WITHDRAWN: Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery

Analysis of the postoperative hemostatic profile of colorectal cancer patients subjected to liver metastasis resection surgery

BACKGROUND

Liver resection surgery has advanced greatly in recent years, and the adoption of fasttrack programs has yielded good results. Combination anesthesia (general anesthesia associated to epidural analgesia) is an anesthetic-analgesic strategy commonly used for the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery of this kind, though there is controversy regarding the coagulation alterations it may cause and which can favor the development of spinal hematomas.

AIM

To study the postoperative course of liver resection surgery, an analysis was made of the outcomes of liver resection surgery due to colorectal cancer metastases in our centre in terms of morbiditymortality and hospital stay according to the anesthetic technique used (general vs combination anesthesia).

METHODS

A prospective study was made of 61 colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery due to liver metastases under general and combination anesthesia between January 2014 and October 2015. The patient characteristics, intraoperative variables, postoperative complications, evolution of hemostatic parameters, and stay in intensive care and in hospital were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included in two homogeneous groups: general anesthesia (n = 30) and combination anesthesia (general anesthesia associated to epidural analgesia) (n = 31). All patients had normal coagulation values before surgery. The international normalized ratio (INR) in both the general and combination anesthesia groups reached maximum values at 2448 h (mean 1.37 and 1.45 vs 1.39 and 1.41, respectively), followed by a gradual decrease. There was less intraoperative bleeding in the combination anesthesia group (769 mL) than in the general anesthesia group (1200 mL) (P < 0.05). Of the 61 patients, 38.8% in the general anesthesia group experienced some respiratory complication vs 6.6% in the combination anesthesia group (P < 0.001). The time to gastrointestinal tolerance was significantly correlated to the type of anesthesia, though not so the stay in critical care or the time to hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Epidural analgesia in liver resection surgery was seen to be safe, with good results in terms of pain control and respiratory complications, and with no associated increase in complications secondary to altered hemostasis.

Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra-abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra-abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to update and expand a previously published Cochrane Review on IVPCA versus CEA for pain after intra-abdominal surgery with the addition of the comparator PCEA. We have compared both forms of EA to IVPCA. Where appropriate we have performed subgroup analysis for CEA versus PCEA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017; Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to September 2017), and Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to September 2017) using a combination of MeSH and text words. We searched the following trial registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register in September 2017, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.We included only randomized controlled trials and used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEA or PCEA (or both) with IVPCA for postoperative pain relief in adults following intra-abdominal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JS and EY) independently identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction using a data extraction form. In cases of disagreement (three occasions) a third review author (MB) was consulted. We appraised each included study to assess the risk of bias as outlined in Section 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (1716 participants) in our review. There are 10 studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study. A total of 869 participants (51%) received EA and 847 (49%) received IVPCA. The EA trials included 16 trials with CEA (418 participants) and 16 trials with PCEA (451 participants). The studies included a broad range of surgical procedures (including hysterectomies, radical prostatectomies, Caesarean sections, colorectal and upper gastrointestinal procedures), a wide range of adult ages, and were performed in several different countries.Our pooled analyses suggested a benefit with regard to pain scores (using a visual analogue scale between 0 and 100) in favour of EA techniques at rest. The mean pain reduction at rest from waking to six hours after operation was 5.7 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 9.5; 7 trials, 384 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From seven to 24 hours, the mean pain reduction was 9.0 points (95% CI 4.6 to 13.4; 11 trials, 558 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From 24 hours the mean pain reduction was 5.1 points (95% CI 0.9 to 9.4; 7 trials, 393 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to high statistical heterogeneity, no pooled analysis was possible for the estimation of pain on movement at any time. Two single studies (one using CEA and one PCEA) reported lower pain scores with EA compared to IVPCA at 0 to 6 hours and 7 to 24 hours. At > 24 hours the results from 2 studies (both CEA) were conflicting.We found no difference in mortality between EA and IVPCA, although the only deaths reported were in the EA group (5/287, 1.7%). The risk ratio (RR) of death with EA compared to using IVPCA was 3.37 (95% CI 0.72 to 15.88; 9 trials, 560 participants; low-quality evidence).A single study suggested that the use of EA may result in fewer episodes of respiratory depression, with an RR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.69; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The successful placement of an epidural catheter can be technically challenging. The improvements in pain scores above were accompanied by an increase in the risk of failure of the analgesic technique with EA (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.45; 10 trials, 678 participants; moderate-quality evidence); the occurrence of pruritus (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.35; 8 trials, 492 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and episodes of hypotension requiring intervention (RR 7.13, 95% CI 2.87 to 17.75; 6 trials, 479 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an advantage of one technique over another for other adverse effects considered in this review (Venous thromboembolism with EA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.95; 2 trials, 101 participants; low-quality evidence); nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 10 trials, 645 participants; moderate-quality evidence); sedation requiring intervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; 4 trials, 223 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or episodes of desaturation to less than 90% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.37; 5 trials, 328 participants; moderate-quality evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The additional pain reduction at rest associated with the use of EA rather than IVPCA is modest and unlikely to be clinically important. Single-trial estimates provide low-quality evidence that there may be an additional reduction in pain on movement, which is clinically important. Any improvement needs to be interpreted with the understanding that the use of EA is also associated with an increased chance of failure to successfully institute analgesia, and an increased likelihood of episodes of hypotension requiring intervention and pruritus. We have rated the evidence as of moderate quality given study limitations in most of the contributing studies. Further large RCTs are required to determine the ideal analgesic technique. The 10 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

