Long-term Survival after Combined Epidural-General Anesthesia or General Anesthesia Alone: Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and observational research suggests that combined epidural-general anesthesia may improve long-term survival after cancer surgery by reducing anesthetic and opioid consumption and by blunting surgery-related inflammation. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combined epidural-general anesthesia improves long-term survival in elderly patients. METHODS: This article presents a long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in a previous trial conducted at five hospitals. Patients aged 60 to 90 yr and scheduled for major noncardiac thoracic and abdominal surgeries were randomly assigned to either combined epidural-general anesthesia with postoperative epidural analgesia or general anesthesia alone with postoperative intravenous analgesia. The primary outcome was overall postoperative survival. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific, recurrence-free, and event-free survival. RESULTS: Among 1,802 patients who were enrolled and randomized in the underlying trial, 1,712 were included in the long-term analysis; 92% had surgery for cancer. The median follow-up duration was 66 months (interquartile range, 61 to 80). Among patients assigned to combined epidural-general anesthesia, 355 of 853 (42%) died compared with 326 of 859 (38%) deaths in patients assigned to general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.24; P = 0.408. Cancer-specific survival was similar with combined epidural-general anesthesia (327 of 853 [38%]) and general anesthesia alone (292 of 859 [34%]): adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.28; P = 0.290. Recurrence-free survival was 401 of 853 [47%] for patients who had combined epidural-general anesthesia versus 389 of 859 [45%] with general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.12; P = 0.692. Event-free survival was 466 of 853 [55%] in patients who had combined epidural-general anesthesia versus 450 of 859 [52%] for general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.12; P = 0.815. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients having major thoracic and abdominal surgery, combined epidural-general anesthesia with epidural analgesia did not improve overall or cancer-specific long-term mortality. Nor did epidural analgesia improve recurrence-free survival. Either approach can therefore reasonably be selected based on patient and clinician preference.

Epidural Anesthesia-Analgesia and Recurrence-free Survival after Lung Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia and analgesia reduce the stress response to surgery and decrease the need for volatile anesthesia and opioids, thereby preserving cancer-specific immune defenses. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combining epidural anesthesia-analgesia with general anesthesia improves recurrence-free survival after lung cancer surgery. METHODS: Adults scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer resections were randomized 1:1 to general anesthesia and intravenous opioid analgesia or combined epidural-general anesthesia and epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (time from surgery to the earliest date of recurrence/metastasis or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (time from surgery to all-cause death) and cancer-specific survival (time from surgery to cancer-specific death). Long-term outcome assessors were blinded to treatment. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and November 2017, 400 patients were enrolled and randomized to general anesthesia alone (n = 200) or combined epidural-general anesthesia (n = 200). All were included in the analysis. The median follow-up duration was 32 months (interquartile range, 24 to 48). Recurrence-free survival was similar in each group, with 54 events (27%) with general anesthesia alone versus 48 events (24%) with combined epidural-general anesthesia (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.35; P = 0.608). Overall survival was also similar with 25 events (13%) versus 31 (16%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.96; P = 0.697). There was also no significant difference in cancer-specific survival with 24 events (12%) versus 29 (15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.91; P = 0.802). Patients assigned to combined epidural-general had more intraoperative hypotension: 94 patients (47%) versus 121 (61%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.55; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural anesthesia-analgesia for major lung cancer surgery did not improve recurrence-free, overall, or cancer-specific survival compared with general anesthesia alone, although the CI included both substantial benefit and harm.

The association between epidural analgesia and mortality in emergency abdominal surgery: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery carries a considerable risk of mortality and post-operative complications, including pulmonary complications. In major elective surgery, epidural analgesia reduces mortality and pulmonary complications. We aimed to evaluate the association between epidural analgesia and mortality in emergency abdominal surgery. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study with prospective data collection, we included adults undergoing emergency abdominal laparotomy or laparoscopy between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 at 13 Danish hospitals. Appendectomies were excluded. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and serious adverse events. We used binary logistic regression analyses (odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). RESULTS: We included 4920 patients, of whom 1134 (23.0%) died within 90 days. Overall, 27.9% of the patients were treated with epidural analgesia perioperatively. This increased to 34.0% among patients undergoing major laparotomy. The crude and adjusted association between epidural analgesia and 90-day mortality was OR 0.99 (95%CI: 0.86-1.15, P = .94) and OR 0.80 (95%CI: 0.67-0.94; P = .01), respectively. For 30-day mortality the corresponding estimates were OR 0.90 (95% CI: 0.76-1.06, P = .21) and OR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62-0.90, P < .01), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: In this population-based cohort study of adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, we found that the use of epidural analgesia perioperatively was associated with a decreased risk of mortality in the adjusted analysis.

