Design of the multicenter Australian study of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in major surgery: The MASTER Trial

The Multicenter Australian Study of Epidural Anesthesia and Analgesia in Major Surgery (The MASTER Trial) was designed to evaluate the possible benefit of epidural block in improving outcome in high-risk patients. The trial began in 1995 and is scheduled to reach the planned sample size of 900 during 2001. This paper describes the trial design and presents data comparing 455 patients randomized in 21 institutions in Australia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, with 237 patients from the same hospitals who were eligible but not randomized. Nine categories of high-risk patients were defined as entry criteria for the trial. Protocols for ethical review, informed consent, randomization, clinical anesthesia and analgesia, and perioperative management were determined following extensive consultation with anesthesiologists throughout Australia. Clinical and research information was collected in participating hospitals by research staff who may not have been blind to allocation. Decisions about the presence or absence of endpoints were made primarily by a computer algorithm, supplemented by blinded clinical experts. Without unblinding the trial, comparison of eligibility criteria and incidence of endpoints between randomized and nonrandomized patients showed only small differences. We conclude that there is no strong evidence of important demographic or clinical differences between randomized and nonrandomized patients eligible for the MASTER Trial. Thus, the trial results are likely to be broadly generalizable. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:244-256 (C) Elsevier Science Inc. 2000.

Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and outcome of major surgery: a randomised trial

Background Epidural block is widely used to manage major abdominal surgery and postoperative analgesia, but its risks. and benefits are uncertain. We compared adverse outcomes in high-risk patients managed for major surgery with epidural block or alternative analgesic regimens with general anaesthesia in a multicentre randomised trial. Methods 915 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery with one of nine defined comorbid states to identify high-risk status were randomly assigned intraoperative epidural anaesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia for 72 h with general anaesthesia (site of epidural selected to provide optimum block) or control. The primary endpoint was death at 30 days or major postsurgical morbidity. Analysis by intention to treat involved 447 patients assigned epidural and 441 control. Findings 255 patients (57.1%) in the epidural group and 268 (60.7%) in the control group had at least one morbidity endpoint or died (p=0.29). Mortality at 30 days was low in both groups (epidural 23 [5.1%], control 19 [4.3%], p=0.67). Only one of eight categories of morbid endpoints in individual systems (respiratory failure) occurred less frequently in patients managed with epidural techniques (23% vs 30%, p=0.02). Postoperative epidural analgesia was associated with lower pain scores during the first 3 postoperative days. There were no major adverse consequences of epidural-catheter insertion. Interpretation Most adverse morbid outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are not reduced by use of combined epidural and general anaesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia. However, the improvement in analgesia, reduction in respiratory failure, and the low risk of serious adverse consequences suggest that many high-risk patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery will receive substantial benefit from combined general and epidural anaesthesia intraoperatively with continuing postoperative epidural analgesia.

Perioperative epidural analgesia and outcome after major abdominal surgery in high-risk patients

In a primary analysis of a large recently completed randomized trial in 915 high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, we found no difference in outcome between patients receiving perioperative epidural analgesia and those receiving IV opioids, apart from the incidence of respiratory failure. Therefore, we performed a selected number of predetermined subgroup analyses to identify specific types of patients who may have derived benefit from epidural analgesia. We found no difference in outcome between epidural and control groups in subgroups at increased risk of respiratory or cardiac complications or undergoing aortic surgery, nor in a subgroup with failed epidural block (all P > 0.05). There was a small reduction in the duration of postoperative ventilation (geometric mean [SD]: control group, 0.3 [6.5] h, versus epidural group, 0.2 [4.8] h, P = 0.048). No differences were found in length of stay in intensive care or in the hospital. There was no relationship between frequency of use of epidural analgesia in routine practice outside the trial and benefit from epidural analgesia in the trial. We found no evidence that perioperative epidural analgesia significantly influences major morbidity or mortality after major abdominal surgery.

Response to The quality of epidural Anesthesia is crucial in the assessment of periciperative outcome

In their letter, Gogarten et al. question the effectiveness of the epidural regimens across the trial centers. In our original publication (1), we clearly demonstrated that patients in the epidural group had a working epidural block intraoperatively (evidenced by significantly more hypotension) and postoperatively (evidenced by significantly improved pain scores for 3 days).

Effect of maternal epidural analgesia on fetal intrapartum oxygen saturation

The use of maternal epidural analgesia in labor may be associated with nonreassuring fetal heart rate (FHR) patterns. Fetal oxygen saturation (FSpO(2)) monitoring may improve assessment of fetal well-being during this time. Mean FSpO(2) values were compared over seven 5-minute epochs: 5 minutes prior to an epidural event (combined insertion of epidural/top-up epidural analgesia and infusion pump bolus), to 30 minutes following the event, including possible effects of maternal position and FHR pattern on FSpO(2) values. Mean FSpO(2) values were significantly different between the 5 minutes prior (49.5%) versus 16-20 minutes (44.3%, p

National audit of anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery

A postal survey was conducted of all hospitals in Australia known to have a department of anaesthesia and an intensive care or high dependency unit. Each hospital was asked to report the anaesthetic and postoperative analgesic techniques used for the last ten cases of four common major surgical procedures-aorto-femoral bypass, repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, hemicolectomy and anterior resection of the rectum. Half of 76 hospitals sent a survey form completed and returned it. Responding hospitals were larger on average, than non-responding ones, but otherwise typical of them in terms of university affiliation and metropolitan versus rural location. For each of the procedures studied the proportion of cases in which epidural block was used intra- or postoperatively varied from 0% to 100%. Depending on the procedure, between 65% and 85% of hospitals used epidural block sometimes, with between 10% and 90% of patients in these hospitals being managed with this technique. There is wide variation in the use of epidural block, intra- and postoperatively, in Australia, variation that is unlikely to be explained by systematic differences between institutions in the patients seen or their suitability for one or other technique. This pattern of practice mirrors the lack of agreement about the proper place for epidural techniques evident in the recent literature. There is a widespread belief among clinicians that this is a question of great importance. Accordingly, we believe that anaesthetists and surgeons share an ethical responsibility to enter suitable patients in an appropriately designed randomized controlled trial in order to resolve this question.