Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Appropriate length of epidural catheter in epidural space for labour analgesia with dural puncture epidural combined with programmed intermittent epidural bolus.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06602440 (Observations on the Effect of Different Depths of Epidural Catheter Retention on the DPE Technique Combined With the PIEB Mode of Labor Analgesia:a Single-center, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Observations on the Effect of Different Depths of Epidural Catheter Retention on the DPE Technique Combined With the PIEB Mode of Labor Analgesia:a Single-center, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique combined with programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) has been widely used in the clinical practice of labour analgesia. Whether varying the length of catheter threaded into the epidural space benefits for DPE combined with PIEB the resultant analgesia remains unclear.
methods102 women in labour were enrolled, aged 18–45 years, with cervical dilation > 3 cm and a numeric rating scale (NRS) score > 4, were randomly (1:1:1) assigned to three study groups (the epidural catheter threaded 3, 5, or 7 cm into the epidural space) for labour analgesia. The primary outcome was time to reach adequate analgesia, defined as the interval from the administration of the initial bolus (10 mL of 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.3 µg/mL sufentanil) until the NRS score ≤ 3. Secondary outcomes included pain score, anesthetic consumption, duration of labour, adverse events (pruritus, nausea, hypotension, unilateral block, catheter dislodgment, motor blockade) and Apgar scores.
resultsMedian time to reach adequate analgesia was significant different among three group: 5.2 min vs.7.0 min vs. 8.1 min in 3, 5 and 7 cm insertion, P = 0.001; the incidence of pruritus was 32.4% vs. 20.6% vs. 5.9% in three group, P = 0.001. There were no differences in other severe adverse events among group, the incidence of nausea was 32.4% vs. 17.6% vs. 14.7% in three group, p = 0.272. Hypotension occurred in four patients in the 3 cm group, one in the 5 cm group, and two in the 7 cm group, p = 0.090. Unilateral block was observed in four patients in the 7 cm group, one in the 3 cm group, and two in the 5 cm group, p = 0.119. Pain score, local anaesthetic consumption, labour duration, catheter dislodgment, motor blockade, and Apgar score of the newborns were statistically insignificant.
conclusionDuring labour analgesia with DPE combination with PIEB, when the epidural catheter is left 3 cm in the epidural space, the onset of action is faster, but the incidence of pruritus is higher. Therefore, in order to minimize either catheter or drug-related complications and provide satisfactory analgesia, the appropriate length of catheterization for epidural labour analgesia maybe 5 cm, but larger multicenter studies are warranted to confirm generalizability. TRIALL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06602440); retrospectively registered on 17 September, 2024.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.