The Impact of Epidural Analgesia on Perioperative Morbidity or Mortality after Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia (EA) is frequently used as an adjuvant to general anesthesia (GA) for improved postoperative analgesia and reduced rates of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications. However, only a few studies have examined EA-GA specifically during open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The effects of EA-GA specifically during open AAA repair regarding postoperative outcomes are unknown. This study was performed to evaluate postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing open AAA repair with EA-GA versus GA alone. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis for patients undergoing surgery between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Propensity score matching was used to establish cohorts for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine significant perioperative outcomes for each anesthesia type. A total of 2,171 patients underwent open AAA repair in our date range; we excluded emergent and ruptured AAA. A total of 2,145 patients were included in our analysis, of whom 653 patients received EA-GA and 1,492 patients received GA only. RESULTS: Major postoperative outcomes included mortality, pulmonary cardiac and renal complications, infections, thrombosis, and blood transfusion requirement (including Cell-Saver usage). Additional overall outcomes included hospital length of stay, return to the operating room, and readmission. Patients in EA + GA and GA alone groups were comparable regarding demographics, functional status, and comorbidities. Decreased odds of readmission was observed in EA + GA compared with GA (0.49, 95% CI [0.28-0.86]; P = 0.014); and increased odds of receiving a blood transfusion was observed in those who underwent EA + GA (1.63, 95% CI [1.23-2.14]; P = 0.001). No difference was observed between patients who had an AAA repair with EA + GA versus GA alone with regard to mortality, return to operating room, major pulmonary, cardiac, renal, or infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: EA + GA was not associated with decreased mortality or decreased rates of major postoperative pulmonary, cardiac, or renal complications. EA + GA was associated with increased transfusion requirements and decreased rates of hospital readmission.

Epidural analgesia for adults undergoing cardiac surgery with or without cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND: General anaesthesia combined with epidural analgesia may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. However, use of epidural analgesia for cardiac surgery is controversial due to a theoretical increased risk of epidural haematoma associated with systemic heparinization. This review was published in 2013, and it was updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of perioperative epidural analgesia in adults undergoing cardiac surgery, with or without cardiopulmonary bypass, on perioperative mortality and cardiac, pulmonary, or neurological morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in November 2018, and two trial registers up to February 2019, together with references and relevant conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults undergoing any type of cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia and comparing epidural analgesia versus another modality of postoperative pain treatment. The primary outcome was mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 trials with 4860 participants: 2404 given epidural analgesia and 2456 receiving comparators (systemic analgesia, peripheral nerve block, intrapleural analgesia, or wound infiltration). The mean (or median) age of participants varied between 43.5 years and 74.6 years. Surgeries performed were coronary artery bypass grafting or valvular procedures and surgeries for congenital heart disease. We judged that no trials were at low risk of bias for all domains, and that all trials were at unclear/high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel taking care of study participants.Epidural analgesia versus systemic analgesiaTrials show there may be no difference in mortality at 0 to 30 days (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01; 38 trials with 3418 participants; low-quality evidence), and there may be a reduction in myocardial infarction at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00; 26 trials with 2713 participants; low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia may reduce the risk of 0 to 30 days respiratory depression (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; 21 trials with 1736 participants; low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of pneumonia at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.01; 10 trials with 1107 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and epidural analgesia probably reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter at 0 to 2 weeks (RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; 18 trials with 2431 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in cerebrovascular accidents at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 18 trials with 2232 participants; very low-quality evidence), and none of the included trials reported any epidural haematoma events at 0 to 30 days (53 trials with 3982 participants; low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia probably reduces the duration of tracheal intubation by the equivalent of 2.4 hours (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.78, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.55; 40 trials with 3353 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia reduces pain at rest and on movement up to 72 hours after surgery. At six to eight hours, researchers noted a reduction in pain, equivalent to a reduction of 1 point on a 0 to 10 pain scale (SMD -1.35, 95% CI -1.98 to -0.72; 10 trials with 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia may increase risk of hypotension (RD 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.33; 17 trials with 870 participants; low-quality evidence) but may make little or no difference in the need for infusion of inotropics or vasopressors (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; 23 trials with 1821 participants; low-quality evidence).Epidural analgesia versus other comparatorsFewer studies compared epidural analgesia versus peripheral nerve blocks (four studies), intrapleural analgesia (one study), and wound infiltration (one study). Investigators provided no data for pulmonary complications, atrial fibrillation or flutter, or for any of the comparisons. When reported, other outcomes for these comparisons (mortality, myocardial infarction, neurological complications, duration of tracheal intubation, pain, and haemodynamic support) were uncertain due to the small numbers of trials and participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with systemic analgesia, epidural analgesia may reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, respiratory depression, and atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, as well as the duration of tracheal intubation and pain, in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. There may be little or no difference in mortality, pneumonia, and epidural haematoma, and effects on cerebrovascular accident are uncertain. Evidence is insufficient to show the effects of epidural analgesia compared with peripheral nerve blocks, intrapleural analgesia, or wound infiltration.

