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

Could epidural analgesia be safely used for acute postoperative pain in older adults to enhance recovery?

Epidural analgesia is often considered cornerstone in multimodal analgesia when used in major surgeries. However, its role in managing acute postoperative pain in elderly patients is debatable because of its known potential complications. Furthermore, postoperative pain in elderly patients is under-treated because of complex comorbidities, and they are more prone to adverse events related to pain therapies. All systemic analgesic drugs have pharmacological limitations and precautions in elderly people. Recent meta-analyses showed that epidural analgesia provided better postoperative pain control compared to intravenous opioids. Interestingly, peripheral nerve blocks had no superior control of pain over epidural analgesia. In addition, epidural analgesia has shown to positively affect perioperative morbidities and mortalities, and reduce opioid-related side effects because of its non-analgesic effects on each organ system. When tailored in a specific multimodal approach, it shortens the intensive care and hospital stays. In conclusion, if complications are identified and treated early, and contraindications are ruled out, epidural analgesia can achieve sufficient postoperative pain management with insignificant adverse events in this population.

Intravenous versus epidural analgesia to reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal complications after elective pancreatoduodenectomy (the PAKMAN trial, DRKS 00007784): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Despite substantial improvements in surgical and anesthesiological practices leading to decreased mortality of less than 5 % at high-volume centers, pancreatic surgery is still associated with high morbidity rates of up to 50 %. Attention is increasingly directed toward the optimization of perioperative management to reduce complications and enhance postoperative recovery. Currently, two different strategies for postoperative pain management after pancreatoduodenectomy are being routinely used: patient-controlled intravenous analgesia and thoracic epidural analgesia. Evidence is lacking to assess which strategy entails fewer postoperative complications.

Methods/design

The PAKMAN trial is designed as an adaptive, pragmatic, randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label, superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 370 patients scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy will be randomized after giving written informed consent, and 278 patients are needed for analysis. Patients with chronic pancreatitis, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification ≥ IV, or chronic pain syndrome will be excluded. The group A intervention includes intraoperative general anesthesia and postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia; the group B intervention comprises combined intraoperative general anesthesia and epidural analgesia with postoperative epidural analgesia. The primary endpoint of this trial is a composite of the gastrointestinal complications (delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, biliary leak, gastrointestinal bleeding, and postoperative ileus) up to postoperative day 30. The aim is to investigate whether the frequency of gastrointestinal complications following pancreatoduodenectomy can be reduced by 15 % using postoperative, patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with epidural analgesia.

Discussion

Several previous studies investigating the two different strategies for postoperative pain management have mainly focused on their effectiveness in pain control. However, the PAKMAN trial is the first to compare them with regard to their impact on the surgical endpoint “postoperative gastrointestinal complications” after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00007784

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1306-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Experience of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Thoracic Epidural Anaesthesia: Retrospective Analysis of 96 Patients

OBJECTIVE

Although the traditional anaesthesia method for laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been general anaesthesia, regional anaesthesia techniques are also successfully used today. In this paper, we aimed to report our experiences with thoracic epidural anaesthesia, including complications, postoperative analgesia, technical difficulties and side effects.

METHODS

Between December 2009 and November 2012, 90 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were retrospectively analysed. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, comorbidities, duration of operations, medications and doses used for sedation were reviewed.

RESULTS

The gender distribution of patients were recorded as 15 males (15%) and 81 females (85%). The patients had an average age of 46.74±13.28, an average height of 162.50±5.57 cm and a mean weight of 73.57±12.48 kg. ASA classifications were distributed as follows: ASA I: 63 (65%) patients, ASA II 28 (29%) patients and ASA III: 5 patients. We recorded 3 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 14 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and 22 patients with hypertension who got their diagnosis in the perioperative visit. During the operation, three patients had bradycardia (heart rate 50 min(-1)), and atropine was applied. Ephedrine and fluid resuscitation had been applied to 3 patients for the treatment of intraoperative hypotension. Midazolam, ketamine hydrochloride and propofol were administered to patients for sedation during the operations. Thoracic epidural anaesthesia was performed at the level of T7 -9 intervertebral space with the patients in the sitting position. Patients were given oxygen by a face mask at a rate of 3-4 L min(-1). The pneumoperitoneum was created by giving carbon dioxide at the standard pressure of 12 mmHg into the abdominal cavity in all patients. If needed, postoperative analgesia was provided by epidural local anaesthetic administration.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic epidural anaesthesia can be applied as an alternative to general anaesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

A comparison of thoracic or lumbar patient-controlled epidural analgesia methods after thoracic surgery

Background

We aimed to compare patient-controlled thoracic or lumbar epidural analgesia methods after thoracotomy operations.

