Perioperative ischaemia in aortic surgery: combined epidural/general anaesthesia and epidural analgesia vs general anaesthesia and i.v. analgesia

Perioperative interventions for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the efficacy of perioperative interventions to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINHAL, and CENTRAL from January 1990 to December 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating short term, protocolised medical interventions conducted before, during, or after non-cardiac surgery were included. Trials with clinical diagnostic criteria for PPC outcomes were included. Studies of surgical technique or physiological or biochemical outcomes were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methods. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs. Secondary outcomes were respiratory infection, atelectasis, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Trial sequential analysis was used to investigate the reliability and conclusiveness of available evidence. Adverse effects of interventions were not measured or compared.

RESULTS

117 trials enrolled 21 940 participants, investigating 11 categories of intervention. 95 randomised controlled trials enrolling 18 062 participants were included in meta-analysis; 22 trials were excluded from meta-analysis because the interventions were not sufficiently similar to be pooled. No high quality evidence was found for interventions to reduce the primary outcome (incidence of PPCs). Seven interventions had low or moderate quality evidence with confidence intervals indicating a probable reduction in PPCs: enhanced recovery pathways (risk ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.58), prophylactic mucolytics (0.40, 0.23 to 0.67), postoperative continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (0.49, 0.24 to 0.99), lung protective intraoperative ventilation (0.52, 0.30 to 0.88), prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy (0.55, 0.32 to 0.93), epidural analgesia (0.77, 0.65 to 0.92), and goal directed haemodynamic therapy (0.87, 0.77 to 0.98). Moderate quality evidence showed no benefit for incentive spirometry in preventing PPCs. Trial sequential analysis adjustment confidently supported a relative risk reduction of 25% in PPCs for prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy, epidural analgesia, enhanced recovery pathways, and goal directed haemodynamic therapies. Insufficient data were available to support or refute equivalent relative risk reductions for other interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Predominantly low quality evidence favours multiple perioperative PPC reduction strategies. Clinicians may choose to reassess their perioperative care pathways, but the results indicate that new trials with a low risk of bias are needed to obtain conclusive evidence of efficacy for many of these interventions.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42016035662.

Comparison between the effect of epidural anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia and general anesthesia combined with intravenous analgesia on prognosis of ovarian cancer patients

Application value of epidural anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia and general anesthesia combined with intravenous analgesia in ovarian cancer surgery was explored. In total 298 ASA I–III grade patients with ovarian cancer, undergoing extensive total hysterectomy and pelvic lymphotomy, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: the epidural anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia group (group A, 158 cases), and the general anesthesia combined with intravenous analgesia group (group B, 140 cases). The first exhaust time, incidence of adverse reactions, Aldrete score, and recovery were observed, and the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores during resting, exercise and cough at 24 h after surgery were recorded. Fasting venous blood (2 ml) was drawn at the same time before anesthesia and at 24 h after anesthesia in both groups to determinate cortisol (COR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. The first exhaust time and incidence of adverse reactions in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P<0.05). The Aldrete score and extubation time (ET) in group A were significantly higher than that in group B. Eye opening time (EOT), recovery orientation time (ROT) and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) time in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P<0.05). The VAS scores in group A during resting, exercise and cough were lower than those in group B (P<0.05). Compared with before anesthesia, the levels of COR and CRP increased significantly in both groups at 24 h after anesthesia (P<0.05), while the level of COR and CRP in group A was significantly lower than that in group B, at 24 h after surgery (P<0.05). Epidural anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia has better analgesic effect, higher safety, lower incidence of adverse reactions, and is beneficial to the recovery of patients with ovarian cancer after radical operation when compared with general anesthesia combined with intravenous analgesia.

Pain Management After Vascular Surgery

Patients presenting for vascular surgery usually have concomitant disease processes that may increase the likelihood of adverse outcomes after major surgery. Because of the advanced nature of the underlying medical condition, it is important to optimize postopera tive pain control to adequately control postoperative discomfort, stress response, hypercoagulability, myocar dial ischemia, and graft failure. This article discusses methods of pain control after vascular surgery and their effects on physiology and outcome.

Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, vomiting and pain after abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal paralysis, nausea and vomiting and pain are major clinical problems following abdominal surgery. Anaesthetic and analgesic techniques that reduce pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), while preventing or reducing postoperative ileus, may reduce postoperative morbidity, duration of hospitalization and hospital costs. This review was first published in 2001 and was updated by new review authors in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics versus postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of anastomotic leak, length of hospital stay and costs after abdominal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by conducting computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1950 to December 2014) and EMBASE (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. When we reran the search in February 2016, we added 16 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate these studies into formal review findings during the next review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing effects of postoperative epidural local anaesthetic versus regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We rated the quality of studies by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently extracted data and judged the quality of evidence according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 128 trials with 8754 participants in the review, and 94 trials with 5846 participants in the analysis. Trials included in the review were funded as follows: charity (n = 19), departmental resources (n = 8), governmental sources (n = 15) and industry (in part or in total) (n = 15). The source of funding was not specified for the other studies.Results of 22 trials including 1138 participants show that an epidural containing a local anaesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time to first flatus after an abdominal surgery (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used. A total of 28 trials including 1559 participants reported a decrease in time to first faeces (stool) (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Thirty-five trials including 2731 participants found that pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery was also reduced (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on scale from 0 to 10). From findings of 22 trials including 1154 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.23; low quality of evidence). From investigators in 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.32; low quality of evidence). Researchers in 30 trials including 2598 participants noted that epidural analgesia reduced length of hospital stay for an open surgery (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to one day). Data on costs were very limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An epidural containing a local anaesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anaesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For open surgery, an epidural containing a local anaesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults undergoing elective abdominal aortic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and five trial registers in November 2014, together with reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data when required. We assessed the level of evidence according to the scale provided by the GRADE working group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials published from 1987 to 2009 with 1498 participants in this updated review. Participants had a mean age between 60.5 and 71.3 years. The percentage of women in the included studies varied from 0% to 28.1%. Adding an epidural to general anaesthesia for people undergoing abdominal aortic repair reduced myocardial infarction (risk ratio (RR) 0.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.97); I(2) statistic = 0%; number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 28 (95% CI 19 to 1423), visual or verbal analogical scale (VAS) scores up to three days after the surgery (mean difference (MD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.32 to -1.25); I(2) statistic = 0% for VAS scores on movement at postoperative day one), time to tracheal extubation (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.42 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.15); I(2) statistic = 83%; equivalent to a mean reduction of 36 hours), postoperative respiratory failure (RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.85); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 8 (95% CI 6 to 16)), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.65); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 32 (95% CI 27 to 74)) and time spent in the intensive care unit (SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.06); I(2) statistic = 0%; equivalent to a mean reduction of six hours). We did not demonstrate a reduction in the mortality rate up to 30 days (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.86); I(2) statistic = 0%). The level of evidence was low for mortality and time before tracheal extubation; moderate for myocardial infarction, respiratory failure and intensive care unit length of stay; and high for gastrointestinal bleeding and VAS scores.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia provided better pain management, reduced myocardial infarction, time to tracheal extubation, postoperative respiratory failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intensive care unit length of stay compared with systemic opioid-based drugs. For mortality, we did not find a difference at 30 days.

The effects of anaesthetics on postoperative physiological reactions: a meta-analysis

This study aimed to systematically investigate the effects of different anaesthetics on postoperative physiological reactions compared with placebo. The literature search was conducted using three databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Studies published from January 1990 to January 2015 were screened. The language was restricted to English. Heterogeneity was analyzed by the Q test and I(2) statistic. A fixed-effect model was used for homogenous data and a random-effects model for heterogeneous data. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to monitor the incidences of overall adverse events, arterial blood pressure, and cardiac abnormalities. Sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the strength of the meta-analysis, and publication bias was analyzed using Egger's test. A total of 24 articles were included in this meta-analysis. There were 1,810 and 1,806 cases in the anaesthetic group and the placebo group, respectively. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly lower in the anaesthetic group compared with the placebo group (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.84). No publication bias was observed, and no inverse estimates were calculated using sensitivity analysis. There was no significant difference for the incidence of arterial blood pressure (OR = 4.62; 95% CI, 0.90-23.70) and cardiac abnormalities (OR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.53-2.63) between the two groups. Although the incidence of overall adverse events was decreased in the anaesthetic group, it is impossible to determine whether the use of anaesthetics during surgical operation has a protective effect on postoperative physiological reactions.

Impact of epidural analgesia on mortality and morbidity after surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To quantify benefit and harm of epidural analgesia, compared with systemic opioid analgesia, in adults having surgery under general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia decreases postoperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and BIOSIS till July 2012. We included randomized controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia (with local anesthetics, lasting for ≥ 24 hours postoperatively) with systemic analgesia in adults having surgery under general anesthesia, and reporting on mortality or any morbidity endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 125 trials (9044 patients, 4525 received epidural analgesia) were eligible. In 10 trials (2201 patients; 87 deaths), reporting on mortality as a primary or secondary endpoint, the risk of death was decreased with epidural analgesia (3.1% vs 4.9%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.93). Epidural analgesia significantly decreased the risk of atrial fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia, deep vein thrombosis, respiratory depression, atelectasis, pneumonia, ileus, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also improved recovery of bowel function, but significantly increased the risk of arterial hypotension, pruritus, urinary retention, and motor blockade. Technical failures occurred in 6.1% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults having surgery under general anesthesia, concomitant epidural analgesia reduces postoperative mortality and improves a multitude of cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal morbidity endpoints compared with patients receiving systemic analgesia. Because adverse effects and technical failures cannot be ruled out, individual risk-benefit analyses and professional care are recommended.

Neuraxial blockade for the prevention of postoperative mortality and major morbidity: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Various beneficial effects derived from neuraxial blocks have been reported. However, it is unclear whether these effects have an influence on perioperative mortality and major pulmonary/cardiovascular complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to summarize Cochrane systematic reviews that assess the effects of neuraxial blockade on perioperative rates of death, chest infection and myocardial infarction by integrating the evidence from all such reviews that have compared neuraxial blockade with or without general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for different types of surgery in various populations. Our secondary objective was to summarize the evidence on adverse effects (an adverse event for which a causal relation between the intervention and the event is at least a reasonable possibility) of neuraxial blockade. Within the reviews, studies were selected using the same criteria.