Epidural Analgesia in Open Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Epidural analgesia improves pain control and outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm procedures, while the effect of thoracic epidural analgesia on thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair is unknown. The aim of the study was to evaluate thoracic epidural analgesia effects in patients undergoing open TAAA repair in terms of pain control and clinically relevant outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of a prospectively collected database. Patients undergoing open TAAA repair between January 2009 and December 2016. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients were included. Thoracic epidural analgesia was used in 409 (89%) of cases. On multivariable analysis, patients who received thoracic epidural analgesia experienced reduced post-operative pain (odds ratio [OR] 0.003, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0007-0.009; p < .001), a lower rate of acute kidney injury (AKI; OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.71 [p = .002]), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95; p = .04), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; OR 0.189, 95% CI 0.05-0.64; p = .008), and paraplegia (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.157-0.615; p = .001) compared with the conventional analgesia (CA) group. After propensity score matching, 43 patients in the CA group were compared with 43 in thoracic epidural analgesia group. On case match analysis thoracic epidural analgesia showed a significant reduction in post-operative pain (p < .001) and no differences in the incidence of AKI, atrial fibrillation, AMI, and paraplegia. In the thoracic epidural analgesia group there were no epidural haematomas. CONCLUSION: Thoracic epidural analgesia was effective in reducing post-operative pain with no effect on major post-operative complications. The use of thoracic epidural analgesia, if not contraindicated, might be considered in clinical practice, even in patients undergoing open TAAA repair. Whether a better post-operative management enhances patient's recovery in this setting remains to be tested.

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.

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Propensity Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Recent preclinical and clinical data suggest that thoracic epidural analgesia, a technique primarily aimed at decreasing pain, might exert anti-inflammatory effects, enhance splanchnic and pancreatic blood flow during acute pancreatitis; however, the influence of epidural analgesia on mortality remains under investigated in this setting. This study was therefore designed to assess the impact of epidural analgesia on mortality in ICU patients with acute pancreatitis. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective, observational, cohort study. SETTING: Seventeen French and Belgian ICUs. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to with acute pancreatitis between June 2009 and March 2014. INTERVENTIONS: The primary exposure was thoracic epidural analgesia versus standard care without epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Propensity analyses were used to control for bias in treatment assignment and prognostic imbalances. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One thousand three ICU patients with acute pancreatitis were enrolled, of whom 212 died within 30 days. Epidural analgesia was used in 46 patients and was associated with reduced mortality in unadjusted analyses (4% vs. 22%; p = 0.003). After adjustment for baseline variables associated with mortality, epidural analgesia was still an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.10; [95% CI, 0.02-0.49]; p = 0.004). Using propensity score analysis, the risk of all-cause 30-day mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis receiving epidural analgesia was significantly lower than that in matched patients who did not receive epidural analgesia (2% vs. 17%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis, mortality at 30 days was lower in patients who received epidural analgesia than in comparable patients who did not. These findings support ongoing research on the use of epidural analgesia as a therapeutic intervention in acute pancreatitis.

Analgesic Choice in Management of Rib Fractures: Paravertebral Block or Epidural Analgesia?