Methods

One hundred and twenty patients were prospectively randomized to receive either thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA group) or lumbar epidural analgesia (LEA group). In both groups, epidural catheters were administered. Hemodynamic measurements, visual analog scale scores at rest (VAS-R) and after coughing (VAS-C), analgesic consumption, and side effects were compared at 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 hours postoperatively.

Results

The VAS-R and VAS-C values were lower in the TEA group in comparison to the LEA group at 2, 4, 8, and 16 hours after surgery (for VAS-R, P = 0.001, P = 0.01, P = 0.008, and P = 0.029, respectively; and for VAS-C, P = 0.035, P = 0.023, P = 0.002, and P = 0.037, respectively). Total 24-hour analgesic consumption was different between groups (175 +/- 20 mL versus 185 +/- 31 mL; P = 0.034). The comparison of postoperative complications revealed that the incidence of hypotension (21/57, 36.8% versus 8/63, 12.7%; P = 0.002), bradycardia (9/57, 15.8% versus 2/63, 3.2%; P = 0.017), atelectasis (1/57, 1.8% versus 7/63, 11.1%; P = 0.04), and the need for intensive care unit (ICU) treatment (0/57, 0% versus 5/63, 7.9%; P = 0.03) were lower in the TEA group in comparison to the LEA group.

Conclusions

TEA has beneficial hemostatic effects in comparison to LEA after thoracotomies along with more satisfactory pain relief profile.

Regional anesthesia for acute pain management in elderly patients

Normal aging is a process that involves loss of functional reserve of most organ systems of the human body, most significantly: cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal and nervous systems. Advancements in both surgery and anesthesia have made it possible to operate more safely on the elderly population and those older patients with multiple severe co-morbidities that were not routinely possible in the recent past. Regional anesthesiologist have proven to be instrumental in this regard as regional anesthetic/analgesic techniques may now permit surgeons to operate on the elderly who were not ideal surgical candidates or unable to tolerate general anesthesia. In addition, regional techniques provide alternatives that may optimize acute pain control and reduce the incidence of devastating side effects during the perioperative period such as: myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, and also increases the opportunity to allow for early ambulation and shorter hospital stays. These anesthetic options now provide the elderly patient with better medical care alternatives, but also can show a significant financial impact on health care system resources. Further understanding on aging molecular biology, physiology and pathophysiology, together with technical improvements of regional anesthetic techniques will continue to make it safer and more efficacious to operate on the elderly population with evidence of reduced morbidity and mortality. Although there is only anecdotal evidence that regional anesthesia (RA) improves survival, there is little doubt that RA plays an important role in perioperative optimization of pain control and decreases pain management complications as well as a reduction in healthcare costs. Beyond traditional operating rooms, elderly patients may increasingly benefit from RA and acute pain management in Emergency Rooms, medical clinics and even within a patient’s home. Therefore, the focus of this review is directed toward geriatric patients and beneficial effects of RA on outcomes in the elderly.

Regional anesthesia and analgesia in critically ill patients: a systematic review

Regional anesthesia has become invaluable for the treatment of pain during and after a wide range of surgical procedures. However, its benefits in the nonsurgical setting have been less well studied. Regional anesthesia is an appealing modality for critically ill patients, providing focused and sustained pain control with beneficial systemic effect profiles. Indications for regional anesthesia in this patient group are not limited to surgical and postsurgical analgesia but expand to the management of trauma-related issues, medical conditions, and painful procedures at the bedside. Patients in the critical care unit present special challenges to the regional anesthesiologist, including coagulopathies, infections, immunocompromised states, sedation- and ventilation-associated problems, and factors potentially increasing the risk for systemic toxicity. This review is intended to evaluate the role of regional anesthesia in critically ill patients, to discuss potential benefits, and to provide a summary of the published evidence on the subject.

[Anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany: telephone-based survey]

INTRODUCTION

The last survey of anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted in 1999. Since then new organisational as well as therapeutic aspects have developed. Amongst others the operation and procedures key (OPS) figure 8-919 complex acute pain therapy has been introduced in the German medical billing system, with the restriction that it cannot currently be redeemed. There is an ongoing debate on the role of epidural analgesia in acute pain therapy and new oral medication concepts have been established. Therefore a survey of the present state of acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted.

METHODS

Based on a list of all 1,356 hospitals in Germany a randomized list of 412 hospitals was generated. Out of these 412 hospitals those with anesthesiology departments (378 hospitals) were contacted via telephone and asked to participate in the survey. Out of the 378 hospitals 285 (75.4 %) agreed to take part. The survey consisted of a questionnaire containing closed and open questions regarding organisational and therapeutic aspects of acute pain therapy. The ethics committee of the University of Regensburg rated the survey as not being subject to approval due to the lack of personal patient data.

RESULTS

Of the participating hospitals 183 (64.2 %) had an acute pain service (APS) and of these 107 (58.5 %) met the quality criteria of the OPS 8-919. This figure however, was only consistently documented by 40 (37 %) APSs. Epidural analgesia (EA) was offered by 275 (96.5 %) hospitals and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) by 255 (89.5 %). Likewise, 255 (89.5 %) hospitals used controlled-released opioids in acute pain therapy. Concerning EA, the medications most used were sufentanil as an opioid and ropivacaine as a local anesthetic in255 (92.7 %) of the hospitals with EA for sufentanil and 253 (92 %] for ropivacaine. An EA was offered on regular wards in 240 (87.3 %) hospitals. Uncertainty existed about concrete limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter. The opioid most utilized in PCA was piritramide with some hospitals using morphine or oxycodone (92.2 %, 9.4 % and 9.4 %, respectively). Other opioids, such as hydromorphone and tramadol were rarely used and remifentanil was not used at all. Oral medication was widely used with metamizole being the non-opioid analgesic and oxycodone/naloxone the controlled-release opioid being prescribed the most. New antiepileptic drugs, such as gabapentin or pregabalin were rarely employed in acute pain therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 1999 the number of hospitals that have implemented an APS has risen from 36.1 % to 64.2 %. The lack of consistent documentation of the OPS 8-919 will probably not increase the likelihood that it will become redeemable in the near future. Certain therapy methods, such as EA and PCA were still well established with oral therapy gaining in significance. The uncertainty regarding limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter could perhaps be reduced by a statement from the German Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care.

[Quality of postoperative pain therapy: evaluation of an established anesthesiology acute pain service]

BACKGROUND

Despite well-designed concepts of perioperative pain management, recent studies have revealed that a large number of patients still suffer from unacceptable pain after surgery. The purpose of this prospective evaluation was to critically analyze postoperative pain treatment provided by a routinely established, DIN certified acute pain service (APS) at the University Hospital Großhadern in Munich.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1,000 consecutive patients received one of the following analgesic procedures: continuous epidural analgesia (EA, n = 401), continuous and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA, n = 305), intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids (PCA, n = 169) or continuous peripheral nerve block (CPNB, n = 125). For EA and PCEA, ropivacaine 0.2 % and sufentanil 0.24 µg/ml were administered while peripheral regional analgesia was performed with infusion of ropivacaine 0.2 % only. Patients with PCEA were allowed a 3 mg bolus once per hour on demand. Standardized intravenous PCA was performed with piritramide 2.5 mg/ml, a bolus of 2.5 mg, a lock-out time of 15 min, a maximum of 25 mg/4 h and no background infusion. During the daily visits the APS assessed pain intensity at rest and during movement on a numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain), acceptance of pain, satisfaction with the analgesic procedure, demand of additional non-opioid analgesics, the need for optimization including bolus applications and changes of the infusion rate or retraction of the epidural catheter. The duration of the procedures, side effects and complications were documented. The catheter insertion sites were inspected daily for redness and tenderness on palpation.

