Labour pain is a complex physiological experience that can produce substantial maternal distress and sympathetic activation. In women with pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), careful control of pain and close observation of blood pressure and maternal condition are particularly important. Neuraxial labour analgesia can reduce pain while allowing the mother to remain awake and participate in labour; it can also provide an established route for extension of anaesthesia if operative delivery becomes necessary. In pre-eclampsia, neuraxial techniques may be considered when there is no contraindication such as clinically significant thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy, with appropriate review of current laboratory results and haemodynamic status [1-2]. Ropivacaine is a long-acting amide local anaesthetic used for epidural labour analgesia. Dilute solutions are intended to provide sensory analgesia while limiting motor block. Trials and reviews of low-concentration local anaesthetic regimens have examined pain scores, rescue dosing, motor block, mode of delivery, maternal adverse events and neonatal condition [1-8]. The optimal concentration and delivery regimen remain dependent on the accompanying drug, bolus or infusion strategy, and the population studied [3-4]. Evidence specifically concerning women with pre-eclampsia is more limited than evidence from uncomplicated pregnancies. Recent observational and interventional studies have evaluated epidural analgesia and ropivacaine-based regimens in hypertensive parturients, with attention to pain scores, haemodynamic changes and maternal-neonatal outcomes [5]. The supplied thesis evaluated a 10-mL initial epidural bolus of 0.125% isobaric ropivacaine in women with PIH who were in active labour. It recorded pain scores, sensory and motor block, maternal vital signs, adverse events, delivery mode and neonatal Apgar scores. Reporting these outcomes together is useful because analgesic efficacy in this setting must be considered alongside maternal haemodynamic response and neonatal status. The present manuscript summarizes those observations as a descriptive study. Because the source thesis has no untreated or active comparator group, the findings describe outcomes following this regimen and do not establish comparative effectiveness or causality. AIM To study the efficacy of 0.125% isobaric ropivacaine for epidural labour analgesia in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension. OBJECTIVES 1. To estimate pain relief during labour using the visual analogue scale (VAS). 2. To assess maternal pulse rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation before and after epidural analgesia, including follow-up after delivery. 3. To document maternal complications associated with epidural analgesia.

Source of data Data were obtained from the prospective observations recorded in the supplied thesis for 50 parturients with PIH who received epidural labour analgesia. Study design The study was described in the thesis as a prospective observational study. It evaluated one treatment cohort without a comparison arm. Study location The study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesia at a tertiary-care hospital and medical college. The institution was identified in the thesis as Dr. Vaishampayan Memorial Government Medical College, Solapur. Study duration The stated study period was two years. Sample size Fifty women were enrolled. The thesis did not report a sample-size calculation. To make the requested equation explicit, a conventional single-proportion precision formula is shown as an illustrative reconstruction: n = Z²₁₋α/₂ × p(1−p) / d². Assuming 95% confidence (Z=1.96), maximum variability p=0.50, and absolute precision d=0.14 gives n = (1.96² × 0.50 × 0.50)/(0.14²) = 49.0, rounded to 50. These assumptions were not stated in the thesis and must not be represented as its original calculation. Inclusion criteria Women with PIH who were in active labour, defined in the thesis as cervical dilatation greater than 3 cm, and who underwent epidural analgesia were eligible. The observation table includes seven women at exactly 3 cm; eligibility for these records should be verified. Exclusion criteria Patients who refused participation, had coagulopathy, local infection at the epidural site, known allergy to local anaesthetic agents, or raised intracranial