Ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl: a double blind comparison for analgesia during labour

M. Dresner, J. Freeman, C. Calow, A. Quinn and J. Bamber

Department of Anaesthetics, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK*Corresponding author

Accepted June 28, 2000


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
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.

Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 826–9

Keywords: anaesthetic techniques, regional; anaesthetic techniques, epidural; anaesthetics local, ropivacaine; anaesthesia, obstetric


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The most popular method of maintaining epidural analgesia for labour in the UK is a continuous infusion of low-dose bupivacaine with an opioid.1 The addition of the opioid allows the dose of bupivacaine to be reduced without adversely affecting the quality of analgesia.2 Reducing the dose of bupivacaine significantly reduces the incidence and severity of maternal motor neural blockade.3 Increased mobility during epidural analgesia has been associated with greater maternal satisfaction.3 4 However, the use of opioids in epidural infusions is not without adverse effects. Pruritus is the most common of these,3 and maternal hypoxaemia during the second stage of labour has been reported.5

Ropivacaine has been introduced into clinical practice with the claim that it causes less motor block than bupivacaine.6 7 If true, this raises the possibility of producing the same high quality analgesia, modest motor blockade and high maternal satisfaction with plain ropivacaine as with a low-dose bupivacaine/opioid mixture, thereby avoiding the opioid side effects. The most common bupivacaine/opioid mixture used in the UK is 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 µg ml–1.1 From minimum local analgesic concentration (MLAC) studies, it can be inferred that 0.2% ropivacaine is the analgesic equivalent of 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 µg ml–1.810 This concentration of ropivacaine has been used effectively in labour epidural analgesia.11 Therefore, we decided to compare 0.2% ropivacaine with 0.1% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 2 µg ml–1 for quality of analgesia, mode of delivery, patient assessment of motor blockade, midwife and maternal satisfaction in a randomised double blind trial.


    Methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
A power calculation for this study is difficult because of the many outcomes under consideration. However, an audit of 570 epidurals prior to this study showed that 76% of women receiving a bupivacaine/fentanyl epidural recorded ‘excellent satisfaction’ (the best of a four point descriptive scale). To find a difference of 20% in the percentage of women recording this score between the study groups we therefore needed to study 200 women to achieve a power of 0.8. Using data from other studies we calculated that this sample size was also sufficient to detect a difference 20% for women recording minimal motor block.3 12 The study was approved by the local Clinical Research (Ethics) Committee. Patient information sheets were then distributed in antenatal clinics, parentcraft classes, and all delivery rooms.

All women requesting epidural analgesia were considered eligible for the study, excluding those refusing consent or having allergies to any of the study drugs. After providing informed, written consent, randomization was performed by sealed envelope into one of two treatment groups. Using blinded syringes, patients in the BUPIV group received 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 µg ml–1, and the ROPIV group received 0.2% ropivacaine. All patients received an initial loading dose of 15 ml, with the first 5 ml acting as a test dose for intrathecal catheter placement. This was followed by an infusion of 8 ml h–1 with top-ups of 10 ml as required. ‘Escape’ top ups of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine were prescribed for pain that did not respond to top-ups of the study drugs.

Patient characteristics, procedural, and outcome data were collected using the Wansbeck Epidural Audit System as previously described.12 This computer program generates epidural charts, midwife assessment forms, and patient follow-up questionnaires, whilst simultaneously feeding a database. Mode of delivery, midwife assessment of analgesia, ‘yes/no’ for complete analgesia at 30 min after the loading dose, and top-up requirements were recorded contemporaneously. Patient visual analogue scores for first and second stage pain, their assessment of motor block, and overall satisfaction with the epidural were obtained 24 h after delivery by an anaesthetist blinded to the treatment regimen.

