Dataset Information

Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2016.

Objectives

To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults undergoing elective abdominal aortic surgery.

Search methods

In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and five trial registers in November 2014, together with reference checking to identify additional studies.

Selection criteria

We included all randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data when required. We assessed the level of evidence according to the scale provided by the GRADE working group.

Main results

We included 15 trials published from 1987 to 2009 with 1498 participants in this updated review. Participants had a mean age between 60.5 and 71.3 years. The percentage of women in the included studies varied from 0% to 28.1%. Adding an epidural to general anaesthesia for people undergoing abdominal aortic repair reduced myocardial infarction (risk ratio (RR) 0.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.97); I(2) statistic = 0%; number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 28 (95% CI 19 to 1423), visual or verbal analogical scale (VAS) scores up to three days after the surgery (mean difference (MD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.32 to -1.25); I(2) statistic = 0% for VAS scores on movement at postoperative day one), time to tracheal extubation (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.42 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.15); I(2) statistic = 83%; equivalent to a mean reduction of 36 hours), postoperative respiratory failure (RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.85); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 8 (95% CI 6 to 16)), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.65); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 32 (95% CI 27 to 74)) and time spent in the intensive care unit (SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.06); I(2) statistic = 0%; equivalent to a mean reduction of six hours). We did not demonstrate a reduction in the mortality rate up to 30 days (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.86); I(2) statistic = 0%). The level of evidence was low for mortality and time before tracheal extubation; moderate for myocardial infarction, respiratory failure and intensive care unit length of stay; and high for gastrointestinal bleeding and VAS scores.

Authors' conclusions

Epidural analgesia provided better pain management, reduced myocardial infarction, time to tracheal extubation, postoperative respiratory failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intensive care unit length of stay compared with systemic opioid-based drugs. For mortality, we did not find a difference at 30 days.

SUBMITTER: Guay J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6464571 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOpioids are routinely prescribed for postoperative home pain management for most patients in the United States, with limited evidence of the amount needed to be dispensed. Opioid-based treatment often adversely affects recovery. Prescribed opioids increase the risk of chronic opioid use, abuse, and diversion and contribute to the current opioid epidemic.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether after hospital discharge, postsurgical acute pain can be effectively managed with a markedly reduced number of opioid doses.Design, setting, and participantsIn this case-control cohort study, an ultrarestrictive opioid prescription protocol (UROPP) was designed and implemented from June 26, 2017, through June 30, 2018, at a single tertiary-care comprehensive cancer center. All patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery were included. Patients undergoing ambulatory or minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic approach) were not prescribed opioids at discharge unless they required more than 5 doses of oral or intravenous opioids while in the hospital. Patients who underwent a laparotomy were provided a 3-day opioid pain medication supply at discharge.Main outcomes and measuresTotal number of opioid pain medications prescribed in the 60-day perioperative period, requests for opioid prescription refills, and postoperative pain scores and complications were evaluated. Factors associated with increased postoperative pain, preoperative and postoperative pain scores, inpatient status, prior opioid use, and all opioid prescriptions within the 60-day perioperative window were monitored among the case patients and compared with those from consecutive control patients treated at the center in the 12 months before the UROPP was implemented.ResultsPatient demographics and procedure characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 cohorts of women (605 cases: mean [SD] age, 56.3 [14.5] years; 626 controls: mean [SD] age, 55.5 [13.9] years). The mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge after a laparotomy was 43.6 (17.0) before implementation of the UROPP and 12.1 (8.9) after implementation (P < .001). For patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery, the mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge was 38.4 (17.4) before implementation of the UROPP and 1.3 (3.7) after implementation (P < .001). After ambulatory surgery, the mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge was 13.9 (16.6) before implementation of the UROPP and 0.2 (2.1) after implementation (P < .001). The mean (SD) perioperative oral morphine equivalent dose was reduced to 64.3 (207.2) mg from 339.4 (674.4) mg the year prior for all opioid-naive patients (P < .001). The significant reduction in the number of dispensed opioids was not associated with an increase the number of refill requests (104 patients [16.6%] in the pre-UROPP group vs 100 patients [16.5%] in the post-UROPP group; P = .99), the mean (SD) postoperative visit pain scores (1.1 [2.2] for the post-UROPP group vs 1.4 [2.3] for pre-UROPP group; P = .06), or the number of complications (29 cases [4.8%] in the post-UROPP group vs 42 cases [6.7%] in the pre-UROPP group; P = .15).Conclusions and relevanceImplementation of a UROPP was associated with a significant decrease in the overall amount of opioids prescribed to patients after gynecologic and abdominal surgery at the time of discharge for all patients, and for the entire perioperative time for opioid-naive patients without changes in pain scores, complications, or medication refill requests.

