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

How to Reduce Delayed Gastric Emptying After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The occurrence of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) following pancreatoduodenectomy is of high clinical relevance. Despite the pivotal nature of this topic, the existing evidence is limited and often conflicting. This meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of various interventions, such as the type of surgical reconstruction (specifically pylorus resection or preservation), enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), epidural anesthesia (EA), as well as strategies involving nasogastric decompression on DGE.

Methods

Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted. Studies that compared patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy regarding one of the following interventions were included: pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (ppPD) versus pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy (prPD), ERAS versus no ERAS, epidural anesthesia EA versus no EA, nasogastric decompression versus no nasogastric decompression and jejunostomy/nasojejunal feeding tube placement (J/NJF) versus no J/NJF.

Results

The analysis included 5930 patients from 29 studies. Patients undergoing ppPD exhibited a higher incidence of DGE compared with those undergoing prPD (logOR, -0.95; 95% CI = -1.57 to -0.34; P = 0.002). Additionally, patients in the ERAS group showed reduced rates of DGE (logOR, -0.712; 95% CI = -1.242 to -0.183; P = 0.008). Lower rates of DGE were observed in patients without a J/NJF (logOR, -0.618; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In summary, our meta-analysis reveals that pylorus resection, adherence to ERAS protocols, and the absence of a J/NJF are associated with lower rates of DGE after pancreatoduodenectomy. Although these results are partially based on observational studies, they contribute valuable insights to the current understanding of interventions impacting DGE in these complex procedures.

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Is Not Associated With Improved Survival After Pancreatic Surgery: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Randomized Controlled PAKMAN Trial

BACKGROUND

Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are common forms of analgesia after pancreatic surgery. Current guidelines recommend EDA over PCIA, and evidence suggests that EDA may improve long-term survival after surgery, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative EDA is associated with an improved patient prognosis compared to PCIA in pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

The PAKMAN trial was an adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial conducted from June 2015 to October 2017. Three to five years after index surgery a long-term follow-up was performed from October 2020 to April 2021.

RESULTS

For long-term follow-up of survival, 109 patients with EDA were compared to 111 patients with PCIA after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Long-term follow-up of quality of life (QoL) and pain assessment was available for 40 patients with EDA and 45 patients with PCIA (questionnaire response rate: 94%). Survival analysis revealed that EDA, when compared to PCIA, was not associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR, 1.176, 95% HR-CI, 0.809-1.710, P = .397, n = 220). Likewise, recurrence-free survival did not differ between groups (HR, 1.116, 95% HR-CI, 0.817-1.664, P = .397, n = 220). OS subgroup analysis including only patients with malignancies showed no significant difference between EDA and PCIA (HR, 1.369, 95% HR-CI, 0.932-2.011, P = .109, n = 179). Similar long-term effects on QoL and pain severity were observed in both groups (EDA: n = 40, PCIA: n = 45).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this long-term follow-up of the PAKMAN randomized controlled trial do not support favoring EDA over PCIA in pancreatic surgery. Until further evidence is available, EDA and PCIA should be considered similar regarding long-term survival.

Narcotic sparing postoperative analgesic strategies after pancreatoduodenectomy: analysis of practice patterns for 1004 patients

BACKGROUND

Improved post-operative outcomes have been demonstrated in gastrointestinal procedures where a narcotic sparing strategy has been utilized. Data for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) patients is limited. This study reviews an institutional database for outcomes based on initial analgesic strategy.

METHODS

1004 consecutive patients who underwent PD at Emory University between 2010 and 2017, were included in the analysis. Patients were divided into groups based on primary analgesic strategy employed: epidural alone (EPI), patient controlled opiate analgesia (PCA), dual (dual-PCA/EPI) and other (non-PCA/EPI). Postoperative outcomes for each group were analyzed utilizing univariate and multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

448 (44.6%) patients were treated with EPI, 300 (29.9%) were given a PCA, 78 (7.8%) had dual-PCA/EPI and 178 (17.7%) had non-PCA/EPI analgesia. On univariate analysis, increased BMI (p = 0.030), PCA use (p < 0.001), venous thromboembolism (VTE) (p < 0.001), post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (p < 0.001) and Ileus/delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (p < 0.001) were all correlated with increased LOS. On multivariate linear regression, VTE (b-coefficient 9.07, p = 0.004) POPF (8.846, p = 0.001), Ileus/DGE (4.464, p = 0.004) and PCA use (1.75, p = 0.003) were associated with significantly increased LOS.

