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).

Comparación entre analgesia epidural continua vs bloqueo nervio periférico en niños llevados a cirugía múltiple de miembros inferiores

Las cirugías reconstructivas múltiples de miembros inferiores son intervenciones quirúrgicas que implican un difícil manejo analgésico en el postoperatorio, actualmente la técnica analgésica usada es la analgesia peridural; sin embargo los efectos adversos asociados a esta no la hacen una técnica ideal para manejo de dolor. Los bloqueos de nervio periférico han aparecido como una alternativa para el manejo del dolor; pero no se ha difundido ampliamente su uso. Se pretende evaluar la disminución de efectos adversos con el uso de bloqueos de nervio periférico sobre la analgesia epidural. Este estudio piloto inicial se realizo para verificar efectividad técnicas a usar y problemas que se pudieran presentar. Se aplico el protocolo en 23 pacientes que fueron llevados a cirugía de miembros inferiores, se dividieron en 2 grupos 11 recibieron bloqueos de nervio periférico y 12 analgesia epidural. Se les realizo seguimiento por 48 horas y se evaluó el control del dolor, consumo de opioides y efectos adversos. El tiempo de colocación del bloqueo fue similar en ambos grupos, el grupo de bloqueos presento menos episodios de dolor y menos episodios de dolor severo. No se presento retención urinaria en ningún paciente pero en el grupo de epidural se presento mayor incidencia de nausea y vomito (60% vs 45%). Se encontró que los bloqueos de nervio periférico son una adecuada opción para el manejo del dolor en este tipo de cirugías; y al parecer disminuye la incidencia de eventos adversos asociados a la analgesia epidural.

Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space

BackgroundThe success of epidural anaesthesia depends on correct identification of the epidural space. For several decades, the decision of whether to use air or physiological saline during the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space has been governed by the personal experience of the anaesthesiologist. Epidural block remains one of the main regional anaesthesia techniques. It is used for surgical anaesthesia, obstetrical analgesia, postoperative analgesia and treatment of chronic pain and as a complement to general anaesthesia. The sensation felt by the anaesthesiologist from the syringe plunger with loss of resistance is different when air is compared with saline (fluid). Frequently fluid allows a rapid change from resistance to non-resistance and increased movement of the plunger. However, the ideal technique for identification of the epidural space remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of both air and saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space.To evaluate complications related to the air or saline injected.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (from inception to September 2013). We applied no language restrictions. The date of the most recent search was 7 September 2013.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) on air and saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.Main resultsWe included in the review seven studies with a total of 852 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally ranked as showing low risk of bias inmost domains, with the exception of one study, which did not mask participants. We were able to include data from 838 participants in the meta-analysis. We found no statistically significant differences between participants receiving air and those given saline in any of the outcomes evaluated: inability to locate the epidural space (three trials, 619 participants) (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 2.31, low-quality evidence); accidental intravascular catheter placement (two trials, 223 participants) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.45, low-quality evidence); accidental subarachnoid catheter placement (four trials, 682 participants) (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.90, low-quality evidence); combined spinal epidural failure (two trials, 400 participants) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.18, low-quality evidence); unblocked segments (five studies, 423 participants) (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.85); and pain measured by VAS (two studies, 395 participants) (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.18). With regard to adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between participants receiving air and those given saline in the occurrence of paraesthesias (three trials, 572 participants) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15); difficulty in advancing the catheter (two trials, 227 participants) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.56); catheter replacement (two trials, 501 participants) (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.83); and postdural puncture headache (one trial, 110 participants) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.71).Authors' conclusionsLow-quality evidence shows that results do not differ between air and saline in terms of the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space and reduction of complications. Applicability might be compromised, as most of the results described in this review were obtained from parturient patients. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials in this field.

Epidural anesthesia and postoperatory analgesia with alpha-2 adrenergic agonists and lidocaine for ovariohysterectomy in bitches

The aim of this study was to determine the viability and cardiorespiratory effects of the association of epidural alpha-2 adrenergic agonists and lidocaine for ovariohysterectomy (OH) in bitches. Forty-two bitches were spayed under epidural anesthesia with 2.5 mg/kg body weight (BW) of 1% lidocaine with adrenaline (CON) or in association with 0.25 mg/kg BW of xylazine (XYL), 10 mu g/kg BW of romifidine (ROM), 30 mu g/kg BW of detomidine (DET), 2 mu g/kg BW of dexmedetomidine (DEX), or 5 mu g/kg BW of clonidine (CLO). Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f(R)) and arterial pressures were monitored immediately before and every 10 min after the epidural procedure. Blood gas and pH analysis were done before, and at 30 and 60 min after the epidural procedure. Animals were submitted to isoflurane anesthesia if they presented a slightest sign of discomfort during the procedure. Time of sensory epidural block and postoperative analgesia were evaluated. All animals in CON and DEX, 5 animals in ROM and CLO, 4 animals in XYL, and 3 in DET required supplementary isoflurane. All groups, except CLO, showed a decrease in HR. There was an increase in arterial pressures in all groups. Postoperative analgesia lasted the longest in XYL. None of the protocols were totally efficient to perform the complete procedure of OH; however, xylazine provided longer postoperative analgesia than the others.