Project description:Chronic pelvic pain is a common condition among women, and 10 to 30 % of causes originate from the abdominal wall, and are associated with trigger points. Although little is known about their pathophysiology, variable methods have been practiced clinically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of local anaesthetic injections versus ischemic compression via physical therapy for pain relief of abdominal wall trigger points in women with chronic pelvic pain.We conducted a parallel group randomized trial including 30 women with chronic pelvic pain with abdominal wall trigger points. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups. One group received an injection of 2 mL 0.5 % lidocaine without a vasoconstrictor into a trigger point. In the other group, ischemic compression via physical therapy was administered at the trigger points three times, with each session lasting for 60 s, and a rest period of 30 s between applications. Both treatments were administered during one weekly session for four weeks. Our primary outcomes were satisfactory clinical response rates and percentages of pain relief. Our secondary outcomes are pain threshold and tolerance at the trigger points. All subjects were evaluated at baseline and 1, 4, and 12 weeks after the interventions. The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital that was associated with a university providing assistance predominantly to working class women who were treated by the public health system.Clinical response rates and pain relief were significantly better at 1, 4, and 12 weeks for those receiving local anaesthetic injections than ischemic compression via physical therapy. The pain relief of women treated with local anaesthetic injections progressively improved at 1, 4, and 12 weeks after intervention. In contrast, women treated with ischemic compression did not show considerable changes in pain relief after intervention. In the local anaesthetic injection group, pain threshold and tolerance improved with time in the absence of significant differences between groups.Lidocaine injection seems to be better for reducing the severity of chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal wall trigger points compared to ischemic compression via physical therapy.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00628355. Date of registration: February 25, 2008.

Project description:BACKGROUND:An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors but an important one is size of the aneurysm, as risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (> 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually operated on; very small AAAs (< 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. The optimal timing of surgery would benefit from further evidence. OBJECTIVES:This review compared long-term survival in patients with AAAs of diameter 4.0 to 5.5 cm who received immediate repair versus routine ultrasound surveillance. SEARCH METHODS:For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (February 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 1). Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for additional studies and the searches were supplemented by handsearches of recent conference proceedings and information from experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials in which men and women with asymptomatic AAAs of diameter 4.0 to 5.5 cm were randomly allocated to immediate repair or imaging-based surveillance at least every six months. Outcomes had to include mortality or survival. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors (GF, MAMM) abstracted the data, which were cross-checked by the other authors (DJB, JTP). Due to the small number of trials, formal tests of heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses were not conducted. MAIN RESULTS:Four trials with a combined total of 3314 patients, the UK Small Aneurysm Trial (UKSAT), the Aneurysm Detection and Management (ADAM) trial, the Comparison of Surveillance Versus Aortic Endografting for Small Aneurysm Repair (CAESAR), and the Positive Impact of Endovascular Options for treating Aneurysms Early (PIVOTAL) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The four trials showed an early survival benefit in the surveillance group (due to 30-day operative mortality with surgery) but no significant differences in long-term survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.02, mean follow up 10 years (UKSAT); HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54, mean follow up 4.9 years (ADAM); HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.93, median follow up 32.4 months (CAESAR); HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07, mean follow up 20 months (PIVOTAL)). The meta analyses of mortality at one year (CAESAR and PIVOTAL only) and six years (UKSAT and ADAM only) revealed a non-significant association (Peto odds ratio at one year 1.15, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.25; Peto odds ratio at six years 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The results from the four trials to date demonstrate no advantage to early repair (via open or endovascular surgery) for small AAA (4.0 to 5.5 cm) and suggest that 'best care' for these patients favours surveillance. Furthermore, the more recent trials focused on the efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair and still failed to show benefit. Thus, both open and endovascular repair of small AAAs are not supported by currently available evidence.