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are commonly encountered in the setting of trauma. The aim of this study was to assess the association between the clinical outcome of rib fracture and epidural analgesia (EA) versus paravertebral block (PVB) using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). METHODS: Using the 2011 and 2012 versions of the NTDB, we retrieved completed records for all patients above 18 years of age who were admitted with rib fractures. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU LOS, mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, development of pneumonia, and development of any other complication. Clinical outcomes were first compared between propensity score-matched EA and PVB patients. Then, EA and PVB patients were combined into the procedure group and the outcomes were compared with propensity score-matched patients that received neither intervention (no-procedure group). RESULTS: A total of 194,766 patients were included in the study with 1073 patients having EA, 1110 patients having PVB, and 192,583 patients having neither procedure. After propensity score matching, comparison of primary and secondary outcomes between EA and PVB patients showed no difference. Comparison of propensity score-matched procedure and no-procedure patients showed prolonged LOS and more frequent ICU admissions in patients receiving a procedure (both P < .0001), yet having no procedure was associated with a significantly increased odds of mortality (odds ratio: 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.84; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Using the NTDB, EA and PVB were not found to be significantly different in management of rib fractures. There was an association between use of a block and improved outcome, but this could be explained by selection of healthier patients to receive a block. Prospective study of this association is recommended.

Epidural analgesia associated with better survival in colon cancer.

PURPOSE: Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for potentially curable colon cancer. Otherwise, the surgical stress response might increase the likelihood of cancer dissemination during and after cancer surgery. There is growing evidence that the type of anaesthesia during cancer surgery plays a role in the metastatic process. Therefore, we assessed if the method of anaesthesia is associated with long-term survival after colon cancer surgery. METHOD: A retrospective single-centre study was conducted including 588 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery, TNM stage I-IV, in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital between 1995 and 2003. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for statistical analysis. Adjustments were made for age, sex, comorbidity, TNM stage, chemotherapy, emergency surgery status and year of incidence. RESULTS: Of the 588 primary colon cancer patients with a median age of 70 years, 399 (68 %) patients underwent colon surgery with epidural anaesthesia, whilst 189 (32 %) patients were operated without epidural anaesthesia. Five-year survival for patients not receiving epidural analgesia was 42 % versus 51 % for patients receiving epidural analgesia (p = 0.03). This effect remained after adjustment for relevant patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics (hazard ratio (HR) 1.30 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.59), p = 0.01). Subgroup analysis in patients of 80 years and older (n = 100) showed also a better overall survival after receiving epidural analgesia (HR 1.74 (95 % CI 1.11-2.72), p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia during colon cancer surgery was associated with a better overall survival. Prospective trials evaluating the effects of locoregional analgesia on colon cancer recurrence are warranted.

Improved peri-operative outcomes with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing a pancreatectomy: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: In spite of limited evidence demonstrating a benefit, epidural analgesia (EA) is often used for patients undergoing a pancreatectomy. In the present study, the impact of epidural analgesia on post-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy is examined. METHODS: Utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the effect of EA on peri-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy was examined. Multivariable logistic and linear regression with propensity score matching were utilized for risk adjustment. RESULTS: From 2008-2011, 12,440 patients underwent a pancreatectomy. Of these, 1130 (9.1%) patients received epidural analgesia. Using univariate comparison, patients receiving EA had a significantly decreased length of stay (LOS), hospital charges and post-operative inpatient mortality. In multivariate analyses, EA was independently associated with a decreased post-operative LOS (adjusted mean difference = -1.19 days, P < 0.001), decreased hospital charges (adjusted mean difference = -$16,814, P = 0.002) and decreased post-operative inpatient mortality [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, P < 0.001]. Using 1:1 propensity score matching, patients who received an EA (n = 1070) had significantly decreased post-operative LOS (11.0 versus 12.1 days, P = 0.011), lower hospital charges ($112,086 versus $128,939, P = 0.001) and decreased post-operative inpatient mortality (1.5% versus 3.6%, P = 0.002) compared with matched controls without EA (n = 1070). CONCLUSION: Analysis of a large hospital database reveals that EA is associated with improved peri-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy. Additional studies are required to understand fully if this relationship is causal.

The effect of epidural placement in patients after blunt thoracic trauma.