METHODS

A search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on July 13, 2012. We have (1) included all Cochrane systematic reviews that examined participants of any age undergoing any type of surgical (open or endoscopic) procedure, (2) compared neuraxial blockade versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia or neuraxial blockade plus general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia and (3) included death, chest infection, myocardial infarction and/or serious adverse events as outcomes. Neuraxial blockade could consist of epidural, caudal, spinal or combined spinal-epidural techniques administered as a bolus or by continuous infusion. Studies included in these reviews were selected on the basis of the same criteria. Reviews and studies were selected independently by two review authors, who independently performed data extraction when data differed from one of the selected reviews. Data were analysed by using Review Manager Version 5.1 and Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2.2.044.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine Cochrane reviews were selected for this overview. Their scores on the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire varied from four to six of a maximal possible score of seven. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial blockade reduced the zero to 30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.94; I(2) = 0%) based on 20 studies that included 3006 participants. Neuraxial blockade also decreased the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79; I(2) = 0%) based on five studies that included 400 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between the two techniques (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.37; I(2) = 0%) based on six studies with 849 participants. Compared with general anaesthesia alone, the addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia did not affect the zero to 30-day mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.51; I(2) = 0%) based on 18 studies with 3228 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between combined neuraxial blockade-general anaesthesia and general anaesthesia alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; I(2) = 0%) based on eight studies that included 1580 participants. The addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia reduced the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.98; I(2) = 9%) after adjustment for publication bias and based on nine studies that included 2433 participants. The quality of the evidence was judged as moderate for all six comparisons.No serious adverse events (seizure or cardiac arrest related to local anaesthetic toxicity, prolonged central or peripheral neurological injury lasting longer than one month or infection secondary to neuraxial blockade) were reported. The quality of the reporting score of complications related to neuraxial blocks was nine (four to 12 (median range)) of a possible maximum score of 14.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with general anaesthesia, a central neuraxial block may reduce the zero to 30-day mortality for patients undergoing surgery with intermediate to high cardiac risk (level of evidence, moderate). Further research is required.

Pregabalin versus tramadol for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

Prevention and treatment of postoperative pain continues to be a major challenge in postoperative care. Opioid analgesics, with their well-known side effects, continue to represent a cornerstone in postoperative pain control. Anticonvulsant medications are established treatments for neuropathic pain. Pregabalin (S-[+]-3-isobutylgaba), a structural analog of gamma-Aminobutyric acid, has been used for the treatment of various neuropathic pain and also as an adjunctive therapy for adults with partial onset seizures. This study was thus taken up to primarily assess and compare the analgesic and anxiolytic effects of administering pregabalin and tramadol preoperatively for patients undergoing elective decompressive lumbar laminectomy. The study group included 75 patients between the ages of 20–60 years belonging to American Society of Anesthesiology-1 (ASA) and ASA-2 patients. The patients were randomly allocated into three groups of 25 patients each. The placebo group received a placebo capsule, the tramadol group received a 100 mg capsule, while the pregabalin group received a 150 mg capsule orally 1 hour before anesthetic induction. Pregabalin showed statistically significant analgesic effects compared to placebo, but the effect was found to be less prevalent compared to tramadol. The need for rescue analgesia was the least prevalent in tramadol patients followed by pregabalin patients, and reached a maximum in the control group. Pregabalin showed statistically significant anxiolytic effects compared to placebo, and this was associated with less sedation in comparison to tramadol. Pregabalin had fewer numbers of postoperative complications of nausea, vomiting, and drowsiness in comparison to tramadol. The results of this study support the clinical use of pregabalin in the postsurgical setting for pain relief, as it is well tolerated, and usually presents with transient adverse effects.

Intravenous flurbiprofen axetil can stabilize the hemodynamic instability due to mesenteric traction syndrome--evaluation with continuous measurement of the systemic vascular resistance index using a FloTrac® sensor

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the stabilizing effect of intravenous flurbiprofen axetil against hemodynamic instability due to mesenteric traction syndrome (MTS) by continuous measurement of systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) using a FloTrac(®) sensor was evaluated.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized trial.

SETTING

A single-center study performed in an educational hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Two prospective studies were carried out, each with 40 patients scheduled for elective open abdominal surgery.

INTERVENTION

Twenty patients received 50 mg of flurbiprofen axetil after the recognition of MTS by the anesthesiologist (group FT). The remaining patients served as controls (groups CP and CT).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

SVRI data was collected every 20 seconds for 1 hour after starting the laparotomy. The average SVRI prior to skin incision was taken as the baseline. Following 3 values were devised to evaluate MTS: the S-value (sum total of changes in SVRI from baseline), the T-value (period during which SVRI remained 20% or more below baseline), and the M-value (maximum change in SVRI from baseline). In group FP, decrease in SVRI was smaller than in group CP, and statistical differences in the 3 values were found. In group FT, SVRI recovered earlier than in group CT, and statistical differences were found in S-value and T-value. However, the M-value had no statistical differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous flurbiprofen axetil can stabilize the hemodynamic instability due to MTS.

Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based pain relief for adult patients who underwent elective abdominal aortic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 11) via Ovid; Ovid MEDLINE (from inception to week 1 November 2010); and EMBASE (from inception to week 1, November 2010). The original search was performed in 2004. We assessed non-English language reports and contacted researchers in the field. We did not seek unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adult patients who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials that involved 1297 patients (633 patients received epidural analgesia and 664 received systemic opioid analgesia) in this review. This included one trial we found in our updated search and one trial from our original review that had been awaiting translation. The epidural analgesia group showed significantly lower visual analogue scale scores for pain on movement (up to postoperative day three) regardless of the site of the epidural catheter and epidural formulation. The postoperative duration of tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter, by about 48%, in the epidural analgesia group. The overall event rates of myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure (defined as an extended need for mechanical ventilation), gastrointestinal complications, and renal complications were significantly lower in the epidural analgesia group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia provides better pain relief (especially during movement) in the period up to three postoperative days. It reduces the duration of postoperative tracheal intubation by roughly half. The occurrence of prolonged postoperative mechanical ventilation, myocardial infarction, gastric complications and renal complications was reduced by epidural analgesia. However, current evidence does not confirm the beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on postoperative mortality and other types of complications.