CONCLUSION

A primary narcotic sparing strategy is associated with a significantly reduced LOS and lower rates of Ileus/DGE. Mean opiate usage was significantly lower in the EPI and non-EPI/PCA groups.

Epidural Versus Transabdominal Wall Catheters: A Comparative Study of Outcomes After Pancreatic Resection

BACKGROUND

This study compared epidural analgesia with local anesthetic administration via transabdominal wall catheters (TAWC), to determine the effect on perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing open pancreatic surgery at Auckland City Hospital from 2015 to 2018 was undertaken. Data collected included patient demographics, type of perioperative analgesia, intravenous fluid and vasopressor use, length of high dependency unit stay, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients underwent pancreatic surgery, of which 47 had epidural analgesia and 25 TAWC. The median age was 64 y (range 29-85). Failure of analgesia method occurred in 45% of epidural patients and 28% of TAWC patients (P = 0.209). There was no significant difference in volume of intravenous fluid given or need for vasopressors in the first 3 postoperative days, length of high dependency unit stay (median 1 d, P = 0.2836), rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (32% versus 40%, P = 0.6046), postoperative complications (38% versus 20%, P = 0.183), or mortality (0.04% versus 0.04%, P = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia and TAWC may have comparable perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Further randomized studies with a larger cohort of patients are warranted to identify the best postoperative analgesic method in patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain and recovery in hepatectomy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The randomized controlled study aimed to examine the efficacy of preoperative ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane (ESP) block combined with ropivacaine in patients undergoing hepatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients were randomized to ESP block group receiving ropivacaine (Group A) and control group (Group B), n = 30 per group. Visual analog scale (VAS) was recorded in both the groups during rest and movement at the various time intervals. Both the groups were also compared for time to initial anal exhaust, analgesic usage, early postoperative complications and side-effects, walk distance after the operation, time to out-of-bed activity, and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the demographic characteristics. For group A, when compared to group B, VAS scores during rest and movement within post-operative 24 hours were decreased, the time of first anus exhaust and ambulation were earlier, analgesic consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting and headache was reduced, the duration of hospital stay were shorter with longer walk distance.

CONCLUSION

ESP block combined with ropivacaine treatment effectively reduced early postoperative pain and improved recovery after hepatectomy.

Gastrointestinal Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy With Epidural vs Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Morbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications.

Objective

To determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol.

Interventions

Patients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution.

Results

Among the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784.

Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy

Background

The optimal analgesic technique after pancreatoduodenectomy remains under debate. This study aimed to see whether epidural analgesia (EA) has superior clinical outcomes compared with non-epidural alternatives (N-EA) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

Methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. On 28 August 2018, relevant literature databases were searched. Primary outcomes were pain scores. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure of initial analgesia, complications, duration of hospital stay and mortality.

Results

Three RCTs and eight cohort studies (25 089 patients) were included. N-EA treatments studied were: intravenous morphine, continuous wound infiltration, bilateral paravertebral thoracic catheters and intrathecal morphine. Patients receiving EA had a marginally lower pain score on days 0-3 after surgery than those receiving intravenous morphine (mean difference (MD) -0·50, 95 per cent c.i. -0·80 to -0·21; P < 0·001) and similar pain scores to patients who had continuous wound infiltration. Treatment failure occurred in 28·5 per cent of patients receiving EA, mainly for haemodynamic instability or inadequate pain control. EA was associated with fewer complications (odds ratio (OR) 0·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·06 to 0·79; P < 0·001), shorter duration of hospital stay (MD -2·69 (95 per cent c.i. -2·76 to -2·62) days; P < 0·001) and lower mortality (OR 0·69, 0·51 to 0 93; P = 0·02) compared with intravenous morphine.

