Gimeno Ana María, Errando Carlos Luis
Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain.
Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2018 Feb;46(1):8-14. doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2018.12979. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
Infection is considered to be a relative contraindication for regional anaesthesia. However, there is a paucity of articles addressing the topic of regional anaesthesia in patients with an active infectious process. Recent publications show a low incidence of infection (0.007% to 0.6%) of the central nervous system after neuraxial punctures in patients at risk of, or with ongoing bacteraemia, and a low incidence of infection after performing regional anaesthesia techniques in immunosuppressed patients, or patients with an actual infection. Therefore, some authors conclude that it seems that there is little justification to set strict contraindications regarding this indication and that the risk-benefit ratio should prevail. In addition, a low incidence of meningitis or abscesses after the lumbar puncture has been observed in patients with unsuspected and ongoing bacteraemia, or who were at risk of bacteraemia, when antibiotic therapy has been previously started. For viral infections, regional techniques seem to be safe, being applied in patients with HIV infection. The only established absolute contraindication for any type of regional anaesthesia technique is the infection at the puncture site. Debate persists if a neuraxial anaesthesia technique is to be performed in the course of sepsis with the origin away from the puncture site. In case of thoracic epidural anaesthesia and analgesia, experimental and clinical studies highlight their potential benefits in the systemic inflammatory response syndromes and founded sepsis, both in surgical and non-surgical patients. Finally, the anti-inflammatory and anti-infective effects of local anaesthetics and the basis of excessive inflammatory response are described, as the latter might be involved, in part, in the clinical outcomes.
感染被认为是区域麻醉的相对禁忌证。然而,针对处于活跃感染过程的患者进行区域麻醉这一主题的文章较少。最近的出版物显示,在有菌血症风险或正在发生菌血症的患者中,神经轴穿刺后中枢神经系统感染的发生率较低(0.007%至0.6%),在免疫抑制患者或实际有感染的患者中进行区域麻醉技术后感染发生率也较低。因此,一些作者得出结论,似乎没有充分理由针对这一适应证设定严格的禁忌证,而应权衡风险与收益。此外,在未被怀疑且正在发生菌血症或有菌血症风险的患者中,在预先开始抗生素治疗后,腰椎穿刺后脑膜炎或脓肿的发生率较低。对于病毒感染,区域技术似乎是安全的,可应用于HIV感染患者。任何类型区域麻醉技术唯一确定的绝对禁忌证是穿刺部位感染。对于在远离穿刺部位的败血症过程中是否应进行神经轴麻醉技术仍存在争议。在胸段硬膜外麻醉和镇痛方面,实验和临床研究强调了它们在全身炎症反应综合征和确诊败血症中的潜在益处,无论是手术患者还是非手术患者。最后,描述了局部麻醉药的抗炎和抗感染作用以及过度炎症反应的基础,因为后者可能部分参与了临床结局。