Su Po-Yi Paul, Peniche Alec, Clelland Elle, Ladd Michael, Delgado Adrian, Chen Lee-Lynn, Siegmueller Claas, Latronica Mark, Naidu Ramana, Aleshi Pedram, Behrends Matthias
University of California San Francisco, United States of America.
University of California San Francisco, United States of America.
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Apr 28;64:109850. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109850.
Few studies have compared continuous epidural infusion (CEI) against programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery. It has not been established whether the modality of epidural medication administration affects postoperative pain and other patient outcomes. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of PIEB against CEI in postoperative pain management after a broad range of surgeries with abdominal incisions, all managed in the context of an established enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway.
Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
Postoperative acute care.
120 patients scheduled for major surgery involving abdominal incisions with planned postoperative epidural analgesia were enrolled as study participants.
All subjects received a standardized epidural solution containing ropivacaine 0.0625% and fentanyl 2 μg/ml. The CEI group received this solution as a continuous infusion, while the PIEB group received this solution as programmed intermittent boluses.
The primary study outcome was the total local anesthetic used over the first 24 h post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, pain interference, total opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects at 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively.
There was no difference in the primary outcome of total amount of local anesthetic administered in the first 24-hour postoperative period (PIEB: 123 mg [Interquartile Range (IQR): 114-136]; CEI: 126 mg [IQR: 120-134]). There were also no differences in average pain severity, total opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, number of PCEA requests and incidence of adverse events at 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively.
Our study suggests that within the context of an established ERAS program, PIEB and CEI modes of epidural analgesia can be equally efficacious and safe in providing postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery.
很少有研究比较腹部大手术后持续硬膜外输注(CEI)与程序化间歇性硬膜外推注(PIEB)硬膜外镇痛的效果。硬膜外给药方式是否会影响术后疼痛及其他患者预后尚未明确。本研究的目的是比较PIEB与CEI在广泛的腹部切口手术后疼痛管理中的疗效,所有患者均在既定的术后加速康复(ERAS)路径下进行管理。
前瞻性、随机、对照试验。
术后急性护理。
120例计划进行腹部切口大手术并计划术后进行硬膜外镇痛的患者被纳入研究。
所有受试者均接受含0.0625%罗哌卡因和2μg/ml芬太尼的标准化硬膜外溶液。CEI组以持续输注方式接受该溶液,而PIEB组以程序化间歇性推注方式接受该溶液。
主要研究结局是术后首24小时内使用的局部麻醉药总量。次要结局包括术后24、48和72小时的疼痛严重程度、疼痛干扰、阿片类药物总消耗量、患者满意度及不良反应。
术后首24小时内局部麻醉药总用量这一主要结局无差异(PIEB组:123mg[四分位数间距(IQR):114 - 136];CEI组:126mg[IQR:120 - 134])。术后24、48和72小时的平均疼痛严重程度、阿片类药物总消耗量、患者满意度、PCEA请求次数及不良事件发生率也无差异。
我们的研究表明,在既定的ERAS计划背景下,PIEB和CEI模式的硬膜外镇痛在腹部大手术后提供术后镇痛方面同样有效且安全。