Comparison of analgesic efficacy of preoperative or postoperative carprofen with or without preincisional mepivacaine epidural anesthesia in canine pelvic or femoral fracture repair

OBJECTIVE: To compare analgesic efficacy of preoperative versus postoperative administration of carprofen and to determine, if preincisional mepivacaine epidural anesthesia improves postoperative analgesia in dogs treated with carprofen. STUDY DESIGN: Blind, randomized clinical study. ANIMALS: Dogs with femoral (n=18) or pelvic (27) fractures. METHODS: Dogs were grouped by restricted randomization into 4 groups: group 1 = carprofen (4 mg/kg subcutaneously) immediately before induction of anesthesia, no epidural anesthesia; group 2 = carprofen immediately after extubation, no epidural anesthesia; group 3 = carprofen immediately before induction, mepivacaine epidural block 15 minutes before surgical incision; and group 4 = mepivacaine epidural block 15 minutes before surgical incision, carprofen after extubation. All dogs were administered carprofen (4 mg/kg, subcutaneously, once daily) for 4 days after surgery. Physiologic variables, nociceptive threshold, lameness score, pain, and sedation (numerical rating scale [NRS], visual analog scale [VAS]), plasma glucose and cortisol concentration, renal function, and hemostatic variables were measured preoperatively and at various times after surgery. Dogs with VAS pain scores >30 were administered rescue analgesia. RESULTS: Group 3 and 4 dogs had significantly lower pain scores and amount of rescue analgesia compared with groups 1 and 2. VAS and NRS pain scores were not significantly different among groups 1 and 2 or among groups 3 and 4. There was no treatment effect on renal function and hemostatic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative carprofen combined with mepivacaine epidural anesthesia had superior postoperative analgesia compared with preoperative carprofen alone. When preoperative epidural anesthesia was performed, preoperative administration of carprofen did not improve postoperative analgesia compared with postoperative administration of carprofen. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Preoperative administration of systemic opioid agonists in combination with regional anesthesia and postoperative administration of carprofen provides safe and effective pain relieve in canine fracture repair.

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.

Études pharmacocinétiques exploratoires de certains médicaments utilisés en analgésie post-opératoire

La douleur post-opératoire chez les patients constitue un défi thérapeutique important pour les cliniciens. Le traitement de la douleur post-opératoire n’est pas accessoire ni optionnel, puisqu’il permet de donner un congé de l’hôpital plus rapide aux patients et ainsi, il contribue à des économies importantes pour notre système de santé. Parmi les approches thérapeutiques utilisées pour la prise en charge de la douleur post-opératoire, cette thèse s’intéresse particulièrement aux blocs de nerfs périphériques par les anesthésiques locaux et à l’administration de la néostigmine par voie épidurale. Ces médicaments sont utilisés en clinique sans avoir préalablement établi, en se basant sur leur propriétés pharmacocinétiques et pharmacodynamiques spécifiques, leurs doses optimales. Ces doses devraient également tenir en considération les particularités anatomiques du site d’injection par rapport au site d’action. Cette thèse inclut des études exploratoires qui ont contribué à caractériser la pharmacocinétique de la ropivacaïne et de la bupivacaïne ainsi que la pharmacocinétique et la pharmacodynamie de la néostigmine. La première étude portait sur seize patients subissant une chirurgie orthopédique avec un bloc combiné des nerfs fémoral et sciatique par la ropivacaïne (n=8) ou la bupivacaïne (n=8). C’était la première étude qui a inclu des temps d’échantillons pharmacocinétiques allant jusqu’à 32 h après le bloc et ces résultats ont démontré une variabilité interindividuelle considérable. La modélisation par approche de population a aidé à expliquer les sources de la variabilité et démontré que l’absorption systémique des anesthésiques locaux était très lente. De plus, les concentrations plasmatiques demeuraient mesurables, et dans certains cas présentaient un plateau, 32 h après le bloc. Dans les prochaines études, un échantillonnage allant jusqu’à 4 ou 5 jours sera nécessaire afin d’atteindre la fin de l’absorption. La deuxième étude a établi le développement d’un modèle animal en étudiant la pharmacocinétique de la ropivacaïne après administration intraveineuse ainsi que son degré de liaison aux protéines plasmatiques chez le lapin (n=6). Les résultats ont démontré que, chez le lapin la ropivacaïne est beaucoup moins liée aux protéines plasmatiques comparativement à l’humain. Ce résultat important sera utile pour planifier les prochaines études précliniques. La troisième étude a exploré, pour la première fois, la pharmacocinétique et la pharmacodynamie de la néostigmine administrée par voie épidurale et a essayé de caractériser la courbe dose-réponse en utilisant trois doses différentes : 0.5, 1 et 1.5 mg. Bien que les concentrations de la néostigmine dans le liquide céphalo-rachidien fussent très variables une relation inverse entre la consommation de mépéridine et la dose de néostigmine a été démontrée. La dose de 1.5 mg a donné une meilleure réponse pharmacodynamique sur la douleur, mais elle a été considérée comme dangereuse puisqu’elle a résulté en deux cas d’hypertension. Nous avons conclu que des doses plus faibles que 1.5 mg devront être utilisées lors de l’utilisation de la néostigmine par voie épidurale. En conclusion, les études rapportées dans cette thèse ont exploré les propriétés pharmacocinétiques et/ou pharmacodynamiques de certains médicaments utilisés pour le traitement de la douleur post-opératoire. Ceci mènera au but ultime qui est la meilleure prise en charge de la douleur post-opératoire chez les patients.

