Loading…

Intrauterine contraction parameters at baseline and following epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia: A repeated measures comparison

The effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on uterine contraction parameters are unclear, although as many as 80% of laboring women use neuraxial analgesia. We explored the effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on all uterine contraction parameters using a re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Midwifery 2021-04, Vol.95, p.102943-102943, Article 102943
Main Authors: Benfield, Rebecca, Song, Huaxin, Salstrom, Jan, Edge, Melydia, Brigham, Denise, Newton, Edward R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-5f52e24066503f21694074e55b276ebd279d2dec7d5d95041670c0696e024e273
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-5f52e24066503f21694074e55b276ebd279d2dec7d5d95041670c0696e024e273
container_end_page 102943
container_issue
container_start_page 102943
container_title Midwifery
container_volume 95
creator Benfield, Rebecca
Song, Huaxin
Salstrom, Jan
Edge, Melydia
Brigham, Denise
Newton, Edward R.
description The effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on uterine contraction parameters are unclear, although as many as 80% of laboring women use neuraxial analgesia. We explored the effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on all uterine contraction parameters using a retrospective analysis of selected parturients, who required Intrauterine Pressure Catheter (IUPC) instrumentation for clinical management. Additionally, we analyzed the effects of parity, Pitocin dose, and mode of neuraxial anesthesia, i.e. epidural verses combined spinal-epidural on uterine contractility. Using a retrospective within and between repeated measure design we compared uterine contraction parameters at 4 time points (epochs): (1) baseline, (2) pre-epidural fluid bolus, (3) immediate and (4) secondary post-epidural/combined spinal-epidural analgesia to detect differences in contractility over time comparing two types of epidural interventions. Eighteen healthy parturients at term gestation were admitted to the labor unit for induction, augmentation, or spontaneous labor. Contraction parameters including frequency, duration, peak intensity, resting intensity and duration, and Montevideo Units (MVUs) were collected using fetal monitor strip data with intrauterine pressure catheter (IUPC) instrumentation. Parametric and non-parametric tests showed no significant differences within or between the two Epidural intervention groups for frequency, duration, peak intensity, resting intensity and duration, and MVUs at all epochs at the .05 alpha level. Compared with Nulliparous women, multiparous women had significantly lower contraction intensity and longer contraction duration. Based on multilevel modeling (MLM), neither Pitocin dose nor type of epidural intervention revealed significant differences on any contraction parameters. When parity, other demographic variables and Pitocin dose were statistically controlled, no uterine contraction parameter changed from baseline through 90 min following either epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Obstetrical care providers should consider the preciseness their contraction monitoring instrumentation and their clinical management preferences as well parity as before prescribing Pitocin after neuraxial analgesia intervention.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.midw.2021.102943
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2491070719</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S026661382100022X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2491070719</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-5f52e24066503f21694074e55b276ebd279d2dec7d5d95041670c0696e024e273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9vFSEUxYnR2NfWL-DCzNLNPC8wMGLcNI39kzRxY9eEgTsNLwyMMGPjh-h3lvFV48oV4d7fOeRwCHlLYU-Byg-H_eTd454Bo3XAVMdfkB0VnLUclHpJdsCkbCXlH0_IaSkHAFAd9K_JCedCSQGwI0-3cclmXTD7iI1N280uPsVmNtlMWBelMUszmIJhQ0x0zZhCSI8-PjQ4e7dmE36PbZqGirimzD6a0P6zNOEBizefmosm44xmqdSEpqwZy6arj_mS4jl5NZpQ8M3zeUbur758u7xp775e315e3LWWC7m0YhQMWQeyZuAjo3KL1aEQA-slDo71yjGHtnfCKQEdlT1YkEoisA5Zz8_I-6PvnNP3FcuiJ18shmAiprVo1ikKPfRUVZQdUZtTKRlHPWc_mfxTU9BbDfqgtxr0VoM-1lBF757912FC91fy598r8PkIYE35w2PWxXqMFp3PaBftkv-f_y_3TZsW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2491070719</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Intrauterine contraction parameters at baseline and following epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia: A repeated measures comparison</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Benfield, Rebecca ; Song, Huaxin ; Salstrom, Jan ; Edge, Melydia ; Brigham, Denise ; Newton, Edward R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Benfield, Rebecca ; Song, Huaxin ; Salstrom, Jan ; Edge, Melydia ; Brigham, Denise ; Newton, Edward R.</creatorcontrib><description>The effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on uterine contraction parameters are unclear, although as many as 80% of laboring women use neuraxial analgesia. We explored the effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on all uterine contraction parameters using a retrospective analysis of selected parturients, who required Intrauterine Pressure Catheter (IUPC) instrumentation for clinical management. Additionally, we analyzed the effects of parity, Pitocin dose, and mode of neuraxial anesthesia, i.e. epidural verses combined spinal-epidural on uterine contractility. Using a retrospective within and between repeated measure design we compared uterine contraction parameters at 4 time points (epochs): (1) baseline, (2) pre-epidural fluid bolus, (3) immediate and (4) secondary post-epidural/combined spinal-epidural analgesia to detect differences in contractility over time comparing two types of epidural interventions. Eighteen healthy