Implications of labor analgesia on labor outcomes – a systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15584/ejcem.2025.2.18Keywords:
epidural analgesia, labor analgesia, maternal outcomes, newborn outcomes, patient satisfactionAbstract
Introduction and aim. Labor analgesia is a key component in ensuring maternal comfort during childbirth and impacts several maternal and neonatal outcomes. The selection of pharmacological and nonpharmacological analgesic methods significantly affects labor progression, delivery methods, neonatal health, and maternal satisfaction. This systematic review sought to assess the implications of labor analgesia on these outcomes by synthesizing evidence from various study designs.
Material and methods. Searches on the following electronic databases comprehensively: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL; Using Boolean operators and MeSH terms, six studies were included. These comprised randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and observational studies that assessed maternal and newborn outcomes in the presence of labor analgesia. Data on types of analgesia, onset times, maternal hemodynamic outcomes, labor durations, delivery modes, neonatal Apgar scores, adverse events and maternal satisfaction were extracted. The exclusion criteria were studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, such as reviews, editorials, and non-human studies.
Analysis of the literature. The analysis involved a wide range of studies employing analgesia methods such as epidural, com bined spinal-epidural (CSE), programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), and non-pharmacological interventions. Ropiva caine (0.1–0.2%) with fentanyl (7.5–25 µg/mL) was the most commonly used combination. The onset times ranged from imme diate to 200 minutes for prolonged durations of PIEB. Labor durations were variable. Some techniques, such as peripheral nerve blocks, reduced second stage labor by 33.8 minutes, whereas epidural analgesia prolonged labor duration in some cohorts. The modes of delivery outcomes were characterized by relatively minimal variations in cesarean rates between techniques, while operative vaginal deliveries were more likely with routine epidurals. Neonatal outcomes were otherwise favorable with nor mal Apgar scores, although some studies reported lower 1 minute Apgar scores with epidurals. Adverse events, such as motor blockade and postdural puncture headaches, were usually technique-dependent and minimal. Maternal satisfaction was high in all methods, with ultrasound-guided CSE, PIEB, and nonpharmacological methods receiving particularly positive feedback.
Conclusion. Labor analgesia showed overall safety and efficacy but varied impacts on labor duration, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcomes with the technique used. Although most of them had high maternal satisfaction and stable maternal he modynamics, some increased operative deliveries or adverse newborn outcomes. These results underscore the importance of tailoring analgesic strategies to individual clinical needs to optimize maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Downloads
References
Callahan EC, Lee W, Aleshi P, George RB. Modern labor epidural analgesia: implications for labour outcomes and maternal-fetal health. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;228(5):S1260-S1269. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.017
Nanji, JA, Carvalho, B. Pain management during labor and vaginal birth. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;67:100-112. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.03.002
Kearns RJ, Kyzayeva A, Halliday LOE, Lawlor DA, Shaw M, Nelson SM. Epidural analgesia during labour and severe maternal morbidity: population-based study. BMJ. 2024;385:e077190. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077190
Mazda Y. Labour neuraxial analgesia and clinical outcomes. J Anesth. 2022;36(4):453-455. doi: 10.1007/s00540-022-03043-w
Kearns RJ, Lucas DN. Neuraxial analgesia in labour and the foetus. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2023;37(1):73-86. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2023.02.005
Roofthooft E, Filetici N, Van Houwe M, et al. High-volume patient-controlled epidural vs programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labour analgesia: a randomised controlled study. Anaesthesia. 2023;78(9):1129-1138. doi: 10.1111/anae.16060
Russell R. Preeclampsia and the anaesthesiologist: current management. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2020;33(3):305-310. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000835
Mori Y, Toyama S, Sato M, Yamashita Y, Suzuki Y, Sago H. Influence of preterm labour epidural analgesia on neonatal and maternal outcomes: a single-centre retrospective study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;127(5):e154-e156. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.07.017
Lawson J, Amaratunge L, Goh M, Selvaratnam RJ. Perinatal outcomes after regional analgesia during labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2024;64(4):334-340. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13797
Liu ZH, Wang DX. Potential impact of epidural labour analgesia on the outcomes of neonates and children. Chin Med J (Engl). 2020;133(19):2353-2358. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000900
Patel S, Ciechanowicz S, Blumenfeld YJ, Sultan P. Epidural-related maternal fever: incidence, pathophysiology, outcomes, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;228(5):S1283-S1304.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.026
Shuai F, Jia J, Lin P. Effects of using epidural analgesia during delivery on maternal and infant outcomes. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2022;87(1):46-53. doi: 10.1159/000522330
Goetzl L. Maternal fever in labour: etiologies, consequences, and clinical management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;228(5):S1274-S1282. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.11.002
Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160
Igelström E, Campbell M, Craig P, Katikireddi SV. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: a methodological systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;140:22-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.022
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
Bae J, Kim Y, Yoo S, Kim JT, Park SK. Handheld ultrasound-assisted versus palpation-guided combined spinal-epidural for labour analgesia: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):23009. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-50407-7
Bullingham A, Liang S, Edmonds E, Mathur S, Sharma S. Continuous epidural infusion vs programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labour analgesia: a prospective, controlled, before-and-after cohort study of labour outcomes. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(2):432-437. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.03.038
Cahill AG, Srinivas SK, Tita ATN, et al. Effect of immediate vs delayed pushing on rates of spontaneous vaginal delivery among nulliparous women receiving neuraxial analgesia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(14):1444-1454. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13986
Gallo RBS, Santana LS, Marcolin AC, Duarte G, Quintana SM. Sequential application of non-pharmacological interventions reduces the severity of labour pain, delays use of pharmacological analgesia, and improves some obstetric outcomes: a randomised trial. J Physiother. 2018;64(1):33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2017.11.014
Hincz P, Podciechowski L, Grzesiak M, Horzelski W, Wilczyński J. Epidural analgesia during labour: a retrospective cohort study on its effects on labour, delivery, and neonatal outcome. Ginekol Pol. 2014;85(12):923-928.