pressure were excluded. Procedure and methodology After institutional ethics approval and written informed consent, eligible women underwent pre-anaesthetic assessment. Baseline pulse rate, non-invasive blood pressure, SpO₂, fetal heart rate and VAS were recorded. An intravenous line was secured, and the thesis reports a preload of 300-500 mL Ringer lactate. With the woman sitting or in lateral position, the L3-L4 epidural space was identified using loss of resistance to air with an 18-gauge Tuohy needle. After negative aspiration for blood and cerebrospinal fluid, a 20-gauge multi-orifice catheter was inserted and secured. A 10-mL initial dose of 0.125% ropivacaine was administered in divided doses: a 3-mL test dose was observed for five minutes, followed by the remaining 7 mL if the patient remained stable. Additional epidural top-ups were given for reported pain or discomfort after aspiration and between contractions. The source describes ropivacaine alone for the study regimen; no opioid adjuvant was specified. Monitoring and outcome definitions VAS, sensory level, modified Bromage motor score, pulse rate, blood pressure, SpO₂ and fetal heart rate were monitored. Vitals were recorded at 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes, at 30 minutes, then periodically until delivery; post-delivery monitoring was stated to continue for one hour. The thesis also presents values through six hours, which should be reconciled with source records and timing definitions. Onset of analgesia was defined as time to VAS <3. Duration was defined as the interval from onset until painful contractions returned (VAS >3) or sensory regression below T12. Hypotension was defined as systolic pressure below 100 mmHg or a 20-30% fall from baseline; bradycardia was defined as pulse below 60 beats/minute. Maternal complications, delivery mode, Apgar scores and maternal satisfaction were recorded. Sample processing No laboratory specimen processing was required for the primary study outcomes. The thesis states that haemoglobin, urine examination, blood group and Rh typing, and coagulation profile were assessed as pre-procedure investigations. Statistical methods The thesis did not specify statistical software, inferential tests, or an analysis plan. Accordingly, the results below are presented descriptively. Means and standard deviations are reproduced from the source; approximate 95% confidence intervals for means were calculated using the reported SD and n=50, and Wilson 95% confidence intervals were calculated for proportions. No p values or tests of significance are reported because this was a single-group study and participant-level paired data were unavailable for testing change over time. Data collection Clinical and outcome information was collected prospectively using the study observations recorded in the thesis, including demographic and obstetric characteristics, analgesic response, haemodynamic measurements, block characteristics, top-up requirement, maternal adverse events, mode of delivery and neonatal Apgar score.

Fifty women with PIH received 0.125% isobaric ropivacaine. The tables reproduce source observations; approximate 95% confidence intervals were calculated from aggregate values. No comparative tests were possible in this single-arm study. Table 1. Overall analgesic efficacy profile in the study cohort (N=50) Outcome Value 95% CI Range Test / p value Participants enrolled 50 Not applicable Age, years, mean (SD) 25.22 (4.63) 23.90 to 26.54 Not applicable Onset of sensory block, min, mean (SD) 9.46 (1.23) 9.11 to 9.81 8-12 Not applicable Duration after initial bolus, min, mean (SD) 203.90 (19.98) 198.22 to 209.58 170-230 Not applicable No motor block, n/N (%) 42/50 (84.0) 71.5% to 91.7% Not applicable Excellent or good analgesia, n/N (%) 49/50 (98.0) 89.5% to 99.6% Not applicable The mean onset of sensory block was 9.46 minutes, and the reported mean duration after the initial bolus was 203.90 minutes. No motor block was recorded in 84% of women; 98% rated analgesia as excellent or good. The cohort provides descriptive evidence of pain relief and low motor block, but no comparative test can be made. Table 2. VAS pain scores over time Time VAS, mean (SD) 95% CI for mean Test / p value Baseline 8.98 (0.55) 8.82 to 9.14 Not applicable 5 min 5.62 (0.53) 5.47 to 5.77 Not applicable 10 min 2.62 (0.73) 2.41 to 2.83 Not applicable 15 min 1.26 (0.53) 1.11 to 1.41 Not applicable 20 min 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 to 1.00 Not applicable 25 min 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 to 1.00 Not applicable 30 min 0.98 (0.14) 0.94 to 1.02 Not applicable 45 min 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 to 1.00 Not applicable 1 h 0.98 (0.43) 0.86 to 1.10 Not applicable 2 h 1.92 (1.08) 1.61 to 2.23 Not applicable 3 h 2.94 (0.77) 2.72 to 3.16 Not applicable 4 h 1.08 (0.75) 0.87 to 1.29 Not applicable 5 h 0.78 (0.79) 0.56 to 1.00 Not applicable 6 h 0.38 (0.53) 0.23 to 0.53 Not applicable Mean VAS declined from 8.98 at baseline to 2.62 at 10 minutes and 1.00 at 20 minutes. Mean values remained low thereafter, with an increase to 2.94 at three hours and a reported value of 0.38 at six hours. The trend is consistent with a clinically substantial reduction in pain after epidural dosing; statistical significance is not estimable from the thesis summary data. Table 3. Maternal haemodynamic and oxygenation measures at selected time points Parameter Time Mean (SD) 95% CI for mean Test / p value Pulse rate (beats/min) Baseline 103.92 (8.95) 101.38 to 106.46 Not applicable Pulse rate (beats/min) 5 min 104.82 (9.34) 102.17 to 107.47 Not applicable Pulse rate (beats/min) 15 min 85.56 (4.99) 84.14 to 86.98 Not applicable Pulse rate (beats/min) 20 min 81.24 (3.94) 80.12 to 82.36 Not applicable Pulse rate (beats/min) 30 min 73.96 (5.24) 72.47 to 75.45 Not applicable Pulse rate (beats/min) 1 h 73.44 (5.38) 71.91 to 74.97 Not applicable Pulse rate (beats/min) 6 h 84.08 (3.08) 83.21 to 84.95 Not applicable SBP (mmHg) Baseline 119.28 (6.20) 117.52 to 121.04 Not applicable SBP (mmHg) 5 min 107.36 (4.60) 106.05 to 108.67 Not applicable SBP (mmHg) 15 min 95.76 (5.06) 94.32 to 97.20 Not applicable SBP (mmHg) 20 min 95.16 (6.40) 93.34 to 96.98 Not applicable SBP (mmHg) 30 min 96.18 (14.40) 92.09 to 100.27 Not applicable SBP (mmHg) 1 h 104.88 (6.06) 103.16 to 106.60 Not applicable SBP (mmHg) 6 h 111.84 (4.48) 110.57 to 113.11 Not applicable DBP (mmHg) Baseline 73.40 (6.28) 71.62 to 75.18 Not applicable DBP (mmHg) 5 min 64.08 (4.22) 62.88 to 65.28 Not applicable DBP (mmHg) 15 min 56.92 (3.53) 55.92 to 57.92 Not applicable DBP (mmHg) 20 min 56.56 (4.39) 55.31 to 57.81 Not applicable DBP (mmHg) 30 min 58.44 (5.15) 56.98 to 59.90 Not applicable DBP (mmHg) 1 h 62.68 (4.86) 61.30 to 64.06 Not applicable DBP (mmHg) 6 h 65.96 (3.69) 64.91 to 67.01 Not applicable MAP (mmHg) Baseline 88.70 (5.78) 87.06 to 90.34 Not applicable MAP (mmHg) 5 min 78.56 (3.70) 77.51 to 79.61 Not applicable MAP (mmHg) 15 min 69.90 (3.57) 68.89 to 70.91 Not applicable MAP (mmHg) 20 min 69.52 (4.71) 68.18 to 70.86 Not applicable MAP (mmHg) 30 min 71.04 (6.66) 69.15 to 72.93 Not applicable MAP (mmHg) 1 h 76.76 (4.77) 75.40 to 78.12 Not applicable MAP (mmHg) 6 h 81.26 (3.34) 80.31 to 82.21 Not applicable SpO₂ (%) Baseline 98.20 (0.81) 97.97 to 98.43 Not applicable SpO₂ (%) 5 min 98.82 (0.77) 98.60 to 99.04 Not applicable SpO₂ (%) 15 min 98.76 (0.94) 98.49 to 99.03 Not applicable SpO₂ (%) 20 min 98.84 (1.09) 98.53 to 99.15 Not applicable SpO₂ (%) 30 min 98.82 (1.21) 98.48 to 99.16 Not applicable SpO₂ (%) 1 h 98.86 (1.20) 98.52 to 99.20 Not applicable SpO₂ (%) 6 h 98.74 (0.92) 98.48 to 99.00 Not applicable Mean systolic and diastolic pressure and MAP fell during the early post-dose period and subsequently rose toward baseline levels. SpO₂ remained near 98% across reported time points. Pulse values also varied over time. The aggregate table does not provide participant-level paired measurements or vasopressor/rescue-treatment data, so a formal repeated-measures comparison and clinical attribution are not possible. Table 4. Maternal complications and selected delivery and neonatal outcomes (Objective 3) Outcome n/N (%) 95% CI Test / p value No maternal complication 42/50 (84.0%) 71.5% to 91.7% Not applicable Hypotension 4/50 (8.0%) 3.2% to 18.8% Not applicable Bradycardia 3/50 (6.0%) 2.1% to 16.2% Not applicable Accidental dural puncture 1/50 (2.0%) 0.4% to 10.5% Not applicable Forty-two women (84%) had no recorded maternal complication. Hypotension was reported in four (8%), bradycardia in three (6%), and accidental dural puncture in one (2%). Vaginal delivery occurred in 78%, forceps delivery in 18%, and LSCS in 4%; all recorded one-minute Apgar scores were at least 7 and all five-minute scores were at least 9.