Flurbiprofen axetil provides a prophylactic benefit against mesenteric traction syndrome associated with remifentanil infusion during laparotomy

PURPOSE

Mesenteric traction syndrome (MTS) is caused by PGI(2) release during abdominal procedures and is often observed during abdominal surgery. We have demonstrated that MTS occurs more frequently in cases using remifentanil than in those that are not. The aim of this study was to assess the prophylactic benefit of flurbiprofen axetil on MTS in patients undergoing abdominal surgery using remifentanil.

METHODS

Thirty ASA physical status I and II patients were enrolled. They were scheduled to undergo abdominal surgery under general anesthesia with remifentanil and were randomly assigned to receive flurbiprofen axetil (group F) or saline (group C) preoperatively (n = 15 each). MTS was defined according to our simplified diagnostic criteria. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were recorded, and the plasma 6-keto-PGF(1α) (a stable metabolite of PGI(2)) concentration was measured just before skin incision and at 20 and 60 min after skin incision (T(0), T(20), T(60)) to confirm the diagnosis of MTS.

RESULTS

Twelve of 15 (80%) patients developed MTS in group C, whereas only 1 of 15 (6.7%) patients in group F developed MTS. At T(20), the group C patients showed significantly lower arterial blood pressure (P < 0.05) and a faster heart rate (P < 0.01) than those in group F. The mean plasma 6-keto-PGF(1α) concentration was significantly elevated in group C at T(20) (P < 0.01), whereas the plasma 6-keto-PGF(1α) level remained low throughout the observation period in group F.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that preoperative administration of flurbiprofen axetil reduced the incidence of MTS during abdominal surgery with remifentanil analgesia.

[Cardioprotection by thoracic epidural anesthesia? : meta-analysis]

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) is thought to provide cardioprotective effects in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The results of two previous meta-analysis showed controversial conclusions regarding the impact of EDA on perioperative survival. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate, whether thoracic EDA has the potential to reduce perioperative cardiac morbidity or mortality on the basis of available randomized controlled trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in medical databases (Med-Line, EBM-Reviews, Embase, Biosis and Biological Abstracts) and relevant clinical trials including patients undergoing noncardiac surgery were evaluated by two independent investigators. All randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of thoracic EDA on perioperative outcome, published from 1980 up to the end of 2008 were included into this quantitative systematic review. Calculations were performed using the statistics program Review Manager 4.1 using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine studies with a total of 2,768 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Thoracic EDA did not reduce perioperative mortality [odds ratio (Peto OR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.58]. Patients receiving thoracic EDA demonstrated a tendency to a lower rate of perioperative myocardial infarction. However, this effect of thoracic EDA did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.4-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis did not prove any positive influence of thoracic EDA on perioperative in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Furthermore, it remains questionable if thoracic EDA has the potential to reduce the rate of perioperative myocardial infarction.

[Combined general-epidural anesthesia compared to general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality and analgesic efficacy in thoracoabdominal surgery]

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to compare combined general-epidural anesthesia, followed by postoperative epidural analgesia, and general anesthesia followed by postoperative parenteral analgesia without epidural analgesia in patients undergoing thoracoabdominal surgery. Outcome measures considered were mortality, length of stay in hospital and in the intensive care unit, analgesia, and morbidity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry and the metaRegister of clinical trials at http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/ mrct info es.asp). We also hand-searched the literature. Authors were contacted when deemed necessary.

RESULTS

A total of 30 trials (4294 patients) were analyzed. Combined anesthesia showed significant advantages in relation to 2 variables: respiratory failure (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.87) and analgesia on the first day after surgery (weighted mean difference, -6.91 95% CI, -9.46 to -4.36). No significant differences were found in the other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined anesthesia provides better analgesia and is associated with fewer cases of postoperative respiratory failure. No significant differences were found in mortality, length of stay in hospital, or other morbidity variables.

Determinanten des insensiblen Flüssigkeitsverlustes

Accurate perioperative fluid balance is the basis of a targeted infusion regimen. However, neither the initial status nor perioperative changes of the fluid compartments can be reliably measured in daily routine. In particular, insensible losses are not consistently assessed, so that substitution therapy is generally empirical. The object of this paper is to communicate the scientific data on this topic. Preoperative fasting (10 h) does not per se cause intravascular hypovolemia. In adults, total basal evaporation by way of the skin and airways and of any wounds during major abdominal interventions is usually less than 1 ml/kg/h. An inconstant fluid and protein shift towards the interstitial space perioperatively seems to be associated with hypervolemia, which suggests it should be preventable. The decisive factor in this context seems to be deterioration of the endothelial glycocalyx, whose further patho-physiological impact is currently only partially known. Clinical studies have revealed a link between fluid restriction and improved outcome after major abdominal surgery.

Perioperative hypertension: new strategies for management

Perioperative hypertension is a very frequent occurrence and requires the anaesthetist to make clinical decisions regarding antihypertensive therapy, evaluation of risk, cancellation of surgery and treatment of high and low blood pressure. Perioperative management of hypertensive patients must take into account the possible consequences of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and reduced coronary reserve.

