To the Editor:- The main purpose of Sharma et al.'s trial [1]was to establish the effect of epidural analgesia on the rate of cesarean deliveries. It compared epidural with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous meperidine. That technique has never been widely used in obstetrics, but their trial has established again [2]that it is not as effective as epidural analgesia, but it is still an valuable method.

My experience [2,3]with a Welsh population of mixed social and economic status (there is no private obstetric practice in Cardiff) in contrast to poor, Hispanic, or black patients (pointed out by Chestnut as a restriction in Sharma's trial) is similar, even though the equipment, dosage, and lockout times differed. Mean (+/- SD) meperidine doses were 139 mg (100 mg) for Sharma et al. and 171 mg (74.9) for nulliparous women and 158.9 mg (74.2) for multiparous women in our trial. [3]In this study [1]with PCA, nearly 65% reported good-to-excellent pain relief, and 70% would use the method again. In our study women receiving epidural anesthesia had linear analogue scores of 88.5% with epidural block compared with 67.2% with intramuscular meperidine. [2,3](PCA and intramuscular analgesia in Cardiff had similar scores). About two thirds of women would choose the same method, epidural or meperidine, again.

Chestnut [4]is concerned about the neonatal effects of high-dose opioids, which were not discussed in this report. These have been studied previously. [4–7]It has been shown that naloxone, 40 [micro sign]g, can reverse the respiratory effects for a time, and intramuscular naloxone, 200 [micro sign]g, will reverse ventilatory, auditory, and feeding effects for at least 48 h after birth. The babies of women who had intramuscular naloxone and meperidine had significantly fewer effects, especially on muscle tone than those whose mothers received epidural block with bupivacaine (Mean +/- SD, 130 +/- 61.7 mg).

There can be no doubt that epidural block is the most effective form of pain relief in labor. Although there are risks associated with this method, [8]it is largely safe administered under skilled obstetric anesthesiology care. Nevertheless, Sharma et al. have demonstrated clearly again that PCA meperidine is an reasonable option in some circumstances, acceptable to mothers in the United States [1]and in the United Kingdom. [2]It can be made safe for the neonate.

Sharma et al. believe that this useful alternative does not require the involvement of an anesthesiologist. I dispute that. Like postoperative pain relief, only an team led by an anesthesiologist is likely to introduce and maintain interest in effective techniques in the labor and delivery areas.

Michael Rosen, LL.D., F.R.C.A., F.R.C.O.G.

Formerly Professor in Anesthetics; University of Wales College of Medicine; Cardiff, United Kingdom


Sharma SK, Sidawi JE, Ramin SM, Lucas MJ, Leveno KJ, Cunningham FG: Cesarean delivery: A randomized trial of epidural versus patient-controlled meperidine analgesia during labor. Anesthesiology 1997; 87:487-94
Robinson JO, Rosen M, Evans JM, Revill SI, David H, Rees GAD: Maternal opinion about analgesia for labour. Anaesthesia 1980; 35:1173-81
Robinson JO, Rosen M, Evans JM, Revill SI, David H, Rees GAD: Self-administered intravenous and intramuscular pethidine: A controlled trial in labour. Anaesthesia 1980; 35:763-70
Chestnut DH: Epidural analgesia and the incidence of cesarean section. Anesthesiology 1997; 87:472-6
Weiner PC, Hogg MIJ, Rosen M: Effects of intravenous naloxone on pethidine induced depression on neonates. BMJ 1977; 2:228-9
Evans JM, Hogg MIJ, Rosen M: Reversal of narcotic depression in the neonate by naloxone. BMJ 1976; 2:1098-100
Weiner PC, Hogg MIJ, Rosen M: Effects of intramuscular naloxone on pethidine induced depression of neonates. BMJ 1977; 2:229-31
Weiner PC, Hogg MIJ, Rosen M: Neonatal respiration, feeding and neurobehavioural state: Effects of intrapartum bupivacaine, pethidine and pethidine reversed by naloxone. Anaesthesia 1979; 34:996-1004
Eisenach JC: Regional anesthesia: Vintage Bordeaux (and Napa Valley). Anesthesiology 1997; 87:467-9