In this prospective observational cohort of 50 women with PIH, the thesis tables show a mean VAS reduction from 8.98 at baseline to 1.00 at 20 minutes, a mean sensory-block onset of 9.46 minutes, and a reported mean analgesia duration of 203.90 minutes after the initial bolus. The findings support descriptive analgesic activity of 0.125% isobaric ropivacaine in this cohort. They do not establish superiority over another concentration or drug because the study had no comparison group, randomization, or blinded outcome assessment. Contemporary studies of low-concentration epidural regimens also emphasize balancing pain relief with rescue dosing, motor block, maternal satisfaction and neonatal outcomes [3-8,12-17]. The reduction in pain score is consistent with reports evaluating dilute ropivacaine-based epidural solutions. Zhao et al. [12] studied 0.125% ropivacaine with or without dexmedetomidine and found pain and haemodynamic responses varied with the adjuvant regimen. Patkar et al. [3] found intermittent bolus administration of dilute ropivacaine-fentanyl provided analgesia with lower local anaesthetic consumption than continuous infusion. Randomized comparisons and meta-analyses suggest concentration and delivery mode affect breakthrough pain and motor block, while maternal satisfaction and neonatal outcomes may remain similar across regimens [4,6,7,13,14]. Chen et al. [21] also found that using 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl as part of an epidural test dose did not delay onset compared with lidocaine, although their regimen and population differed. Direct numerical comparisons are limited because the present thesis protocol used ropivacaine alone and an initial bolus, whereas most comparator studies included opioid or other adjuvant and maintenance infusion/PCEA. The thesis reports that 84% of women had no motor block and 16% had grade 1 block. This pattern is clinically relevant because preserving lower-limb strength can support positioning and bearing down. Network meta-analysis by Halliday et al. [7] found lower local-anaesthetic concentrations were associated with reduced motor block and, in some comparisons, higher spontaneous vaginal delivery probability. Those pooled results arise from heterogeneous regimens and cannot be applied as a direct effect estimate for this cohort. Bihani et al. [6] also reported differences in breakthrough pain across ropivacaine concentrations, with no significant difference in satisfaction, maternal adverse effects or neonatal Apgar scores across trial arms. Maternal haemodynamic monitoring is central in PIH. In this cohort, the tabulated mean SBP, DBP and MAP declined early after dosing, with subsequent recovery; mean SpO₂ stayed close to 98%. These measurements are descriptive and do not, by themselves, prove “stability,” since individual hypotensive episodes, treatment, baseline severity, antihypertensive therapy, and paired changes were not reported in enough detail. Neuraxial analgesia is considered for pre-eclampsia when not contraindicated by coagulation abnormalities, and appropriate recent platelet assessment and surveillance are emphasized in clinical guidance and reviews [9,22]. Wu et al. [9] specifically examined epidural ropivacaine regimens in women with pre-eclampsia and reported changes in pain and haemodynamic variables; however, their adjuvant regimen and comparison groups differ from the present thesis. A larger cohort study of pre-eclamptic women found no significant differences in several maternal and neonatal outcomes after propensity matching, while highlighting the need to interpret crude associations cautiously [10]. The thesis records hypotension in 8%, bradycardia in 6%, and one accidental dural puncture. These events warrant explicit