Postoperative pain management and outcome after surgery

Postoperative pain management aims not only to decrease pain intensity but also to increase patient comfort and to improve postoperative outcome. Better pain control is achieved through a multimodal combination of regional analgesic techniques and systemic administration of analgesic agents. To guarantee uneventful follow-up and unnecessary prolongation of hospital stay, it is important to avoid side-effects of analgesic agents, especially those of opioids which are dose-related, by decreasing opioid demand through combination with non-opioid agents. Epidural analgesia not only has the advantage of providing potent and effective analgesia but also of hastening recovery of bowel function and facilitating physiotherapy and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, a reduction in postoperative morbidity and mortality by epidural analgesia has not actually been demonstrated. Inclusion of postoperative pain treatment in a multimodal approach of patient rehabilitation may improve recovery and shorten hospital stay. Effective treatment of postoperative pain is also likely to prevent chronic pain syndrome after surgery, but further studies are needed to support this hypothesis.

Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based pain relief for adult patients who underwent elective abdominal aortic surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via OVID (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004); OVID MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004); and EMBASE (1980 to June 2004). We assessed non-English language reports and contacted researchers in the field. We did not seek unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adult patients who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 1224 patients met our inclusion criteria; 597 patients received epidural analgesia and 627 received systemic opioid analgesia. The epidural analgesia group showed significantly lower visual analogue scale for pain on movement (up to postoperative day three), regardless of the site of epidural catheter and epidural formulation. Postoperative duration of tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter by about 20% in the epidural analgesia group. The overall incidence of cardiovascular complication; myocardial infarction; acute respiratory failure (defined as an extended need for mechanical ventilation); gastrointestinal complication; and renal insufficiency was significantly lower in the epidural analgesia group, especially in trials that used thoracic epidural analgesia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia provides better pain relief (especially during movement) for up to three postoperative days. It reduces the duration of postoperative tracheal intubation by roughly 20%. The occurrence of prolonged postoperative mechanical ventilation, overall cardiac complication, myocardial infarction, gastric complication and renal complication was also reduced by epidural analgesia, especially thoracic. However, current evidence does not confirm the beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on postoperative mortality and other types of complications.

Review article: The role of anticonvulsant drugs in postoperative pain management: a bench-to-bedside perspective

PURPOSE

Anticonvulsant drugs are effective in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain but were not, until recently, thought to be useful in more acute conditions such as postoperative pain. However, similar to nerve injury, surgical tissue injury is known to produce neuroplastic changes leading to spinal sensitization and the expression of stimulus-evoked hyperalgesia and allodynia. Pharmacological effects of anticonvulsant drugs which may be important in the modulation of these postoperative neural changes include suppression of sodium channel, calcium channel and glutamate receptor activity at peripheral, spinal and supraspinal sites. The purpose of this article is to review preclinical evidence and clinical trial data describing the efficacy and safety of anticonvulsant drugs in the setting of postoperative pain management.

SOURCE

A Medline search was performed to retrieve available literature on the basic and clinical pharmacology of anticonvulsant drugs as they pertain to postoperative pain management.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Numerous laboratory studies have described analgesic effects of different anticonvulsant drugs in experimental pain models. Furthermore, several recent clinical trials have shown that anticonvulsants may reduce spontaneous and movement-evoked pain, as well as decrease opioid requirements postoperatively. Some early findings suggest further that anticonvulsant drugs may alleviate postoperative anxiety, accelerate postoperative functional recovery and reduce chronic postsurgical pain.

CONCLUSION

Given the incomplete efficacy of currently available non-opioid analgesics, and the identified benefits of opioid sparing, anticonvulsant medications may be useful adjuncts for postoperative analgesia. Further research in this field is warranted.

Regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia, morbidity and mortality

The regional versus general anaesthesia debate is an age-old debate that has brought about few clear answers. Most concur that multiple factors including the patient, the surgery, the method of regional and general anaesthesia, and the quality of perioperative care, all influence surgical outcome. In this age of evidence-based medicine, the heterogenous data available need to be reconciled with the advances in perioperative care and the significant decline in complications associated with the surgical process as a whole. This review considers general issues such as the type of available evidence, and its limitations, particularly with regard to the relatively broad question of neuraxial versus general anaesthesia. It then assesses current evidence on regional versus general anaesthesia for specific scenarios such as hip fracture surgery, carotid endarterectomy, Caesarean section, ambulatory orthopaedic surgery, and postoperative cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients after non-cardiac surgery.

Cardiac risk reduction in non-cardiac surgery: the role of anaesthesia and monitoring techniques

Cardiac complications are the major cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. This is related to the frequent presence of underlying coronary artery disease. In the last few decades, attention has focused on preoperative cardiac risk assessment that may help to identify patients at increased cardiac risk for whom cardioprotective medication and, when indicated, coronary revascularization may improve perioperative outcome. On the other hand, less attention was given to the role of anaesthesia and monitoring techniques in the cardiac risk management of high-risk patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The aim of this review was to summarize the current evidence from published studies on the effect of the type of anaesthesia and monitoring techniques on perioperative cardiac outcome in non-cardiac surgery.

Anesthésie et réanimation pour chirurgie réglée de l'anévrisme de l'aorte abdominale

OBJECTIVES

Patient scheduled for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery carries a high risk of cardiac or respiratory comorbidity. To outline the perioperative management for these patients.