Hung T-H, Hsieh T-T, Liu H-P. Differential effects of epidural analgesia on modes of delivery and perinatal outcomes between nulliparous and multiparous women: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120907
Kim D, Kim J, Choo H, Choi DH. Programmed intermittent epidural bolus as an ideal method for labour analgesia: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2024;77(1):106-114. doi: 10.4097/kja.23173
Sharawi N, Williams M, Athar W, et al. Effect of dural-puncture epidural vs standard epidural for epidural extension on onset time of surgical anesthesia in elective cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(8):e2326710. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.26710
Singh SKSC, Yahya N, Misiran K, Masdar A, Nor NM, Yee LC. Combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour: its effects on delivery outcome. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2016;66(3):259-264. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.09.006
Tan HS, Reed SE, Mehdiratta JE, et al. Quality of labour analgesia with dural puncture epidural versus standard epidural technique in obese parturients: a double-blind randomized controlled study. Anesthesiology. 2022;136(5):678-687. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004137
Wassen MM, Smits LJ, Scheepers HC, et al. Routine labour epidural analgesia versus labour analgesia on request: a randomised non-inferiority trial. BJOG. 2015;122(3):344-350. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12854
Xu J, Zhou R, Su W, et al. Ultrasound-guided bilateral pudendal nerve blocks of nulliparous women with epidural labour analgesia in the second stage of labour: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):e035887. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035887
Tan HS, Zeng Y, Qi Y, et al. Automated mandatory bolus versus basal infusion for maintenance of epidural analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;6(6):CD011344. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011344.pub3
Silverman M, Zwolinski N, Wang E, et al. Regional analgesia for cesarean delivery: a narrative review toward enhancing outcomes in parturients. J Pain Res. 2023;16:3807-3835. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S428332
Heesen P, Halpern SH, Beilin Y, et al. Labour neuraxial analgesia and breastfeeding: an updated systematic review. J Clin Anesth. 2021;68:110105. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110105
Chen X, Zhang Y, Ni X, Liu Z. Effects of labour analgesia with different concentrations of ropivacaine on maternal body temperature and inflammatory factor: a randomised controlled study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2022;41(2):101030. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2022.101030
Haidl F, Tronstad C, Rosseland LA, Dahl V. Maternal haemodynamics during labour epidural analgesia with and without adrenaline. Scand J Pain. 2021;21(4):680-687. doi: 10.1515/sjpain-2020-0176
Vilkko R, Räisänen S, Gissler M, et al. Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601,247 deliveries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):481. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04798-6
Yu K, Ding Z, Yang J, et al. Bibliometric analysis on global analgesia in labour from 2002 to 2021. J Pain Res. 2023;16:1999-2013. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S416142
Liu LY, Lange EMS, Yee LM. Association between maternal neuraxial analgesia and neonatal outcomes in very preterm infants. AJP Rep. 2023;13(4):e65-e70. Doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1776147
Halliday L, Nelson SM, Kearns RJ. Epidural analgesia in labour: a narrative review. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022;159(2):356-364. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14175
de Verastegui-Martín M, de Paz-Fresneda A, Jiménez-Barbero JA, et al. Influence of labouring people’s mobility and positional changes on birth outcomes in low-dose epidural analgesia labour: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2023;68(1):84-98. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.13446
Guasch E, Brogly N, Gilsanz F. Combined spinal epidural for labour analgesia and caesarean section: indications and recommendations. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2020;33(3):284-290. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000866
Lu R, Rong L, Ye L, Xu Y, Wu H. Effects of epidural analgesia on intrapartum maternal fever and maternal outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2024;37(1):2357168. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2024.2357168
Liu ZH, Wang DX. Potential impact of epidural labour analgesia on the outcomes of neonates and children. Chin Med J (Engl). 2020;133(19):2353-2358. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000900
Callahan EC, Lee W, Aleshi P, George RB. Modern labour epidural analgesia: implications for labour outcomes and maternal-fetal health. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;228(5):S1260-S1269. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.017
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 European Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition: this means that articles have free availability on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from having access to the Internet itself.
All articles are published with free open access under the CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license (the current version is CC-BY, version 4.0). If you submit your paper for publication by the Eur J Clin Exp Med, you agree to have the CC-BY license applied to your work. Under this Open Access license, you, as the author, agree that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. This facilitates freedom in re-use and also ensures that Eur J Clin Exp Med content can be mined without barriers for the research needs.