Conclusion

EA provides marginally lower pain scores in the first postoperative days than intravenous morphine, and appears to be associated with fewer complications, shorter duration of hospital stay and less mortality.

Surgical approach and the impact of epidural analgesia on survival after esophagectomy for cancer: A population-based retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer carries high morbidity and mortality, particularly in older patients. Transthoracic esophagectomy allows formal lymphadenectomy, but leads to greater perioperative morbidity and pain than transhiatal esophagectomy. Epidural analgesia may attenuate the stress response and be less immunosuppressive than opioids, potentially affecting long-term outcomes. These potential benefits may be more pronounced for transthoracic esophagectomy due to its greater physiologic impact. We evaluated the impact of epidural analgesia on survival and recurrence after transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients aged ≥66 years with locoregional esophageal cancer diagnosed 1994-2009 who underwent esophagectomy were identified, with follow-up through December 31, 2013. Epidural receipt and surgical approach were identified from Medicare claims. Survival analyses adjusting for hospital esophagectomy volume, surgical approach, and epidural use were performed. A subgroup analysis restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma patients was performed.

RESULTS

Among 1,921 patients, 38% underwent transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 730) and 62% underwent transthoracic esophagectomy (n = 1,191). 61% (n = 1,169) received epidurals and 39% (n = 752) did not. Epidural analgesia was associated with transthoracic approach and higher volume hospitals. Patients with epidural analgesia had better 90-day survival. Five-year survival was higher with transhiatal esophagectomy (37.2%) than transthoracic esophagectomy (31.0%, p = 0.006). Among transthoracic esophagectomy patients, epidural analgesia was associated with improved 5-year survival (33.5% epidural versus 26.5% non-epidural, p = 0.012; hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.70, 0.93]). Among the subgroup of esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, epidural analgesia remained associated with improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.96]); this survival benefit persisted in sensitivity analyses adjusting for propensity to receive an epidural.

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, including a subgroup restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma, epidural analgesia was associated with improved survival even after adjusting for other factors.

[Evidence-based perioperative medicine]

Perioperative medical interventions are an integral part of modern surgical management. In addition to the main manual aspects of surgical interventions, surgeons must also be familiar with preoperative and postoperative medical interventions. This ranges from the indications for perioperative anticoagulation, handling of drainage, adjusting the perioperative analgesia, prescribing an antibiotic prophylaxis to deciding whether a preoperative bowel preparation is necessary. Therefore, this article exemplifies some areas in perioperative medicine. Based on the best available evidence, it should always be critically assessed whether these perioperative interventions really contribute to the success of the treatment.

Epidural and Non-epidural Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Open Pancreatectomy: a Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The use of epidural analgesia (EA) in pancreatic surgery remains under debate. This study compares patients treated with EA versus non-EA after open pancreatectomy in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

All patients undergoing open pancreatectomy from 2013 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. (Non-)EA was terminated on postoperative day (POD) 3 or earlier if required.

RESULTS

In total, 190 (72.5%) patients received EA and 72 (27.5%) patients received non-EA (mostly intravenous morphine). EA was terminated prematurely in 32.6% of patients and non-EA in 10.5% of patients. Compared with non-EA patients, EA patients had significantly lower pain scores on POD 0 (1.10 (0-3.00) versus 3.00 (1.67-5.00), P < 0.001) and POD 1 (2.00 (0.50-3.41) versus 3.00 (2.00-3.80), P = 0.001), though significantly higher pain scores on POD 3 (3.00 (2.00-4.00) versus 2.33 (1.50-4.00), P < 0.001) and POD 4 (2.50 (1.50-3.67) versus 2.00 (0.50-3.00), P = 0.007). EA patients required more vasoactive medication perioperatively and had higher cumulative fluid balances on POD 1-3. Postoperative complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, patients with EA experienced significantly lower pain scores in the first PODs compared with non-EA, yet higher pain scores after EA had been terminated. Although EA patients required more vasoactive medication and fluid therapy, the complication rate was similar.

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.