METHODS

Review of the literature using MesH Terms "abdominal aortic aneurysm", "anesthesia", "analgesia" "critical care" and/or "surgery" in Medline database.

RESULTS

Cardiac preoperative evaluation and management have recently been reviewed. Intermediate and high-risk patients should undergo non-invasive cardiac testing to decide between a preoperative medical strategy (using betablocker+/-statin and aspirin) and an interventional strategy (coronary angioplasty or cardiac surgery). Perioperative myocardial ischaemia should also be investigated by clinical, electrocardiographic and biologic monitoring such as plasmatic troponin Ic dosage. Specific score could also assess the respiratory failure risk preoperatively. Epidural analgesia decreases this risk. There is no evidence that a pharmacological treatment decreases the incidence of acute renal failure after aortic surgery. Endovascular repair is actually recommended for older, higher-risk patients or patients with a hostile abdomen or other technical factors that may complicate standard open repair.

Does the evidence support the use of spinal and epidural anesthesia for surgery?

When spinal and epidural anesthesia were introduced into clinical practice, their primary use was as an alternative to general anesthesia. Later, largely as a result of the realization that opioids could be safely and effectively used to produce selective spinal analgesia, spinal and epidural (neuraxial) analgesia began to be used specifically for the treatment of perioperative pain. We present a systematic review of the literature on neuraxial anesthesia and analgesia, new meta-analyses that illustrate the powerful effect of improvements in perioperative safety in general on the ability of neuraxial techniques to make a difference, and a consideration of why a literature analysis does not provide clear answers.

Influence of anaesthetic and analgesic techniques on outcome after surgery

Postoperative symptoms and complications can be prevented by a suitable choice of anaesthetic and analgesic technique for specific procedures. The aim of analgesic protocols is not only to reduce pain intensity but also to decrease the incidence of side-effects from analgesic agents and to improve patient comfort. Moreover, adequate pain control is a prerequisite for the use of rehabilitation programmes to accelerate recovery from surgery. Thus, combining opioid and/or non-opioid analgesics with regional analgesic techniques not only improves analgesic efficacy but also reduces opioid demand and side-effects such as nausea and vomiting, sedation, and prolongation of postoperative ileus. Although all attempts to demonstrate that regional anaesthesia and analgesia decrease postoperative mortality are unsuccessful, there is evidence supporting a reduction in pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery, and an improvement in patient rehabilitation after orthopaedic surgery. When such techniques are used, cost-benefit analysis should be considered to determine suitable analgesic protocols for specific surgical procedures.

Anesthesia Technique and Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Anesthetic techniques vary widely in the endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of using local anesthesia. However, the ideal anesthetic technique has not been determined. This study examines whether anesthetic technique influences the outcomes of EVAR. Data regarding demographics, risk factors, procedural characteristics, recovery characteristics, treatment complications, acute (<30 day) medical complications, mortality, and anesthetic type were prospectively collected during the AneuRx phase II aortic endograft trial. Patient cohorts receiving general, regional, or local anesthesia were compared. From 1997 to 1998, 424 patients underwent EVAR at 13 sites using the AneuRx Bifurcated endograft. There were 279 patients in the general anesthesia group, 95 patients in the regional group, and 50 patients in the local group. Risk factors were similar. There were no significant differences in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, length of anesthesia, branch artery occlusions, proximal endoleaks, failed implants, or open surgical conversions. Cardiac, renal, and wound-healing complications were all lower in the local group. Mortality was equivalent among the three groups. (p > 0.05, ANOVA). From these results we concluded that EVAR with local anesthesia is a safe and efficacious method that may reduce recovery times and postoperative medical morbidity compared to use of general or spinal/epidural anesthesia.

Strategies in the high-risk cardiac patient undergoing non-cardiac surgery

The risk of perioperative myocardial infarction or cardiac death in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery may be estimated by clinical risk factor analysis and by myocardial stress testing. While stress testing modalities accurately delineate reversible myocardial ischaemia, their positive predictive value is low, and it is not clear whether their implementation improves outcome when compared to risk stratification alone. Similarly, it remains to be shown that preoperative coronary revascularization is an effective strategy in reducing perioperative risk. Recent reports indicate that surgery undertaken in the first weeks after percutaneous coronary interventions may be associated with a significantly increased rate of major complications. Administration of beta-blockers and alpha2-adrenergic agonists to high-risk patients reduces surgical morbidity and mortality, and the benefits observed with beta-blockers may extend long after the operative period. In high-risk patients undergoing major surgery, pulmonary artery catheter-guided haemodynamic optimization has not been associated with better outcomes, whereas use of regional anesthetic techniques decreases the incidence of postoperative pulmonary, but not cardiac, complications.

Effect of adding dopexamine to intraoperative volume expansion in patients undergoing major elective abdominal surgery † †This article is accompanied by the Editorial

BACKGROUND

The contribution of low-dose dopexamine to outcome, when given to increase cardiac output in patients already treated with fluids during major abdominal surgery, is not yet known.

METHOD

We carried out a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. All 100 patients studied were given fluid infusions during surgery guided by stroke volume measurements made with an oesophageal Doppler probe. Patients were randomized to receive dopexamine at the rate of 0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1) or saline 0.9% (control) for the first 24 h after the start of surgery. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between groups in the incidence of postoperative complications, the length of hospital stay, the incidence of morbidity and the use of critical care facilities. The patients randomized to receive dopexamine had significantly more pre-existing disease than the control patients. Mortality in both groups was significantly less than predicted by the POSSUM (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity) risk prediction score.

