and continuous epidural block in pregnant women for labor analgesia. Methods: Eighty patients, ASA II and III, with cephalic presentation and cervical dilation between 5 and 6 cm, undergoing labor analgesia, allocated in two groups according to the anesthetic technique: combined spinal-epidural (GI) and continuous epidural (GII). Pain severity before the blockade, time to complete analgesia, degree of motor blockade, time to full cervical dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, pain severity during the 1st and 2nd stage of labor, type of delivery, use of oxytocin during labor, maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory parameters and adverse events, and neonatal repercussions were recorded. Results: At the time of anesthesia, pain severity was similar in both groups. Pain relief was faster in GI (4.5 ± 1.5 min) when compared to GII (11.6 ± 4.6 min) p = 0.01; pain scores in the first and second stages of delivery were lower in GI (0.9 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.7, respectively) when compared to GII (1.9 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.5, respectively), with p = 0.01 only in the first stage of labor; there was need for local anesthetics supplementation in GII; there were more frequent spontaneous deliveries in GI (80% of patients) than in GII (50%) (p = 0.045) and more frequent use of instrumental (p = 0.03) in GII (12 patients) compared to GI (4 patients); the frequency of cesarean deliveries was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in Group II than in Group I, with 4 cases in GI and 8 cases in GII; absence of maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory changes and neonatal repercussions; more frequent pruritus in GI (10 patients) and (0 patients in GII) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The combined blockade proved to be effective with better quality of analgesia and greater comfort for pregnant women, constituting a good option for the practice of obstetric analgesia.


Spinal anesthesia, Combined spinal-epidural, Continuous epidural, Labor analgesia, Fetal and obstetric outcomes


Resumo Introdução: O bloqueio peridural lombar constitui técnica eficaz e rotineiramente empregada para alívio da dor do parto e o bloqueio combinado raquiperidural tem como benefícios o emprego de doses menores de anestésicos locais e rápido início de analgesia. O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar comparativamente a eficácia e a segurança de duas técnicas anestésicas: bloqueio combinado raquiperidural e peridural contínua em grávidas submetidas à analgesia de parto. Método: Oitenta gestantes, ASA 2 e 3, apresentação cefálica e dilatação cervical entre cinco e seis centímetros, submetidas à analgesia de parto, distribuídas em dois grupos de acordo com a técnica anestésica: técnica combinada raquiperidural (GI) e peridural contínua (GII). Avaliaram-se: intensidade de dor antes do bloqueio; tempo para completa analgesia; grau do bloqueio motor; tempo para dilatação cervical total; duração do 2° estágio do trabalho de parto; intensidade de dor durante o 1° e o 2° estágio do trabalho de parto; tipo de parto; uso de ocitocina durante trabalho de parto; parâmetros cardiocirculatórios, respiratórios e eventos adversos maternos; repercussões neonatais. Resultados: No momento da anestesia a intensidade de dor era semelhante em ambos os grupos. O alívio da dor foi mais rápido no GI (4,5 ± 1,5 min) quando comparado com o GII (11,6 ± 4,6 min) p = 0,01; os escores de dor no primeiro e segundo estágios de parto foram menores no GI (0,9 ± 0,3) e (1,8 ± 0,7) quando comparados com o GII (1,9 ± 0,6) e (2,2 ± 0,5) com p = 0,01 somente no primeiro estágio de trabalho de parto; houve necessidade de complementação com anestésicos locais no GII; partos espontâneos mais frequentes em GI (80% das pacientes) do que em GII (50%) p = 0,045 e instrumentais mais frequentes (p = 0,03) em GII (12 pacientes) quando comparadas com o GI (quatro pacientes); a frequência de partos cesáreos foi significativamente maior (p = 0,02) no Grupo II do que no Grupo I, quatro casos no GI e oito no GII; ausência de alterações cardiocirculatórias e respiratórias maternas e repercussões neonatais; prurido mais frequente no GI (10 pacientes) e (0 paciente no GII) p = 0,02. Conclusão: O bloqueio combinado mostrou-se eficaz com melhor qualidade de analgesia e maior conforto às gestantes, constitui boa opção para a prática de analgesia obstétrica.


Anestesia espinhal, Raquiperidural combinada, Peridural contínua, Analgesia de parto, Resultados fetais e obstétricos


Ranasinghe JS, Birnbach DJ. Progress in analgesia for labor: focus on neuraxial blocks. Int J Womens Health. 2010;1:31-43.

Cambic CR, Wong CA. Labour analgesia and obstetric outcomes. Br J Anaesth. 2010;150:i50-60.

Collis RE, Davies DWL, Aveling W. Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour. Lancet. 1995;345:1413-6.

Van de Velde M, Mignolet K, Vandermeersch E. Prospective, randomized comparison of epidural and combined spinal epidural analgesia during labor. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 1999;50:129-36.

Gambling D, Berkowitz J, Farrell TR. A randomized controlled comparison of epidural analgesia and combined spinal-epidural analgesia in a private practice setting: pain scores during first and second stages of labor and at delivery. Anesth Analg. 2013;116:636-43.

Tsen LC, Thue B, Datta S. Is combined spinal-epidural analgesia associated with more rapid cervical dilation in nulliparous patients when compared with conventional epidural analgesia?. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:920-5.

Simmons SW, Taghizadeh N, Dennis AT. Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012.

Arendt KW. The 2015 Gerard W Ostheimer lecture: what's new in labor analgesia and cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:1524-31.

Leighton BL, Halpern SH. The effects of epidural analgesia on labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:S69-77.

Vandendriesen NM, Lim W, Paech MJ. Obstetricians' knowledge and attitudes toward epidural analgesia in labour. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1998;26:563-7.

Sohaib M, Ismail S. Does labour epidural slow the progress of labour and lead to complications? Obstetricians' perception working in private and public sector teaching hospitals in a developing country. Indian J Anaesth. 2015;59:779-84.

Singh SK, Yahya N, Misiran K. Combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour: its effects on delivery outcome. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2016;66:259-64.

Taneja B, Nath K, Dua CK. Clinical audit on the existing attitudes and knowledge of obstetricians regarding labour analgesia. Indian J Anaesth. 2004;48:185-8.

McCaughey Jr. HS, Corey EL, Eastwood D. Effects of synthetic anesthetics on the spontaneous motility of human uterine muscles in vitro. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;19:233-40.

Cascio M, Pygon B, Bernett C. Labour analgesia with intrathecal fentanyl decreases maternal stress. Can J Anaesth. 1997;44:605-9.

Lederman RP, Lederman E, Work BA. The relationship of maternal anxiety, plasma catecholamines, and plasma cortisol to progress in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;132:495-500.

Segal S, Csavoy AN, Datta S. The tocolytic effect of catecholamines in the gravid rat uterus. Anesth Analg. 1998;87:864-9.

Nageotte MP, Larson D, Rumney PJ. Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1715-9.

Thorp JA, Parisi VM, Boylan PC. The effect of continuous epidural analgesia on cesarean section for dystocia in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;161:670-5.

Ohel G, Gonen R, Vaida S. Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in labor: does it increase the risk of cesarean section? A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:600-5.

Armstrong S, Fernando R. Side effects and efficacy of neuraxial opioids in pregnant patients at delivery: a comprehensive review. Drug Saf. 2016;39:381-99.

5dcaf9bd0e88250f3003b87b rba Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. Bras. Anestesiol.

Share this page
Page Sections