Guay Joanne, Kopp Sandra
Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Mar 1;3(3):CD006715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006715.pub3.
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.
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.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in November 2018, and two trial registers up to February 2019, together with references and relevant conference abstracts.
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.
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.
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.
全身麻醉联合硬膜外镇痛可能对临床结局产生有益影响。然而,由于理论上与全身肝素化相关的硬膜外血肿风险增加,心脏手术中使用硬膜外镇痛存在争议。本综述于2013年发表,并于2019年更新。
确定围手术期硬膜外镇痛对接受心脏手术的成人(无论是否进行体外循环)围手术期死亡率以及心脏、肺部或神经并发症的影响。
我们于2018年11月检索了Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)和荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase),并检索了两个试验注册库至2019年2月,同时检索了参考文献和相关会议摘要。
我们纳入了所有随机对照试验(RCT),包括接受全身麻醉下任何类型心脏手术的成人,并比较硬膜外镇痛与其他术后疼痛治疗方式。主要结局是死亡率。
我们采用了Cochrane预期的标准方法程序。
我们纳入了69项试验,共4860名参与者:2404名接受硬膜外镇痛,2456名接受对照(全身镇痛、外周神经阻滞、胸膜内镇痛或伤口浸润)。参与者的平均(或中位数)年龄在43.5岁至74.6岁之间。所进行的手术包括冠状动脉搭桥术或瓣膜手术以及先天性心脏病手术。我们判断没有试验在所有领域均处于低偏倚风险,并且所有试验在参与者和负责研究参与者的人员的盲法方面均处于不明确/高偏倚风险。
硬膜外镇痛与全身镇痛
试验表明,0至30天的死亡率可能无差异(风险差(RD)0.00,95%置信区间(CI)-0.01至0.01;38项试验,3418名参与者;低质量证据),0至30天的心肌梗死可能减少(RD -0.01,95% CI -0.02至0.00;26项试验,2713名参与者;低质量证据)。硬膜外镇痛可能降低0至30天呼吸抑制的风险(RD -0.03,95% CI -0.05至-0.01;21项试验,1736名参与者;低质量证据)。0至30天肺炎风险可能几乎没有差异(RD -0.03,95% CI -0.07至0.01;10项试验,1107名参与者;中等质量证据),硬膜外镇痛可能降低0至2周心房颤动或心房扑动的风险(RD -0.06,95% CI -0.10至-0.01;18项试验,2431名参与者;中等质量证据)。0至30天脑血管意外可能无差异(RD -0.00,95% CI -0.01至0.01;18项试验,2232名参与者;极低质量证据),纳入的试验均未报告0至30天的任何硬膜外血肿事件(53项试验,3982名参与者;低质量证据)。硬膜外镇痛可能使气管插管时间缩短约2.4小时(标准化均数差(SMD)-0.78,95% CI -1.01至-0.55;40项试验,3353名参与者;中等质量证据)。硬膜外镇痛可减轻术后72小时内静息和活动时的疼痛。在6至8小时时,研究人员注意到疼痛减轻,相当于在0至10分疼痛量表上降低1分(SMD -1.35,95% CI -1.98至-0.72;10项试验,502名参与者;中等质量证据)。硬膜外镇痛可能增加低血压风险(RD 0.21,95% CI 0.09至0.33;17项试验,870名参与者;低质量证据),但对使用血管活性药物或血管加压药的需求可能几乎没有差异(RD 0.00,95% CI -0.06至0.07;23项试验,1821名参与者;低质量证据)。
硬膜外镇痛与其他对照
比较硬膜外镇痛与外周神经阻滞(四项研究)、胸膜内镇痛(一项研究)和伤口浸润(一项研究)的研究较少。研究人员未提供肺部并发症、心房颤动或心房扑动或任何比较的数据。当报告时,由于试验和参与者数量较少,这些比较的其他结局(死亡率、心肌梗死、神经并发症、气管插管时间、疼痛和血流动力学支持)尚不确定。
与全身镇痛相比,硬膜外镇痛可能降低接受心脏手术的成人发生心肌梗死、呼吸抑制和心房颤动/心房扑动的风险,以及气管插管时间和疼痛程度。死亡率、肺炎和硬膜外血肿可能几乎没有差异,对脑血管意外的影响尚不确定。与外周神经阻滞、胸膜内镇痛或伤口浸润相比,证据不足以显示硬膜外镇痛的效果。