BACKGROUND: In studies of trauma patients with rib fractures, conclusions on the benefits derived from epidural analgesia are inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to further evaluate placement and efficacy of epidural analgesia nationwide. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of prospectively gathered data from the National Study on Cost and Outcomes of Trauma database, a multisite prospective study of injured patients aged 18 years to 84 years. Patients were treated at 69 participating hospitals (18 Level I trauma centers and 51 nontrauma centers) across the United States. Our analysis was limited to patients with a blunt mechanism of injury and a thoracic maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAXAIS) score of 2 or greater. Excluded were patients who were not potential candidates for epidural placement, such as patients with significant head and spine injuries (head MAXAIS score > 2 or spine MAXAIS score > 2), significant neurologic impairment (best motor Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score < 4), unstable pelvic fractures, coagulopathy, or those who died within 48 hours. RESULTS: The National Study on Cost and Outcomes of Trauma database contains 5,043 patients, of whom 836 (16.5%) were identified as potential candidates for epidural placement. Of patients included in the study, 100 patients (12%) had epidural catheters placed. The likelihood of epidural catheter placement was significantly higher in trauma centers as compared with nontrauma centers (adjusted odds ratio, 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.80-5.22). In the epidural group compared with those not receiving a catheter, the adjusted (including trauma center status) odds of death in patients with three or more rib fractures at 30, 90, and 365 days was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.43), 0.09 (95% CI, 0.02-0.42), and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.04-0.42), respectively. CONCLUSION: Trauma centers are more likely to place epidural catheter in patients with rib fractures. In this multicenter study, epidural catheter placement was associated with a significantly decreased risk of dying in patients with blunt thoracic injury of three or more rib fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level II.

Epidural analgesia for cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: A combination of general anaesthesia (GA) with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes by reducing the risk of perioperative complications after cardiac surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the impact of perioperative epidural analgesia in cardiac surgery on perioperative mortality and cardiac, pulmonary or neurological morbidity. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the risk of adverse events and mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia with and without epidural analgesia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 12) in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966 to November 2012); EMBASE (1989 to November 2012); CINHAL (1982 to November 2012) and the Science Citation Index (1988 to November 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with either GA alone or GA in combination with TEA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All publications found during the search were manually and independently reviewed by the two authors. We identified 5035 titles, of which 4990 studies did not satisfy the selection criteria or were duplicate publications, that were retrieved from the five different databases. We performed a full review on 45 studies, of which 31 publications met all inclusion criteria. These 31 publications reported on a total of 3047 patients, 1578 patients with GA and 1469 patients with GA plus TEA. MAIN RESULTS: Through our search (November 2012) we have identified 5035 titles, of which 31 publications met our inclusion criteria and reported on a total of 3047 patients. Compared with GA alone, the pooled risk ratio (RR) for patients receiving GA with TEA showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.84 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.13, 31 studies) for mortality; 0.76 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.19, 17 studies) for myocardial infarction; and 0.50 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.18, 10 studies) for stroke. The relative risks (RR) for respiratory complications and supraventricular arrhythmias were 0.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.86, 14 studies) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, 15 studies) respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of studies, identified to 2010, showed that the use of TEA in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery may reduce the risk of postoperative supraventricular arrhythmias and respiratory complications. There were no effects of TEA with GA on the risk of mortality, myocardial infarction or neurological complications compared with GA alone.

Epidural technique for postoperative pain: gold standard no more?

Epidural analgesia is a well-established technique that has commonly been regarded as the gold standard in postoperative pain management. However, newer, evidence-based outcome data show that the benefits of epidural analgesia are not as significant as previously believed. There are some benefits in a decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular and pulmonary complications, but these benefits are probably limited to high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal or thoracic surgery who receive thoracic epidural analgesia with local anaesthetic drugs only. There is increasing evidence that less invasive regional analgesic techniques are as effective as epidural analgesia. These include paravertebral block for thoracotomy, femoral block for total hip and knee arthroplasty, wound catheter infusions for cesarean delivery, and local infiltration analgesia techniques for lower limb joint arthroplasty. Wound infiltration techniques and their modifications are simple and safe alternatives for a variety of other surgical procedures. Although pain relief associated with epidural analgesia can be outstanding, clinicians expect more from this invasive, high-cost, labour-intensive technique. The number of indications for the use of epidural analgesia seems to be decreasing for a variety of reasons. The decision about whether to continue using epidural techniques should be guided by regular institutional audits and careful risk-benefit assessment rather than by tradition. For routine postoperative analgesia, epidural analgesia may no longer be considered the gold standard.

Epidural analgesia in open resection of colorectal cancer: is there a clinical benefit? a retrospective study on 1,470 patients.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia (EA) is effective for postoperative pain relief and results in an earlier recovery from postoperative paralytic ileus. This study evaluated the influence of epidural analgesia on the postoperative 30-day mortality and morbidity after open colorectal cancer resection. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed at a single, tertiary hospital. All patients with an open colorectal cancer surgery between 1991 and 2008 were identified from the hospital database. RESULTS: Of the 1,470 patients included in the study, 838 (57.0%) received an EA. Mortality was lower after EA (1.5% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.001). Risk of pneumonia was reduced after EA (odds ratio (OR), 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-0.74; p = 0.001), but not the risk of anastomotic leakage (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.76-1.81; p = 0.465) or surgical site infections (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.74-1.60; p = 0.663). A subgroup analysis of 427 patients operated on after 2002 (reflecting improved perioperative management) yielded similar results. However, no significant reduction in mortality was observed in the subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: For patients with open colorectal cancer surgery, the application of EA leads to a reduction in pneumonia. Although this is only a retrospective study, it strongly supports the use of EA.

