Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Improves Labor Analgesia Quality With Fewer Side Effects Compared With Epidural and Combined Spinal Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is a modification of the combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique, where a dural perforation is created from a spinal needle but intrathecal medication administration is withheld. The DPE technique has been shown to improve caudal spread of analgesia compared with epidural (EPL) technique without the side effects observed with the CSE technique. We hypothesized that the onset of labor analgesia would follow this order: CSE > DPE > EPL techniques. METHODS: A total of 120 parturients in early labor were randomly assigned to EPL, DPE, or CSE groups. Initial dosing for EPL and DPE consisted of epidural 20 mL of 0.125% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 2 μg/mL over 5 minutes, and for CSE, intrathecal 0.25% bupivacaine 1.7 mg and fentanyl 17 μg. Upon block completion, a blinded coinvestigator assessed the outcomes. Two blinded obstetricians retrospectively interpreted uterine contractions and fetal heart rate tracings 1 hour before and after the neuraxial technique. The primary outcome was time to numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) ≤ 1 analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary outcomes included block quality, maternal adverse effects, uterine contraction patterns, and fetal outcomes analyzed by using the χ test with Yates continuity correction. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the time to NPRS ≤ 1 between DPE and EPL (hazard ratio 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.4, P = .21). DPE achieved NPRS ≤ 1 significantly slower than CSE (hazard ratio 0.36; 95% CI 0.22-0.59, P = .0001). The median times (interquartile range) to NPRS ≤ 1 were 2 (0.5-6) minutes for CSE, 11 (4-120) minutes for DPE, and 18 (10-120) minutes for EPL. Compared with EPL, DPE had significantly greater incidence of bilateral S2 blockade at 10 minutes (risk ratio [RR] 2.13; 95% CI 1.39-3.28; P < .001), 20 minutes (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.26-2.03; P < .001), and 30 minutes (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.30; P < .034), a lower incidence of asymmetric block after 30 minutes (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; P < .001) and physician top-up intervention (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.86; P = .011). Compared with CSE, DPE had a significantly lower incidence of pruritus (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06-0.38; P < .001), hypotension (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.15-0.98; P = .032), combined uterine tachysystole and hypertonus (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.08-0.60; P < .001), and physician top-up intervention (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.86; p = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Analgesia onset was most rapid with CSE with no difference between DPE and EPL techniques. The DPE technique has improved block quality over the EPL technique with fewer maternal and fetal side effects than the CSE technique for parturients requesting early labor analgesia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".