A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A Randomised Clinical Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine-Ropivacaine Versus Fentanyl-Ropivacaine for Epidural Labour Analgesia. | LitMetric

Background An epidural block is a superior potent approach to labour analgesia, and ropivacaine combined with fentanyl has been successfully practised for it. Dexmedetomidine, as a novel form of labour analgesia, must be researched further. Our study results give insight into the epidural block and come up with a pioneering approach for labour analgesia. Methodology A total of 68 parturients were assigned to two equal groups and received either dexmedetomidine with ropivacaine (Group RD) or fentanyl with ropivacaine (Group RF). Parturients received a loading dose and maintenance was given using a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump. Analgesia onset time, labour duration, rescue dose requirement, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores were noted. Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity and Respiration (APGAR) scores of newborns, Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) scores of mothers, and maternal side effects were observed. Results Group RD showed a shorter onset time of analgesia (group RD: 12.50 ± 1.31 minutes vs. group RF: 15.26 ± 1.46 min), less local anaesthetics requirement (group RD: 47.54 ±5.37 ml vs. group RF: 59.05 ± 6.62 ml), less number of bolus doses (group RD: 0.15 ± 0.36 vs. group RF: 1.21 ± 0.95), and shorter duration from the epidural administration to the delivery (group RD: 312.97 ± 42.40 minutes vs. group RF: 345.94 ±14.67 minutes) than group RF. VAS values of the RD group were significantly less than the RF group. The RSS scores were comparably low in both groups, and excessive sedation was not seen in any group. Newborn APGAR values were comparably on the higher side in the two groups. Adverse effects were observed in the two groups, like hypotension, nausea/vomiting, bradycardia, shivering, and pruritus, which were insignificant. Conclusion The RD group showed an improved analgesic effect with a quicker onset of action, reduced requirement of local anaesthetics, and lower VAS scores compared to the RF group. With ropivacaine, dexmedetomidine shows more efficacy than fentanyl during epidural block and is a safe alternative for labour pain management.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437351PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.68076DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

group
17
labour analgesia
16
epidural block
12
minutes group
12
approach labour
8
ropivacaine group
8
onset time
8
rss scores
8
effects observed
8
local anaesthetics
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!