Perioperative epidural analgesia for major abdominal surgery for cancer and recurrence-free survival: randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long term recurrence of cancer and survival of patients having major abdominal surgery for cancer. DESIGN: Long term follow-up of prospective randomised controlled clinical trial in which patients were randomly assigned to receive general anaesthesia with or without epidural block for at least three postoperative days. Setting 23 hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. PARTICIPANTS: 503 adult patients who had potentially curative surgery for cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cancer-free survival (analysis was by intention to treat). RESULTS: Long term follow-up data were available for 94% (n=446) of eligible participants. The median time to recurrence of cancer or death was 2.8 (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 8.7) years in the control group and 2.6 (0.7 to 8.7) years in the epidural group (P=0.61). Recurrence-free survival was similar in both epidural and control groups (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.17; P=0.61). CONCLUSION: Use of epidural block in abdominal surgery for cancer is not associated with improved cancer-free survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000637448.

Effect of postoperative epidural analgesia on morbidity and mortality after lung resection in Medicare patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To perform an analysis of the Medicare claims database in patients undergoing lung resection to determine whether there is an association between postoperative epidural analgesia and mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort (database) design. SETTING: University hospital. MEASUREMENTS: We examined a cohort of 3501 patients obtained from a 5% nationally random sample of 1997 to 2001 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent nonemergency segmental excision of the lung (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes 32.3 and 32.4). Patient data were divided into two groups depending on the presence or absence of billing for postoperative epidural analgesia (Current Procedural Terminology code 01996). The primary outcomes assessed were death at 7 and 30 days after the procedure. The rates of major morbidity (acute myocardial infarction, angina, cardiac dysrhythmias, heart failure, pneumonia, pulmonary edema, respiratory failure, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, acute renal failure, somnolence, acute cerebrovascular event, transient organic syndrome, and paralytic ileus) were also compared. Multivariate regression analysis incorporating race, gender, age, comorbidities, hospital size, hospital teaching status, and hospital technology status was performed to determine whether the presence of postoperative epidural analgesia had an independent effect on mortality or major morbidity. MAIN RESULTS: Multivariate regression analysis showed that the presence of epidural analgesia was associated with a significantly lower odds of death at 7 days (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.80; P = 0.001) and 30 days (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.78; P = 0.002) after surgery. There was no difference between the groups with regard to overall major morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative epidural analgesia may contribute to lower odds of death after segmental excision of the lung, although the mechanism of such a benefit is not clear from our analysis.

Postoperative epidural analgesia following elective major abdominal surgery in high risk patients: a retrospective cohort study.

AIM: To describe the effect of post-operative epidural analgesia on morbidity and mortality rates in a group of high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients in American Society of Anaesthetists Physical Status (ASA) category III or IV, who underwent elective major I or II general surgical procedures between 01/01/1996 and 01/09/1998. Patients were identified from a prospective audit database. Patients who had epidural analgesia or conventional parenteral opioids were compared for outcome measures. RESULTS: There were 167 patients identified (72 epidural, 95 non-epidural group). There was no significant difference in demographic data, inpatient stay, intensive care unit stay, or mortality rates (11% epidural v 17% non-epidural, p>0.05). There was no significant difference in morbidity rates, however there was a non-significant trend towards a lower morbidity in the epidural group. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not show any benefit from post-operative epidural analgesia on morbidity and mortality rates in high risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. It does illustrate that ASA 3 and 4 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery have a high morbidity and mortality.

Effect of post-operative analgesia on patient morbidity.

The pathophysiology that commonly follows surgery results in detrimental physiological effects and may be associated with post-operative mortality and morbidity. The use of post-operative epidural analgesia, but not systemic opioids, may attenuate some of these adverse physiological effects and result in a decrease in patient-related morbidity post-operatively. Randomized trials suggest that the perioperative use of epidural analgesia may facilitate return of gastrointestinal function, attenuate hypercoagulable events and diminish post-operative pulmonary complications. A multimodal approach incorporating the use of epidural analgesia to control perioperative pathophysiology will facilitate the patient's recovery.