Data were collated using Microsoft Access Version 2.0 and Excel Version 5.0. Parametric data were compared using two sided, two sample t-tests and non-parametric data were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Discrete data were compared by Chi-Square, with odds ratios and confidence intervals calculated where appropriate. Significance level was taken at P<0.05. Statistical analysis was performed on SPSS Version 6.0 for Windows.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Complete data were obtained for 203 of the 212 patients who were recruited to the study. No patients experienced inadvertent dural puncture, required an epidural resite, or were withdrawn from the study. There were no significant differences between the groups for patient characteristics (Table 1) or mode of delivery (Table 2). Patients in the BUPIV group required significantly more epidural top-ups (median 2.0 vs. 1.0, P=0.001) and were twice as likely to require an escape top-up (21.8% vs. 9.8%, P=0.02) compared with the ROPIV group (Table 3). Whilst there were no differences between the two groups for the proportion of women who were pain-free at 30 min, significantly more women remained pain-free throughout the first stage of labour in the ROPIV group compared with the BUPIV group (51% vs. 33.7%, p=0.01, Table 4). There were no differences between the two groups for pain scores in the second stage of labour.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Patient characteristics and duration of labour after epidural siting as mean (SD or range) or number. *P value by two-sided unpaired Student t test. {dagger}P value by chi-square test with 1 df.
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2 Mode of delivery in the BUPIV and ROPIV groups (number). SVD=spontaneous vaginal delivery. OR=odds ratio; *Chi-square test with 1 df
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3 Epidural top-ups required in the BUPIV and ROPIV groups (number or median (range)). OR=odds ratio; *Chi-square test with 1 df; {dagger}Mann-Whitney U test
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4 Quality of analgesia during labour in the BUPIV and ROPIV groups (number). OR=odds ratio; *Chi-square test with 1 df
 
There were no differences between the two groups for midwife and patient overall satisfaction with pain relief (Tables 5 and 6). Whilst a higher percentage of women in the BUPIV group had minimal motor block compared with the ROPIV group, this difference was not statistically significant (Table 7).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 5 Midwife assessment of pain relief in the BUPIV and ROPIV groups (number). Chi-square trend=0.81 (1 df), P=0.32. OR=odds ratio; *Chi-square test with 1 df
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 6 Patient overall assessment of pain relief in the BUPIV and ROPIV groups (number). Chi-square trend=0.18 (1 df), P=0.65. OR=odds ratio; *Chi-square test with 1 df
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 7 Patient assessment of motor block in the BUPIV and ROPIV groups (number). Chi-square trend=0.88 (1 df), P=0.34. OR=odds ratio; *Chi-square test with 1 df
 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
There are several aspects of our study design that warrant discussion. Many of the outcomes are of a subjective nature and were recorded retrospectively. However, the fact that several large UK units use the same clinical audit software indicates that many practitioners consider these outcomes of interest. In practice, patients seem very comfortable with the follow up questionnaire and have no difficulty in making their choice from the descriptive scales.

Contemporaneous, hourly visual analogue scores for pain with formal modified Bromage scale motor block assessments might be the academic ideal, but are not feasible in the context of a relatively large study in a busy unit. We argue that subjective assessments of analgesia and motor block, however flawed scientifically, are how patients judge their experience and therefore should be of primary concern.

The focus of this study was to compare the two techniques from the perspective of midwives and patients in the context of a standard technique used in a busy unit. It was never our aim to formally assess pharmacokinetic and dynamic variables such as speed of onset, block heights, and objective motor block. Similarly, we justify the recruitment of all women into this study, regardless of parity and stage of labour, because it is our clinical practice to use a single starting regimen for all women requesting epidural analgesia.

No formal comparisons were made of side effects such as pruritis, nausea, vomiting, and hypotension between the groups. This decision was made because it can be safely assumed that the bupivacaine/fentanyl combination will cause pruritis in a percentage of women, and plain ropivacaine will not. An audit of the incidence of clinically significant hypotension using these treatments revealed such a low incidence that a much larger study would be required to separate the treatments on haemodynamic grounds. Similarly, given that the incidence of nausea and vomiting at some time during childbirth approaches 100%, it would be difficult to assess the causative contribution of the epidurals.

One outcome not considered was the performance of epidurals when converted to anaesthesia for Caesarean section. This is because we have a very low threshold for using spinal anaesthesia despite the presence of an existing epidural in our unit. This policy follows a three year audit showing that all cases of inadequate regional anaesthesia involved topped-up epidurals. Conversion to spinal anaesthesia is not therefore a meaningful measure of epidural performance in our unit.