CONCLUSION

We could not demonstrate an advantage to using low-dose dopexamine in high-risk patients during major abdominal surgery.

Cardiac complications after elective major vascular surgery

Cardiac complications are the major cause of perioperative and late mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing elective major vascular surgery. This review focuses on the pathophysiology of perioperative complications, risk assessment and risk reduction strategies, all related to cardiovascular disease. Patients without cardiac risk factors are considered to be at low risk and no additional evaluation for coronary artery disease is recommended; beta-adrenergic blockers may reduce perioperative cardiac events; patients with one or more risk factors represent an intermediate to high-risk population. beta-Adrenergic blockers should be prescribed to all patients and coronary revascularization should be reserved for patients who have a clearly defined need for revascularization independent of the need for vascular surgery.

The relationship between movement-evoked versus spontaneous pain and peak expiratory flow after abdominal hysterectomy

The pathogenesis of postoperative lung dysfunction implies a role for movement-evoked pain (e.g., splinting/hypoventilation because of pain avoidance). However, interactions between evoked pain and respiratory physiology are poorly understood. Thus, we examined the relationship between evoked versus spontaneous pain and one index of pulmonary function. In 25 patients having undergone a hysterectomy, visual analog scale ratings (100 mm) for spontaneous pain (REST) and pain during sitting (SIT), forced expiration (BLOW), and coughing (COUGH) were measured together with peak expiratory flow (PEF) at eight time points during postoperative Days 1 and 2. Secondary outcome measures included oxygen saturation and oxygen requirements. Pain was significantly correlated with PEF for COUGH, SIT, BLOW, and REST at eight, seven, four, and two of the eight studied time points, respectively. Mean visual analog scale scores [SE] for COUGH (26.1 mm [1.7]) and SIT (21.5 mm [1.5]) were greater (P < 0.05) than REST (10.5 mm [0.8]), and COUGH was greater (P < 0.05) than BLOW (16.8 mm [1.3]). All pain measures diminished (P < 0.05), and PEF reductions improved (P < 0.05) across the study period. We hypothesize that the consistent negative correlation of COUGH-evoked pain with PEF is, in part, caused by avoidance of coughing, which ultimately limits deep inspiration, lung reexpansion, and clearance of secretions.

IMPLICATIONS

Movement-evoked pain may be an important contributor to postoperative complications, but its mechanisms are poorly understood. This study provides the first evidence that postoperative evoked pain correlates with lung function and highlights the need for future research on mechanisms and implications of this phenomenon.

Modulation of beta-adrenergic receptor subtype activities in perioperative medicine: mechanisms and sites of action

This review focuses on the mechanisms and sites of action underlying beta-adrenergic antagonism in perioperative medicine. A large body of knowledge has recently emerged from basic and clinical research concerning the mechanisms of the life-saving effects of beta-adrenergic antagonists (beta-AAs) in high-risk cardiac patients. This article re-emphasizes the mechanisms underlying beta-adrenergic antagonism and also illuminates novel rationales behind the use of perioperative beta-AAs from a biological point of view. Particularly, it delineates new concepts of beta-adrenergic signal transduction emerging from transgenic animal models. The role of the different characteristics of various beta-AAs is discussed, and evidence will be presented for the selection of one specific agent over another on the basis of individual drug profiles in defined clinical situations. The salutary effects of beta-AAs on the cardiovascular system will be described at the cellular and molecular levels. Beta-AAs exhibit many effects beyond a reduction in heart rate, which are less known by perioperative physicians but equally desirable in the perioperative care of high-risk cardiac patients. These include effects on core components of an anaesthetic regimen, such as analgesia, hypnosis, and memory function. Despite overwhelming evidence of benefit, beta-AAs are currently under-utilized in the perioperative period because of concerns of potential adverse effects and toxicity. The effects of acute administration of beta-AAs on cardiac function in the compromised patient and strategies to counteract potential adverse effects will be discussed in detail. This may help to overcome barriers to the initiation of perioperative treatment with beta-AAs in a larger number of high-risk cardiac patients undergoing surgery.

Epidural analgesia reduces postoperative myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis

Postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality continue to pose considerable risks to surgical patients. Postoperative epidural analgesia is considered to have beneficial effects on cardiac outcomes. The use in high-risk cardiac patients remains controversial. No study has shown that postoperative epidural analgesia decreases postoperative myocardial infarction (PMI) or death. All studies are underpowered to show such a result, and the cost of conducting a large trial is prohibitive. We performed a metaanalysis to determine whether postoperative epidural analgesia continued for more than 24 h after surgery reduces PMI or in-hospital death. The available databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of epidural analgesia that was extended at least 24 h into the postoperative period. The search yielded 17 studies, of which 11 were randomized controlled trials comprising 1173 patients. Metaanalysis was conducted by using the fixed-effects model, calculating both an odds ratio and a rate difference. Postoperative epidural analgesia resulted in better analgesia for the first 24 h after surgery. The rate of PMI was 6.3%, with lower rates in the Epidural group (rate difference, -3.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.4%, -0.2%; P = 0.049). The frequency of in-hospital death was 3.3%, with no significant difference between Epidural and Nonepidural groups (rate difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -3.8%, 1.2%, P = 0.091). Subgroup analysis of postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia showed a significant reduction in PMI in the Epidural group (rate difference, -5.3%; 95% CI, -9.9%, -0.7%; P = 0.04).

