Co-existing liver disease increases the risk of postoperative thrombocytopenia in patients undergoing hepatic resection: implications for the risk of epidural hematoma associated with the removal of an epidural catheter

The effectiveness and outcomes of epidural analgesia in patients undergoing open liver resection: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Open liver resection necessitates a substantial upper abdominal inverted-L incision, resulting in severe pain and compromising patient recovery. Despite the efficacy of epidural analgesia in providing adequate postoperative analgesia, the potential epidural-related adverse effects should be carefully considered. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous epidural analgesia and intravenous analgesia in open liver resection.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted, collecting data from patients who underwent open liver resection between 2007 and 2017. Propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate confounding variables, with patients being matched in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores. The primary outcome was the comparison of postoperative morphine consumption at 24, 48, and 72 hours between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, postoperative outcomes, and epidural-related adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 612 patients were included, and after matching, there were 204 patients in each group. Opioid consumption at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively was statistically lower in the epidural analgesia group compared to the intravenous analgesia group (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in pain scores (p = 0.422). Additionally, perioperative hypotension requiring treatment, as well as nausea and vomiting, were significantly higher in the epidural analgesia group compared to the intravenous analgesia group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia is superior to intravenous morphine in terms of reducing postoperative opioid consumption within the initial 72 h after open liver resection. Nevertheless, perioperative hypotension, which necessitates management, should be approached with consideration and vigilance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ , NCT number: NCT06301932.

Effect of thoracic epidural anesthesia on postoperative outcome in major liver surgery: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Postoperative complications after major liver surgery are common. Thoracic epidural anesthesia may provide beneficial effects on postoperative outcome. We strove to compare postoperative outcomes in major liver surgery patients with and without thoracic epidural anesthesia.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study in a single university medical center. Patients undergoing elective major liver surgery between April 2012 and December 2016 were eligible for inclusion. We divided patients into two groups according to whether or not they had thoracic epidural anesthesia for major liver surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital length of stay, i.e., from day of surgery until hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative mortality and major postoperative complications. Additionally, we investigated the effect of thoracic epidural anesthesia on perioperative analgesia doses and the safety of thoracic epidural anesthesia.

RESULTS

Of 328 patients included in this study, 177 (54.3%) received thoracic epidural anesthesia. There were no clinically important differences in postoperative hospital length of stay (11.0 [7.00-17.0] vs. 9.00 [7.00-14.0] days, p = 0.316, primary outcome), death (0.0 vs. 2.7%, p = 0.995), or the incidence of postoperative renal failure (0.6 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.99), sepsis (0.0 vs. 1.3%, p = 0.21), or pulmonary embolism (0.6 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.59) between patients with or without thoracic epidural anesthesia. Perioperative analgesia doses - including the intraoperative sufentanil dose (0.228 [0.170-0.332] vs. 0.405 [0.315-0.565] μg·kg-1·h-1, p < 0.0001) - were lower in patients with thoracic epidural anesthesia. No major thoracic epidural anesthesia-associated infections or bleedings occurred.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis suggests that thoracic epidural anesthesia does not reduce postoperative hospital length of stay in patients undergoing major liver surgery - but it may reduce perioperative analgesia doses. Thoracic epidural anesthesia was safe in this cohort of patients undergoing major liver surgery. These findings need to be confirmed in robust clinical trials.

Reducing risk of spinal haematoma from spinal and epidural pain procedures

Background and aims:

Central neuraxial blocks (CNB: epidural, spinal and their combinations) and other spinal pain procedures can cause serious harm to the spinal cord in patients on antihaemostatic drugs or who have other risk-factors for bleeding in the spinal canal. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a practise advisory on how to reduce risk of spinal cord injury from spinal haematoma (SH) during CNBs and other spinal pain procedures. Scandinavian guidelines from 2010 are part of the background for this practise advisory.

Methods:

We searched recent guidelines, PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS and EMBASE for new and relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT), case-reports and original articles concerning benefits of neuraxial blocks, risks of SH due to anti-haemostatic drugs, patient-related risk factors, especially renal impairment with delayed excretion of antihaemostatic drugs, and specific risk factors related to the neuraxial pain procedures.

Results and recommendations:

Epidural and spinal analgesic techniques, as well as their combination provide superior analgesia and reduce the risk of postoperative and obstetric morbidity and mortality. Spinal pain procedure can be highly effective for cancer patients, less so for chronic non-cancer patients. We did not identify any RCT with SH as outcome. We evaluated risks and recommend precautions for SH when patients are treated with antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or fibrinolytic drugs, when patients’ comorbidities may increase risks, and when procedure-specific risk factors are present. Inserting and withdrawing epidural catheters appear to have similar risks for initiating a SH. Invasive neuraxial pain procedures, e.g. spinal cord stimulation, have higher risks of bleeding than traditional neuraxial blocks. We recommend robust monitoring routines and treatment protocol to ensure early diagnosis and effective treatment of SH should this rare but potentially serious complication occur.

Conclusions:

When neuraxial analgesia is considered for a patient on anti-haemostatic medication, with patient-related, or procedure-related risk factors, the balance of benefits against risks of bleeding is decisive; when CNB are offered exclusively to patients who will have a reduction of postoperative morbidity and mortality, then a higher risk of bleeding may be accepted. Robust routines should ensure appropriate discontinuation of anti-haemostatic drugs and early detection and treatment of SH.

Implications:

There is an on-going development of drugs for prevention of thromboembolic events following surgery and childbirth. The present practise advisory provides up-to-date knowledge and experts’ experiences so that patients who will greatly benefit from neuraxial pain procedures and have increased risk of bleeding can safely benefit from these procedures. There are always individual factors for the clinician to evaluate and consider. Increasingly it is necessary for the anaesthesia and analgesia provider to collaborate with specialists in haemostasis. Surgeons and obstetricians must be equally well prepared to collaborate for the best outcome for their patients suffering from acute or chronic pain. Optimal pain management is a prerequisite for enhanced recovery after surgery, but there is a multitude of additional concerns, such as early mobilisation, early oral feeding and ileus prevention that surgeons and anaesthesia providers need to optimise for the best outcome and least risk of complications.

Epidural anesthesia and analgesia in liver resection: Safety and effectiveness

OBJECTIVES

Perioperative epidural analgesia in liver resection provides optimal dynamic pain relief. Coagulation disorders occurring in the postoperative period can lead to greater risk of complications during epidural catheter removal. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and complications of epidural analgesia and delayed epidural catheter removal due to postoperative coagulopathy.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 114 patients undergoing open liver resection and epidural analgesia, from March 2012 to February 2015. Postoperative course of pain intensity, coagulation parameters and delayed catheter removal was analyzed RESULTS: Of the 114 operated patients, 73 met the inclusion criteria. 59% of patients received major hepatectomy (resection ≥ 3 segments) and 15% had Child's Class A cirrhosis (11/73). 96% of catheters functioned properly. 89% of patients had controlled pain (numerical rate scale <3) at rest and 8.2% (6 patients) had severe pain (numerical rate scale > 6) with movement. The INR peaked on postoperative day 2, 1.41 [0.99-2.30], and gradually returned to normal values in most patients by postoperative day 4, 1.26 [0.90 - 2.20]. The catheters were left in place 3.6 (± 1.1) days. In 6 patients (8%), catheter removal was postponed due to coagulation disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia for liver resection was a safe practice, which produced optimal control of postoperative pain. The percentage of delayed catheter removal due to postoperative coagulopathy was low, not requiring transfusion of blood products.