reporting, particularly because aggregate mean blood pressure can obscure clinically important individual episodes. The 2024 meta-analysis by Li et al. [11] compared ropivacaine and levobupivacaine for labour analgesia and considered maternal and fetal outcomes; it provides broader context but not a direct estimate for PIH patients receiving ropivacaine alone. Studies comparing ropivacaine with bupivacaine or different adjuvants likewise vary in dose, concentration, delivery schedule, and patient risk profile [5,8,12,15-18]. The delivery data showed 78% vaginal birth, 18% forceps delivery and 4% LSCS, while neonatal Apgar scores were at least 7 at one minute and at least 9 at five minutes in all infants. These findings are reassuring as recorded, but they cannot demonstrate that the analgesic regimen caused or protected against a particular delivery or neonatal outcome. Maternal satisfaction was excellent or good in 98%, though the source uses a three-category scale and does not describe a validated instrument. Recent studies in pre-eclampsia and general obstetric populations have included more comprehensive outcomes such as fetal distress, NICU admission, cord gases and neonatal morbidity; these would strengthen future evaluations [6,9-12,14,16-19,21]. Interpretation is further constrained by discrepancies within the thesis. The observation table reports T10 as the maximum sensory level in 84%, with a mean initial-bolus duration of 203.90 minutes (range 170-230). The discussion text instead gives a different sensory-level distribution and duration (104.12 minutes), while the summary and conclusion again state 203.90 minutes. This manuscript uses the observation-table values but flags them for confirmation. The thesis also describes study dates as December 2023-July 2025 and as two years, and reports haemodynamic observations through six hours although the protocol describes one-hour post-delivery monitoring. These details should be checked against source records before journal submission.

Among 50 women with PIH who received epidural labour analgesia with 0.125% isobaric ropivacaine, the thesis observation tables recorded a reduction in mean VAS from 8.98 at baseline to 1.00 at 20 minutes, a mean sensory-block onset of 9.46 minutes, and a mean initial-bolus analgesia duration of 203.90 minutes. No motor block was recorded in 84%; 84% had no reported maternal complication, while hypotension occurred in 8%, bradycardia in 6%, and accidental dural puncture in 2%. The results suggest effective analgesia in this cohort, but a single-arm design, small sample and inconsistencies in the thesis prevent comparative efficacy claims. Source data and outcome definitions should be verified before publication. LIMITATIONS The study included only 50 women from one tertiary-care centre and had no comparator group; precision and generalizability were therefore limited. The thesis did not provide a sample-size derivation, statistical analysis plan, statistical software, or participant-level dataset. Inferential tests and within-person confidence intervals could not be reconstructed. There are internal discrepancies in the reported sensory-level distribution, duration of analgesia, monitoring schedule and stated study duration. The observation tables were used here, but verification against original case records is required. The thesis does not fully specify PIH severity, platelet counts and timing, antihypertensive or magnesium therapy, vasopressor treatment, rescue analgesia details, or detailed fetal and neonatal morbidity outcomes. Maternal satisfaction was measured using a brief three-level rating, and the source does not report validation or blinding. The observational design cannot determine whether ropivacaine caused the outcomes.