RESULTS

In general, epidural and peripheral regional analgesic techniques were superior in terms of postoperative analgesia to intravenous opioid PCA and were associated with fewer side effects, such as sedation, nausea, vomiting, obstipation and sensorimotor deficits. A subgroup analysis revealed that in major upper abdominal surgery, EA provided significantly better analgesia at rest and during movement than PCA. In lower abdominal surgery PCEA induced significantly better analgesia than both PCA and EA, especially during movement. Patient satisfaction was generally high and was best with PCEA (95 %) followed by CPNB (94 %), EA (91 %) and PCA (88 %). On the first postoperative day analgesic procedures had to be optimized (e.g. by bolus administration, retraction of catheters or changes to standardized PCA) in 23 % of EA patients, 10 % of PCEA patients, 6 % of PCA patients and 12 % of CPNB patients. Major complications, such as neuraxial hematoma, infections or respiratory depression were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

As described in many prospective studies, this evaluation revealed that for postoperative pain control, regional anesthesia is superior to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with strong opioids in terms of analgesia and side effects. In the setting of a well-organized acute pain service with frequent education and training of all members involved, postoperative pain management is safe and effective. However, regular re-evaluation of the defined and certified procedures is necessary.

Perioperative cardioprotection

Although anaesthesia itself is now very safe, perioperative cardiac complications during non-cardiovascular surgery are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, because of the increasingly high underlying prevalence of cardiovascular disease. Fortunately, although there is no "magic bullet", pharmacological intervention can reduce the risk. In particular, current evidence strongly supports the use of aspirin and statins. Beta blockers may also be beneficial in higher risk groups but need to be titrated to effect, and their use requires careful consideration because of adverse effects in these patients.

Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE Choosing the best anesthetic technique for urological surgery with the aim of mortality reduction remains controversial. The objective here was to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING Systematic review, Universidade Federal de Alagoas. METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2012), Medline via PubMed (1966 to October 2012), Lilacs (1982 to October 2012), SciELO and EMBASE (1974 to October 2012). The reference lists of the studies included and of one systematic review in the same field were also analyzed. The studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that analyzed neuraxial anesthesia and general anesthesia for urological surgery. RESULTS The titles and abstracts of 2720 articles were analyzed. Among these, 16 studies were identified and 11 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One RCT was published twice. The study validity was: Jadad score > 3 in one RCT; seven RCTs with unclear risk of bias as the most common response; and five RCTs not fulfilling half of the Delphi list items. The frequency of mortality was not significant between study groups in three RCTs. Meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSION At the moment, the evidence available cannot prove that neuraxial anesthesia is more effective and safer than general anesthesia for urological surgery. There were insufficient data to pool the results relating to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, length of hospitalization, quality of life, degree of satisfaction, postoperative cognitive dysfunction and blood transfusion requirements.

Neuraxial anesthesia for orthopedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Taking the outcome of mortality into consideration, there is controversy about the beneficial effects of neuraxial anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for orthopedic surgery.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review at Universidade Federal de Alagoas.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 10, 2012), PubMed (1966 to November 2012), Lilacs (1982 to November 2012), SciELO, EMBASE (1974 to November 2012) and reference lists of the studies included. Only randomized controlled trials were included.

RESULTS

Out of 5,032 titles and abstracts, 17 studies were included. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (risk difference, RD: -0.01; 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.04 to 0.01; n = 1903), stroke (RD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.08; n = 259), myocardial infarction (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.02; n = 291), length of hospitalization (mean difference, -0.05; 95% CI: -0.69 to 0.58; n = 870), postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RD: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.05; n = 479) or pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.49; n = 167).

CONCLUSION

So far, the evidence available from the studies included is insufficient to prove that neuraxial anesthesia is more effective and safer than general anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. However, this systematic review does not rule out clinically important differences with regard to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, length of hospitalization, postoperative cognitive dysfunction or pneumonia.