A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Epidural Analgesia and Combined Spinal-Epidural Analgesia in a Private Practice Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been no prospective evaluation of combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia in a private practice setting and few studies have focused on pain relief during the second stage of labor and at delivery. In this randomized controlled trial, we compared verbal pain scores during the first and second stages of labor and at delivery in women receiving CSE or traditional epidural analgesia at a busy private maternity hospital. METHODS: Healthy, term parturients received epidural or CSE analgesia for labor pain upon request. Epidural analgesia was initiated with 0.125% bupivacaine plus 2 μg/mL fentanyl, 15 mL; CSE analgesia was initiated with intrathecal plain bupivacaine 3.125 mg plus 5 μg fentanyl. Thereafter, patient-controlled epidural analgesia with 0.125% bupivacaine plus 2 μg/mL fentanyl was used for maintenance analgesia in both groups. The primary outcome was an assessment of "typical" pain, using a verbal rating pain score from 0 to 10, made at the end of the first stage of labor and shortly after delivery. RESULTS: Data from 398 epidural and 402 CSE subjects were analyzed. The typical verbal rating pain score during the first stage was lower in the CSE group (mean: 1.4 vs 1.9; P < 0.001; 99.5% confidence interval [CI] for difference: -0.92, -0.14). Pain scores during the second stage of labor (1.7 vs 1.9; P = 0.17; 99.5% CI for difference: -0.82, 0.28) and at delivery (2.0 vs 2.0; P = 0.77; 99.5% CI for difference: -0.73, 0.59) were the same between groups. Fewer patients received an epidural top-up dose in the CSE group (16.4% vs 25.6%; P = 0.002; 99.5% CI for difference: -17.0%, -1.0%). Epidural catheters were replaced in 1.2% CSE vs 2% in the epidural group (P = 0.39; 99.5% CI for difference: -3.3%, 1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional epidural labor analgesia, CSE analgesia provided better first-stage analgesia despite fewer epidural top-up injections by an anesthesiologist.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".