1. Patkar CS, Vora K, Patel H, Shah V, Modi MP, Parikh G. A comparison of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus administration of 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.0002% fentanyl for epidural labor analgesia. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015;31(2):234-8. 2. Wang X, Xu S, Qin X, Li X, Feng SW, Liu Y, et al. Comparison between the use of ropivacaine alone and ropivacaine with sufentanil in epidural labor analgesia. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(43):e1882. 3. Gupta S, Partani S. Neuraxial techniques of labour analgesia. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62(9):658-66. 4. Gündüz S, Eriş Yalçın S, Karakoç G, Akkurt MÖ, Yalçın Y, Yavuz A. Comparison of bupivacaine and ropivacaine in combination with fentanyl used for walking epidural anesthesia in labor. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;14(3):170-5. 5. Chethanananda TN, Shashank MR, Madhu N, Achyutha J, Siva Kumar KV. Comparative efficacy of minimal concentration of racemic bupivacaine (0.0625%) with fentanyl and ropivacaine (0.1%) with fentanyl for epidural labor analgesia. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11(3):583-8. 6. Bihani P, Vyas M, Soni S, Jaju R, Janweja S, Choudhary U. Comparison of efficacy and safety of three different concentrations of ropivacaine for labor pain management using patient-controlled epidural analgesia: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2024;40(3):463-9. 7. Halliday L, Kinsella M, Shaw M, Cheyne J, Nelson SM, Kearns RJ. Comparison of ultra-low, low and high concentration local anaesthetic for labour epidural analgesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2022;77(8):910-8. 8. Kumari I, Sharma K, Bedi V, Mohan M, Tungaria H, Modi MK. Comparison of ropivacaine (0.2%) with or without clonidine 1 μg/kg for epidural labor analgesia: a randomized controlled study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34(1):18-22. 9. Wu S, Zhong C, Huang A, Li J, Chen C, Yuan H. Feasibility of epidural injection of ropivacaine and dexamethasone for labor analgesia in women with preeclampsia. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13(7):7921-7. 10. Wu XZ, Fang TF, Zheng YH, Zhang SJ, Xie Y, Gao X, et al. Association of epidural labor analgesia with maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with preeclampsia: a propensity score-matched single-center retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25:66. 11. Li Z, Zhou X, Wang H. The impact of epidural ropivacaine versus levobupivacaine for labor analgesia on maternal and fetal outcomes: a meta-analysis. BMC Anesthesiol. 2024;24:378. 12. Zhao Y, Xin Y, Liu Y, Yi X, Liu Y. Effect of epidural dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine in labor analgesia: a randomized double-blinded controlled study. Clin J Pain. 2017;33(4):319-24. 13. Priyadarshini P, Verma R, Singh P, Gautam S, Singh D, Kohli M, et al. Comparison of continuous infusion of ropivacaine and fentanyl with intermittent bolus doses of ropivacaine and fentanyl for epidural labor analgesia: a randomized open-label study. Cureus. 2022;14(8):e28243. 14. Cheng Q, Bi X, Zhang W, Lu Y, Tian H. Dexmedetomidine versus sufentanil with high- or low-concentration ropivacaine for labor epidural analgesia: a randomized trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019;45(11):2193-201. 15. Li Y, Hu C, Fan Y, Wang H, Xu H. Epidural analgesia with amide local anesthetics, bupivacaine, and ropivacaine in combination with fentanyl for labor pain relief: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:921-8. 16. Paleti S, Prasad PK, Lakshmi BS. A randomized clinical trial of intrathecal magnesium sulfate versus midazolam with epidural administration of 0.75% ropivacaine for patients with preeclampsia scheduled for elective cesarean section. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34(1):23-8. 17. Wei Y, Ye S, Ma R, Xu T. Median effective dose of spinal ropivacaine in combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for emergency cesarean delivery following failed vaginal delivery with epidural labor analgesia: a single-blind, sequential dose-finding study. J Anesth. 2024;38(6):780-6. 18. Hashemian M, Barouni M, Honarvar Z, Alidousti K, Mohajerani SA, Rezaeizadeh L. Comparison of ropivacaine versus bupivacaine in spinal-induced hypotension in preeclampsia patients: a randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiol Pain Med. 2024;14(1):e142646. 19. Patel DL, et al. Epidural labor analgesia: a comparison of mixture of ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl versus ropivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2022;11(10):2748-53. 20. Mei Z, Kee WD, Sheng ZM, Hu LJ, Wu ZH, Lyu CC, et al. Comparative dose-response study of hyperbaric ropivacaine for spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in singleton versus twin pregnancies. J Clin Anesth. 2020;67:110068. 21. Chen J, Chen S, Lv H, Lv P, Yu X, Huang S, et al. Using part of the initial analgesic dose as the epidural test dose did not delay the onset of labor analgesia: a randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24:254. 22. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 222. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(6):e237-60.