Retrospective analysis of the incidence of epidural haematoma in patients with epidural catheters and abnormal coagulation parameters.

BACKGROUND: Epidural haematoma is a rare but potentially catastrophic complication associated with epidural catheterization. The times of insertion and removal of epidural catheters are high-risk periods for epidural haematoma formation, especially with abnormal coagulation parameters. There is a lack of data on the incidence of epidural haematoma in patients with abnormal coagulation parameters. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken from 2002 to 2009 on patients with an epidural catheter. Queries were performed on the coagulation parameters for the dates of placement and removal of the catheters and on all documented epidural haematoma cases. RESULTS: During the study period, 11 600 epidural catheters were placed. In the setting of abnormal coagulation parameters, 278 (2.4%) epidural catheters were placed and 351 (3%) were removed. Two epidural haematomas occurred; both patients had epidural catheters and spinal drains placed for vascular procedures with abnormal coagulation parameters after operatation. The haematomas occurred after removal of the catheters. Based on our study, the incidence of epidural haematoma in patients with abnormal coagulation parameters is 1 in 315 patients, with the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval at 87 and the upper limit at 2597. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of epidural haematoma is clearly elevated with abnormal coagulation parameters. Our data suggest that as the incidence of epidural haematoma with neuraxial access in patients with abnormal coagulation is not 100%, individual risk-benefit evaluations are warranted.

Development and longitudinal validation of the overall benefit of analgesia score: a simple multi-dimensional quality assessment instrument.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to develop and validate the overall benefit of analgesic score (OBAS), which assesses pain intensity and the opioid-related adverse effects. METHODS: The score was developed and validated in four trials (n=1470 patients). Data from randomized trial I were used to develop the OBAS (factor analysis). Data from randomized trial II were used to compare the resolution of rofecoxib's analgesic effects between OBAS and pain scores. Randomized trial III (spine surgery) was conducted to evaluate prospectively the reliability of the OBAS and to compare its resolution of analgesic treatment with the opioid-related symptom distress scale (OR-SDS) and the modified brief pain inventory short form (m-BPI-sf). Trial IV was conducted to evaluate in patients with a moderate-to-high level of postoperative pain (after major abdominal surgery) the relation of OBAS and pain scores for patients' satisfaction with analgesic therapy. RESULTS: The seven-item OBAS yielded a higher resolution of analgesic treatment effects than pain scores, the OR-SDS and m-BPI-sf. The OBAS has a fair inter-rater reliability (concordance correlation of 0.71 c) and is more sensitive (P=0.03) in indicating the delivery of opioid boluses than the dedicated OR-SDS. The OBAS, but not pain scores at rest or pain scores during movement, explained significant variance in patients' satisfaction with postoperative pain therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The OBAS is a simple, multi-dimensional quality assessment instrument to measure patients' benefit from postoperative pain therapy. Opioid symptom distress, pain relief, and patients' satisfaction are combined in a reliable and valid tool.