[Neuraxial anaesthesia and NOACs]

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular comorbidities in surgical patients are frequent and have a substantial impact on the postoperative outcome. Neuraxial blockades are able to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality. The increasing use of new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) requires a high level of attention, especially in patients undergoing neuraxial blockades or requiring postoperative analgesia.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this article is to present the benefit of neuraxial anaesthesia and analgesia in patients with cardiovascular risks and perioperative management of NOAC in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of the respective literature in PubMed during the last 25 years as well as presentation of the S1 guideline "Neuraxial anaesthesia and thrombo-embolic prophylaxis/antithrombotic medication" of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI).

RESULTS

Thoracic epidural anaesthesia and analgesia contribute to an improved outcome in surgical patients with high cardiovascular risk. In order to avoid severe complications in patients on NOACs undergoing neuraxial blockades the S1 guideline of the DGAI must be respected and close interdisciplinary consultations between anaesthetist, cardiologist and surgeon are mandatory.

CONCLUSION

In consideration of the respective guideline neuraxial blockades can be performed in cardiovascular risk patients on NOACs, since these techniques contribute to an improved postoperative outcome.

A Clinical Comparison of Intravenous and Epidural Local Anesthetic for Major Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia provides good pain control after many postoperative procedures, but it can lead to complications, has some contraindications, and occasionally fails. Intravenous lidocaine infusion has been suggested as an alternative. We assessed, in our clinical practice, the effects of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion compared with epidural analgesia for major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had received intravenous lidocaine (1 mg/kg per hour) perioperatively after a major abdominal surgery. We matched them with patients who had received epidural analgesia. We tested a joint hypothesis of noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption. We assigned a noninferiority margin of 1 point (on an 11-point numerical rating scale) difference in pain and a ratio [mean (lidocaine) / mean (epidural)] of 1.2 in opioid consumption, respectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen patients (108 in each group) were analyzed. Intravenous lidocaine was not inferior to epidural analgesia with respect to pain scores. Lidocaine infusion was inferior to epidural analgesia with respect to opioid consumption. Patients in the lidocaine group had fewer episodes of hypotension and less postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention. Patients receiving lidocaine also had earlier urinary catheter removal and earlier first gastrointestinal function. Daily mental status assessment was similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received systemic lidocaine infusions with the addition of PRN (as needed) opioids administered for breakthrough pain did not have clinically significant differences in pain scores on postoperative day 2 and beyond. Intravenous lidocaine infusion in major abdominal surgery was inferior to epidural analgesia with respect to opioid consumption. However, lidocaine was associated with improvements in several important aspects of recovery.

Continuous wound infiltration or epidural analgesia for pain prevention after hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery within an enhanced recovery program (POP-UP trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain prevention is essential for the recovery of surgical patients. Continuous (thoracic) epidural analgesia (CEA) is routinely practiced for major abdominal surgery, but evidence is conflicting on its benefits in this setting. Potential disadvantages of epidural analgesia are a) perioperative hypotension, frequently requiring additional intravenous fluid boluses or prolonged use of vasopressors; b) relatively high failure rates, with periods of inadequate analgesia; and c) the risk of rare but serious, at times persistent, neurologic complications (hematoma and abscess). In recent years, continuous (subfascial) wound infiltration (CWI) plus patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been suggested as a safe and reliable alternative, which does not have the previously mentioned disadvantages, but evidence from multicenter trials targeting a specific surgical population is lacking. We hypothesize that CWI+PCA is equally as effective as CEA, without the mentioned disadvantages.