The principal findings of this study are that 0.2% ropivacaine produces better first stage analgesia than 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 µg ml–1 and requires fewer routine and escape top-ups. This may be due to the longer duration of action of ropivacaine.13 Whatever the explanation, this challenges our earlier assumption that an opioid is necessary to minimise missed segments, perineal pressure, and to maximise efficacy and satisfaction. The increased motor block in the ropivacaine group was not statistically significant, but the study was probably underpowered for this point. For the size of difference in minimal motor block found in this study, a two sided test to detect a significant difference at P<0.05 with a power of 0.8 would have required the recruitment of at least 800 women. However, even if the ropivacaine regimen did cause more motor block, this did not adversely affect patient satisfaction. Thus another widely held assumption, that satisfaction is strongly related to mobility, is challenged.

This study cannot be used in isolation to make comparative judgements about plain ropivacaine and bupivacaine in labour epidurals. To answer questions about relative motor block effects and overall efficacy requires a comparison of MLAC equivalent plain solutions, such as 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.12% bupivacaine. So, despite the encouraging results in this study, a final judgement on the value of ropivacaine in obstetric practice is not yet possible.

In summary, the results from our study support other work11 suggesting that 0.2% ropivacaine is a suitable choice for labour epidurals. The assumption that an added opioid is always necessary to achieve good analgesia, high maternal satisfaction, and acceptable motor block is challenged and warrants further investigation.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
1 Burnstein R, Buckland R, Pickett JA. A survey of epidural analgesia for labour in the United Kingdom. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 634–640[ISI][Medline]

2 Chestnut DH, Owen CL, Bates JN, Ostman LG, Choi WW, Geiger NW. Continuous infusion epidural analgesia during labor: a randomized, double-blind comparison of 0.0625% bupivacaine/0.0002% fentanyl vs. 0.125% bupivacaine. Anesthesiology 1988; 68: 754–759[ISI][Medline]

3 Russel R, Reynolds F. Epidural infusion of low-dose bupivacaine and opioid in labour. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 266–273

4 Collis E, Davies DWL, Aveling W. Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour. Lancet 1995; 345: 1413–16[ISI][Medline]

5 Porter JS, Bonello E, Reynolds F. The effect of epidural opioids on maternal oxygenation during labour and delivery. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 899–903[ISI][Medline]

6 Brockway MS, Bannister J, McClure JH, McKeown D, Wildsmith JAW. Comparison of extradural ropivacaine and bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth 1991; 66: 31–37[Abstract]

7 Zaric D, Axelsson K, Nydahl PA, Philipson L, Samuelsson L. Sensory and motor blockade during continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% in volunteers — a double blind study. Reg Anesth 1994; 19 (Suppl. 2S): 60

8 Capogna G, Cellena D, Fusco P, Lyons G, Columb M. Relative potencies of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for analgesia in labour. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82; 371–3[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9 Polley LS, Columb MO, Naughton NN, Wagner DS, Cosmas JM. Relative analgesic potencies of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labor. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 944–50[ISI][Medline]

10 Lyons G, Columb M, Hawthorne L, Dresner M. Extradural pain relief in labour: bupivacaine sparing by extradural fentanyl is dose dependent. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 493–497[Abstract/Free Full Text]

11 Benhamou D, Hamza J, Eledjam J-J, Dailland P, Palot M, Seebacher J, Milon D, Heeroma K. Continuous extradural infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg ml–1 for pain relief during labour. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 748–750[Abstract/Free Full Text]

12 Dresner M, Bamber J, Calow C, Freeman J, Charlton P. Comparison of low-dose epidural with combined spinal-epidural analgesia for labour. Br J Anaesth 1999; 83: 756–760[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13 Parpaglioni R, Capogna G, Celleno D. A comparison between low-dose ropivacaine and bupivacaine at equianalgesic concentrations for epidural analgesia during the first stage of labour. Int J Obstet Anesth 2000; 9: 83–86[ISI]