Ropivacaine vs. levobupivacaine: Analgesic effect of combined spinal‑epidural anesthesia during childbirth and effects on neonatal Apgar scores, as well as maternal vital signs

  • Authors:
    • Qiuju Cheng
    • Weiqiang Zhang
    • Yanling Lu
    • Jinhai Chen
    • Hang Tian
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: July 16, 2019     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7776
  • Pages: 2307-2313
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate and compare the analgesic effect and safety of ropivacaine or levobupivacaine in combined spinal‑epidural anesthesia during childbirth and their effects on neonatal Apgar scores, as well as maternal and neonatal vital signs. A total of 615 maternal patients undergoing labor between April 2016 and March 2017 were divided into two groups according to the analgesic used for combined spinal‑epidural anesthesia during childbirth: The ropivacaine group (n=318) and the levobupivacaine group (n=297). The onset time of analgesia in the two groups was determined and the pain score on the visual analog scale was assessed at the time of delivery (T3). At pre‑analgesia, 30 min after analgesia (T2), at T3 and during maternal wound suturing (T4), the systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR) were assessed. The cesarean section rate, neonatal 1‑ and 5‑min Apgar scores and neonatal asphyxia at T4 were also determined. The onset time of analgesia in the ropivacaine group was significantly reduced compared with that in the levobupivacaine group (P<0.05). At T2 and T4, the SBP was significantly higher in the levobupivacaine group than that in the ropivacaine group (P<0.05). At T2, T3 and T4, the DBP was significantly lower in the levobupivacaine group compared with those in the ropivacaine group (P<0.05). At T2, the HR was significantly lower in the levobupivacaine group than that in the ropivacaine group (P<0.05). The cesarean section rate was significantly lower in the ropivacaine group compared with that in the levobupivacaine group [4.09% (n=13) vs. 22.89% (n=68); P<0.01]. In conclusion, the use of combined spinal‑epidural anesthesia with ropivacaine or levobupivacaine has an excellent analgesic effect during childbirth. However, compared with levobupivacaine, ropivacaine for labor analgesia had a faster onset and a lesser impact on maternal vital signs, and was associated with a reduced maternal cesarean section rate among patients who did not opt for cesarean section in the beginning; therefore, it is useful in clinical practice.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

September-2019
Volume 18 Issue 3

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Cheng Q, Zhang W, Lu Y, Chen J and Tian H: Ropivacaine vs. levobupivacaine: Analgesic effect of combined spinal‑epidural anesthesia during childbirth and effects on neonatal Apgar scores, as well as maternal vital signs. Exp Ther Med 18: 2307-2313, 2019
APA
Cheng, Q., Zhang, W., Lu, Y., Chen, J., & Tian, H. (2019). Ropivacaine vs. levobupivacaine: Analgesic effect of combined spinal‑epidural anesthesia during childbirth and effects on neonatal Apgar scores, as well as maternal vital signs. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 18, 2307-2313. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7776
MLA
Cheng, Q., Zhang, W., Lu, Y., Chen, J., Tian, H."Ropivacaine vs. levobupivacaine: Analgesic effect of combined spinal‑epidural anesthesia during childbirth and effects on neonatal Apgar scores, as well as maternal vital signs". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 18.3 (2019): 2307-2313.
Chicago
Cheng, Q., Zhang, W., Lu, Y., Chen, J., Tian, H."Ropivacaine vs. levobupivacaine: Analgesic effect of combined spinal‑epidural anesthesia during childbirth and effects on neonatal Apgar scores, as well as maternal vital signs". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 18, no. 3 (2019): 2307-2313. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7776