Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Intensive Care Unit, Estaing University Hospital, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France; R2D2 (Retinoids, Reproduction and Developmental Diseases)-EA 7281, School of Medicine, Université d'Auvergne Clermont-Ferrand 1, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Intensive Care Unit, Gabriel-Montpied University Hospital, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2015 Aug;34(4):217-23. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2014.12.002. Epub 2015 May 23.
Epidural analgesia (EA) has been more investigated during the perioperative period than in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Recent studies support beneficial effects for EA beyond analgesia itself. However, data on feasibility and safety are still lacking in the ICU. Our goal was to assess the feasibility and practice of EA in ICU patients.
Multicentre observational study in 3 ICUs over a 10-month period. Goals were to report the incidence of EA-related complications and EA duration. All ICU patients receiving EA were included, whether EA was initiated in the ICU or elsewhere, e.g. in the operating room. Demographics, clinical and biological data were prospectively recorded. Epidural catheter tips were sent to the microbiology laboratory for culture.
One hundred and twenty-one patients were included (mean age 60 years), with mean SOFA and median SAPS II scores of 3.2 and 32, respectively. Reasons for EA initiation included trauma (14%), postoperative pain management after major surgery (42%), and pancreatitis (31%). No EA-related neurologic complication was recorded, and one case of epidural abscess is discussed. No other EA-related infectious complications were observed. Median duration of EA was 11 days. Reasons for EA discontinuation included efficient analgesia without EA (60%) and accidental catheter removal (17%). 22% of epidural catheter cultures were positive for skin flora bacteria.
EA seems feasible in the ICU. Its apparent safety should be further validated in larger cohorts, but these preliminary results may stimulate more interest in the assessment of potential benefits associated with EA in the ICU setting.
硬膜外镇痛(EA)在围手术期的研究比在重症监护病房(ICU)的研究更多。最近的研究支持 EA 除了镇痛本身之外还有有益的效果。然而,在 ICU 中,关于可行性和安全性的数据仍然缺乏。我们的目标是评估 ICU 患者中 EA 的可行性和实践。
在 3 个 ICU 中进行了为期 10 个月的多中心观察性研究。目的是报告与 EA 相关的并发症发生率和 EA 持续时间。所有接受 EA 的 ICU 患者均包括在内,无论 EA 是在 ICU 还是其他地方开始,例如在手术室。前瞻性记录了人口统计学、临床和生物学数据。硬膜外导管尖端被送到微生物实验室进行培养。
共纳入 121 例患者(平均年龄 60 岁),SOFA 和 SAPS II 评分的平均值分别为 3.2 和 32。EA 启动的原因包括创伤(14%)、大手术后的术后疼痛管理(42%)和胰腺炎(31%)。未记录到与 EA 相关的神经并发症,讨论了 1 例硬膜外脓肿病例。未观察到其他与 EA 相关的感染性并发症。EA 的中位持续时间为 11 天。EA 停止的原因包括有效的镇痛而无需 EA(60%)和意外导管移除(17%)。22%的硬膜外导管培养物为皮肤菌群细菌阳性。
EA 在 ICU 中似乎是可行的。其明显的安全性需要在更大的队列中进一步验证,但这些初步结果可能会激发更多人对在 ICU 环境中评估与 EA 相关的潜在益处的兴趣。