parturients at term gestation were admitted to the labor unit for induction, augmentation, or spontaneous labor. Contraction parameters including frequency, duration, peak intensity, resting intensity and duration, and Montevideo Units (MVUs) were collected using fetal monitor strip data with intrauterine pressure catheter (IUPC) instrumentation. Parametric and non-parametric tests showed no significant differences within or between the two Epidural intervention groups for frequency, duration, peak intensity, resting intensity and duration, and MVUs at all epochs at the .05 alpha level. Compared with Nulliparous women, multiparous women had significantly lower contraction intensity and longer contraction duration. Based on multilevel modeling (MLM), neither Pitocin dose nor type of epidural intervention revealed significant differences on any contraction parameters. When parity, other demographic variables and Pitocin dose were statistically controlled, no uterine contraction parameter changed from baseline through 90 min following either epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Obstetrical care providers should consider the preciseness their contraction monitoring instrumentation and their clinical management preferences as well parity as before prescribing Pitocin after neuraxial analgesia intervention.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-6138</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-3099</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2021.102943</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33596500</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Scotland: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Combined spinal-epidural ; Epidural ; Intrauterine pressure catheter ; Nursing ; Pitocin ; Uterine contractions</subject><ispartof>Midwifery, 2021-04, Vol.95, p.102943-102943, Article 102943</ispartof><rights>2021</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-5f52e24066503f21694074e55b276ebd279d2dec7d5d95041670c0696e024e273</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-5f52e24066503f21694074e55b276ebd279d2dec7d5d95041670c0696e024e273</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33596500$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Benfield, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Huaxin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salstrom, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edge, Melydia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brigham, Denise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newton, Edward R.</creatorcontrib><title>Intrauterine contraction parameters at baseline and following epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia: A repeated measures comparison</title><title>Midwifery</title><addtitle>Midwifery</addtitle><description>The effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on uterine contraction parameters are unclear, although as many as 80% of laboring women use neuraxial analgesia. We explored the effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on all uterine contraction parameters using a retrospective analysis of selected parturients, who required Intrauterine Pressure Catheter (IUPC) instrumentation for clinical management. Additionally, we analyzed the effects of parity, Pitocin dose, and mode of neuraxial anesthesia, i.e. epidural verses combined spinal-epidural on uterine contractility. Using a retrospective within and between repeated measure design we compared uterine contraction parameters at 4 time points (epochs): (1) baseline, (2) pre-epidural fluid bolus, (3) immediate and (4) secondary post-epidural/combined spinal-epidural analgesia to detect differences in contractility over time comparing two types of epidural interventions. Eighteen healthy parturients at term gestation were admitted to the labor unit for induction, augmentation, or spontaneous labor. Contraction parameters including frequency, duration, peak intensity, resting intensity and duration, and Montevideo Units (MVUs) were collected using fetal monitor strip data with intrauterine pressure catheter (IUPC) instrumentation. Parametric and non-parametric tests showed no significant differences within or between the two Epidural intervention groups for frequency, duration, peak intensity, resting intensity and duration, and MVUs at all epochs at the .05 alpha level. Compared with Nulliparous women, multiparous women had significantly lower contraction intensity and longer contraction duration. Based on multilevel modeling (MLM), neither Pitocin dose nor type of epidural intervention revealed significant differences on any contraction parameters. When parity, other demographic variables and Pitocin dose were statistically controlled, no uterine contraction parameter changed from baseline through 90 min following either epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Obstetrical care providers should consider the preciseness their contraction monitoring instrumentation and their clinical management preferences as well parity as before prescribing Pitocin after neuraxial analgesia intervention.</description><subject>Combined spinal-epidural</subject><subject>Epidural</subject><subject>Intrauterine pressure catheter</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Pitocin</subject><subject>Uterine contractions</subject><issn>0266-6138</issn><issn>1532-3099</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU9vFSEUxYnR2NfWL-DCzNLNPC8wMGLcNI39kzRxY9eEgTsNLwyMMGPjh-h3lvFV48oV4d7fOeRwCHlLYU-Byg-H_eTd454Bo3XAVMdfkB0VnLUclHpJdsCkbCXlH0_IaSkHAFAd9K_JCedCSQGwI0-3cclmXTD7iI1N280uPsVmNtlMWBelMUszmIJhQ0x0zZhCSI8-PjQ4e7dmE36PbZqGirimzD6a0P6zNOEBizefmosm44xmqdSEpqwZy6arj_mS4jl5NZpQ8M3zeUbur758u7xp775e315e3LWWC7m0YhQMWQeyZuAjo3KL1aEQA-slDo71yjGHtnfCKQEdlT1YkEoisA5Zz8_I-6PvnNP3FcuiJ18shmAiprVo1ikKPfRUVZQdUZtTKRlHPWc_mfxTU9BbDfqgtxr0VoM-1lBF757912FC91fy598r8PkIYE35w2PWxXqMFp3PaBftkv-f_y_3TZsW</recordid><startdate>202104</startdate><enddate>202104</enddate><creator>Benfield, Rebecca</creator><creator>Song, Huaxin</creator><creator>Salstrom, Jan</creator><creator>Edge, Melydia</creator><creator>Brigham, Denise</creator><creator>Newton, Edward R.