Efeitos adversos do sufentanil associado ao anestésico local pelas vias subaracnóidea e peridural em pacientes submetidas à analgesia de parto

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Peridural com ropivacaina a 1%: Experiencia com volume proporcional a estatura

Background and Objectives - Ropivacaine - a local amino amide anesthetic agent - is a plain S enantiomer which makes it a potent and low toxicity drug. The aim of our study was to evaluate 1% ropivacaine for epidural block in lower doses than those described in the literature. Methods - Thirty-eight patients, physical status ASA I and II, aged 15 to 70 years, weighing 50 to 100 kg were selected. Premedication consisted of 15 mg oral midazolam given 60 min before anesthesia induction. In the OR, after standard monitoring a catheter was inserted intravenously to administer 10 ml.kg-1 Ringers lactate solution. Epidural puncture was performed with the patient in the sitting position and 1% ropivacaine was administered in a volume corresponding to 10% of patient's height in centimeters. With the patient in the supine position, motor blockade intensity, temperature sensitivity and sensory block extension at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes after drug injection were evaluated. Blood pressure, heart rate and adverse side effects during the course of anesthesia and in the post-anesthetic period were also observed. In the recovery room patients were followed-up until motor blockade intensity temperature sensitivity and sensory block had returned to level L2. Results - Mean values were 41.4 years of age, 68.8 kg of body weight and 165 cm height. Upper thermal blockade level was T4 and upper sensory block level was T6. Most patients showed motor block level 1 (Bromage scale) after 30 minutes of observation. Motor block mean duration was 254 minutes and temperature sensitivity 426 minutes. Only three patients had complications: two cases of hypotension and one of bradycardia. Conclusions - In the volumes used in this study, ropivacaine produced adequate analgesia and a less intense lower limb motor block which, however, was sufficient to allow for surgical procedures with low incidence of side-effects.

Associacao de opioides lipofilicos a bupivacaina na anestesia peridural. Ha vantagem no aumento da dose do opioide?

Background and Objectives: - The effects of associating lipophilic opioids to local anesthetics in epidural anesthesia are not well defined. There are still questions and controversies about opioid doses to be used and their major effects in the epidural block. This study aimed at evaluating the epidural block effects in humans of the association of different fentanyl and sufentanil doses to bupivacaine with 1:200.000 epinephrine. Methods: - A double-blind randomized study was performed in 94 patients of both genders, physical status ASA I, aged between 18 and 60 years, submitted to lower abdomen, perineal or lower limb surgery. Patients without preanesthetic medication were epidurally injected with 100 mg (20 ml) 0.5% bupivacaine, 0.1 mg (0.1 ml) 1%o epinephrine plus a combination of the following drugs: BUPI Group (15 patients): 2 ml of 0.9% saline solution (SS); FENT50 Group (19 patients): 50 μg (1 ml) fentanyl + 1 ml SS; FENT100 Group (20 patients): 100 μg (2 ml) fentanyl; SUF30 Group (20 patients): 30 μg (0.6 ml) sufentanil + SS (1.4 ml); SUF100 Group (20 patients): 50 μg (1 ml) sufentanil + SS (1 ml). The following parameters were studied: onset of sensory block, analgesic block (onset time) in T12, T10 and T8, analgesic block duration in T10 and T12, motor block degree, consciousness degree, need for supplemental perioperative sedation and analgesia, hypotension, bradycardia and peri and post operative side-effects, analgesia duration, proportion of patients needing supplemental analgesia and evaluation of postoperative pain (pain analog visual scale). Results: Groups were demographically uniform. The addition of fentanyl or sufentanil did not alter major characteristics of perioperative epidural block and has not significantly increased postoperative analgesia duration as compared to the use of bupivacaine only. However, the addition of lipophilic opioids has increased the quality of perioperative anesthetic block, translated into a lesser need for supplemental analgesia (p < 0.02). The increased dose of fentanyl and especially of sufentanil has increased the incidence of perioperative drowsiness (p < 0.001) without significant increase in other side effects. Conclusions: In the conditions and doses used, the addition of lipophilic opioids to bupivacaine and the increased dose of lipophilic opioids have improved anesthetic block quality without changes in the epidural block characteristics or a significant increase in side effects, with the exception of drowsiness mainly caused by sufentanil. However, they were not able to provide a significant increase in postoperative analgesia duration.