METHODS/DESIGN

POP-UP is a randomized controlled noninferiority multicenter trial, recruiting adult patients scheduled for elective hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery via laparotomy in an enhanced recovery setting. A total of 102 patients are being randomly allocated to CWI+PCA or (P)CEA. Our primary endpoint is the Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS), a composite endpoint of pain intensity, opioid-related adverse effects and patient satisfaction, during postoperative days 1 to 5. Secondary endpoints include length of the hospital stay, number of patients with severe pain, and the use of rescue medication.

DISCUSSION

POP-UP is a pragmatic trial that will provide evidence of whether CWI+PCA is noninferior as compared to (P)CEA after elective hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery via laparotomy in an enhanced recovery setting. If this hypothesis is confirmed, this finding could contribute to more widespread implementation of this technique, especially when the described disadvantages of epidural analgesia are less often observed with CWI+PCA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NTR4948 (registry date 2 January 2015).

Thoracic Epidural analgesia versus Rectus Sheath Catheters for open midline incisions in major abdominal surgery within an enhanced recovery programme (TERSC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is recommended for post-operative pain relief in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery via a midline incision. However, the effectiveness of TEA is variable with high failure rates reported post-operatively. Common side effects such as low blood pressure and motor block can reduce mobility and hinder recovery, and a number of rare but serious complications can also occur following their use.Rectus sheath catheters (RSC) may provide a novel alternative approach to somatic analgesia without the associated adverse effects of TEA. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of both techniques in terms of pain relief, patient experience, post-operative functional recovery, safety and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a single-centre randomised controlled non-blinded trial, which also includes a nested qualitative study. Over a two-year period, 132 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery via a midline incision will be randomised to receive either TEA or RSC for post-operative analgesia. The primary outcome measures pain scores on moving from a supine to a sitting position at 24 hours post wound closure, and the patient experience between groups evaluated through in-depth interviews. Secondary outcomes include pain scores at rest and on movement at other time points, opiate consumption, functional recovery, morbidity and cost-effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first randomised controlled trial comparing thoracic epidurals to ultrasound-guided rectus sheath catheters in adults undergoing elective midline laparotomy. The standardised care provided by an Enhanced Recovery Programme makes this a comparison between two complex pain packages and not simply two analgesic techniques, in order to ascertain if RSC is a viable alternative to TEA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81223298 (16 January 2014).

Efficacy of intrathecal morphine combined with intravenous analgesia versus thoracic epidural analgesia after gastrectomy

PURPOSE

Epidural analgesia has been the preferred analgesic technique after major abdominal surgery. On the other hand, the combined use of intrathecal morphine (ITM) and intravenous patient controlled analgesia (IVPCA) has been shown to be a viable alternative approach for analgesia. We hypothesized that ITM combined with IVPCA is as effective as patient controlled thoracic epidural analgesia (PCTEA) with respect to postoperative pain control after conventional open gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-four patients undergoing conventional open gastrectomy due to gastric cancer were randomly allocated into the intrathecal morphine combined with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IT) group or patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia (EP) group. The IT group received preoperative 0.3 mg of ITM, followed by postoperative IVPCA. The EP group preoperatively underwent epidural catheterization, followed by postoperative PCTEA. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were assessed until 48 hrs after surgery. Adverse effects related to analgesia, profiles associated with recovery from surgery, and postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery were also evaluated.

RESULTS

This study failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of ITM-IVPCA (n=29) to PCTEA (n=30) with respect to VAS 24 hrs after surgery. Furthermore, the IT group consumed more fentanyl than the EP group did (1247.2±263.7 μg vs. 1048.9±71.7 μg, p<0.001). The IT group took a longer time to ambulate than the EP group (p=0.021) and had higher incidences of postoperative ileus (p=0.012) and pulmonary complications (p=0.05) compared with the EP group.

CONCLUSION

ITM-IVPCA is not as effective as PCTEA in patients undergoing gastrectomy, with respect to pain control, ambulation, postoperative ileus and pulmonary complications.