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202104</creationdate><title>Intrauterine contraction parameters at baseline and following epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia: A repeated measures comparison</title><author>Benfield, Rebecca ; Song, Huaxin ; Salstrom, Jan ; Edge, Melydia ; Brigham, Denise ; Newton, Edward R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-5f52e24066503f21694074e55b276ebd279d2dec7d5d95041670c0696e024e273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Combined spinal-epidural</topic><topic>Epidural</topic><topic>Intrauterine pressure catheter</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Pitocin</topic><topic>Uterine contractions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Benfield, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Huaxin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salstrom, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edge, Melydia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brigham, Denise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newton, Edward R.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Midwifery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Benfield, Rebecca</au><au>Song, Huaxin</au><au>Salstrom, Jan</au><au>Edge, Melydia</au><au>Brigham, Denise</au><au>Newton, Edward R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Intrauterine contraction parameters at baseline and following epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia: A repeated measures comparison</atitle><jtitle>Midwifery</jtitle><addtitle>Midwifery</addtitle><date>2021-04</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>95</volume><spage>102943</spage><epage>102943</epage><pages>102943-102943</pages><artnum>102943</artnum><issn>0266-6138</issn><eissn>1532-3099</eissn><abstract>The effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on uterine contraction parameters are unclear, although as many as 80% of laboring women use neuraxial analgesia. We explored the effects of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia on all uterine contraction parameters using a retrospective analysis of selected parturients, who required Intrauterine Pressure Catheter (IUPC) instrumentation for clinical management. Additionally, we analyzed the effects of parity, Pitocin dose, and mode of neuraxial anesthesia, i.e. epidural verses combined spinal-epidural on uterine contractility. Using a retrospective within and between repeated measure design we compared uterine contraction parameters at 4 time points (epochs): (1) baseline, (2) pre-epidural fluid bolus, (3) immediate and (4) secondary post-epidural/combined spinal-epidural analgesia to detect differences in contractility over time comparing two types of epidural interventions. Eighteen healthy parturients at term gestation were admitted to the labor unit for induction, augmentation, or spontaneous labor. Contraction parameters including frequency, duration, peak intensity, resting intensity and duration, and Montevideo Units (MVUs) were collected using fetal monitor strip data with intrauterine pressure catheter (IUPC) instrumentation. Parametric and non-parametric tests showed no significant differences within or between the two Epidural intervention groups for frequency, duration, peak intensity, resting intensity and duration, and MVUs at all epochs at the .05 alpha level. Compared with Nulliparous women, multiparous women had significantly lower contraction intensity and longer contraction duration. Based on multilevel modeling (MLM), neither Pitocin dose nor type of epidural intervention revealed significant differences on any contraction parameters. When parity, other demographic variables and Pitocin dose were statistically controlled, no uterine contraction parameter changed from baseline through 90 min following either epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Obstetrical care providers should consider the preciseness their contraction monitoring instrumentation and their clinical management preferences as well parity as before prescribing Pitocin after neuraxial analgesia intervention.</abstract><cop>Scotland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>33596500</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.midw.2021.102943</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0266-6138
ispartof Midwifery, 2021-04, Vol.95, p.102943-102943, Article 102943
issn 0266-6138
1532-3099
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2491070719
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024
subjects Combined spinal-epidural
Epidural
Intrauterine pressure catheter
Nursing
Pitocin
Uterine contractions
title Intrauterine contraction parameters at baseline and following epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia: A repeated measures comparison
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T20%3A21%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Intrauterine%20contraction%20parameters%20at%20baseline%20and%20following%20epidural%20and%20combined%20spinal-epidural%20analgesia:%20A%20repeated%20measures%20comparison&rft.jtitle=Midwifery&rft.au=Benfield,%20Rebecca&rft.date=2021-04&rft.volume=95&rft.spage=102943&rft.epage=102943&rft.pages=102943-102943&rft.artnum=102943&rft.issn=0266-6138&rft.eissn=1532-3099&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.midw.2021.102943&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2491070719%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-5f52e24066503f21694074e55b276ebd279d2dec7d5d95041670c0696e024e273%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2491070719&rft_id=info:pmid/33596500&rfr_iscdi=true