IMPLICATIONS

Postoperative epidural analgesia, especially thoracic epidural analgesia, continued for more than 24 h reduces postoperative myocardial infarctions.

[Locoregional neuraxial anesthesia as used in vascular surgery]

OBJECTIVES

Neuraxial blockade (spinal or epidural anesthesia) is still widely used in patients undergoing vascular surgery. However, the combined administration of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents may compromise the safety of this technique with regards to the potential occurrence of a spinal or of an epidural hematoma. We review the benefits and risks of neuraxial blockade in light of the evolution of anticoagulation for vascular surgery.

MAIN FINDINGS

Vascular surgery generally requires a high level of intraoperative anticoagulation. An increasing number of patients are also treated pre and post-operatively with antiplatelet agents. Their administration cannot be interrupted without serious risks to the patients' cardiovascular system and, further their continued use during surgery may improve graft permeability. Recent reports have emphasized the danger of neuraxial anesthesia in patients receiving low dose anticoagulation. So, high doses of heparins should carry an ever higher risk of serious complications in patients undergoing neuraxial blockade. Furthermore, no published data has ever demonstrated convincingly the benefit of either epidural or spinal anesthesia over general anesthesia. No differences have ever been documented in terms of cardio-vascular morbidity, graft patency, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Routine neuraxial blockade cannot be recommended in patients undergoing vascular surgery. The decision to perform a neuraxial block in such a patient may only be taken on a case by case basis, after careful consideration of expected benefits and potential risks.

Postoperative pain relief using thoracic epidural analgesia: outstanding success and disappointing failures

Six hundred and forty patients received epidural analgesia for postoperative pain relief following major surgery in the 6-year period 1993-1998. Although satisfactory pain relief was achieved in over two-thirds of patients for a median duration of 44 h after surgery, one-fifth of patients (133 individuals) still experienced poor pain relief. Almost one out of three patients (194 individuals) had a problem with their epidural. Eighty-three patients (13%) suffered a technical failure and 84 (13%) patients had their epidurals removed at night time when pain-free because of pressure on beds. Seven patients had their epidural replaced and subsequently experienced excellent pain relief for a median of 77 h. Lack of resources prevented a further 480 patients from receiving the potential benefits of epidural analgesia. These results would suggest that the practical problems of delivering an epidural service far outweigh any differences in drug regimens or modes of delivery of epidural solutions.

[Locoregional neuraxial anesthesia and vascular surgery: the benefits]

PURPOSE

To assess the advantages of neuraxial blockade (NB) during and after vascular surgery and to confront them with the risk of epidural or spinal hematoma.

MAIN FINDINGS

NB may reduce the risk of thrombotic occlusion following lower extremity vascular reconstruction. This effect of NB may be attributed to reduced hypercoagulability, decreased peripheral resistance and increased graft flow. In patients under general anesthesia, only those authors using an aggressive perioperative management (pulmonary artery catheter monitoring, intensive care unit admission) were able to report grafts patency rates similar to those obtained with NB. NB facilitates the modulation of the hemodynamic and hormonal stress responses during the perioperative period. It also produces superior postoperative analgesia. Still, the impact of NB on cardiac morbidity following aortic reconstructive surgery remains open to debate. Only very few cases of epidural hematomas associated to NB following vascular surgery have been reported. They implicated patients who received either fibrinolytic medication, continuous heparin infusion, or both. Low molecular weight heparins may increase the risk or epidural hematoma and, should their administration become more frequent during vascular surgery, the safety of NB would then have to be reassessed.

CONCLUSION

NB during vascular surgery is a safe and well-established practice. It offers many theoretical and demonstrated advantages. NB is particularly beneficial and economical for lower extremity vascular reconstruction. Still, NB may not be the best approach if the administration of fibrinolityc medication or prolonged heparin infusion is contemplated.

Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials

OBJECTIVES

To obtain reliable estimates of the effects of neuraxial blockade with epidural or spinal anaesthesia on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

DESIGN

Systematic review of all trials with randomisation to intraoperative neuraxial blockade or not.

STUDIES

141 trials including 9559 patients for which data were available before 1 January 1997. Trials were eligible irrespective of their primary aims, concomitant use of general anaesthesia, publication status, or language. Trials were identified by extensive search methods, and substantial amounts of data were obtained or confirmed by correspondence with trialists.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All cause mortality, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, transfusion requirements, pneumonia, other infections, respiratory depression, and renal failure.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was reduced by about a third in patients allocated to neuraxial blockade (103 deaths/4871 patients versus 144/4688 patients, odds ratio=0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.90, P=0. 006). Neuraxial blockade reduced the odds of deep vein thrombosis by 44%, pulmonary embolism by 55%, transfusion requirements by 50%, pneumonia by 39%, and respiratory depression by 59% (all P<0.001). There were also reductions in myocardial infarction and renal failure. Although there was limited power to assess subgroup effects, the proportional reductions in mortality did not clearly differ by surgical group, type of blockade (epidural or spinal), or in those trials in which neuraxial blockade was combined with general anaesthesia compared with trials in which neuraxial blockade was used alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuraxial blockade reduces postoperative mortality and other serious complications. The size of some of these benefits remains uncertain, and further research is required to determine whether these effects are due solely to benefits of neuraxial blockade or partly to avoidance of general anaesthesia. Nevertheless, these findings support more widespread use of neuraxial blockade.