Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of thoracic epidural analesis (TEA) for postoperative complications after cardiac surgery. Methods Such databases as PubMed, Science Citation Index, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM were electronically searched from inception to October 2012 for collecting the randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness and safety of thoracic epidural analgesisa for postoperative complications after cardiac surgery. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Totally 14 studies were eligible, involving 1 942 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that, TEA combined with general anesthesia (GA) was superior to GA alone in reducing the incidences of myocardial ischemia/infarction (RR=0.63, 95%CI 0.41 to 0.96, P=0.03), respiratory complications (RR=0.55, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.75, P=0.000 1), supraventricular arrhythmias (RR=0.64, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.88, P=0.005), and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD= –2.15, 95%CI –3.72 to –0.58, P=0.007), with significant differences. Conclusions Current evidence shows that, TEA after surgery is effective in reducing the incidences of myocardial ischemia/infarction, respiratory complications, supraventricular arrhythmias, and duration of mechanical ventilation. There is the lack of data on the adverse events of TEA (mainly referring to epidural hematoma). Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, patients’ conditions should be fully considered before applying TEA in clinical practice.
Objective To systematically evaluate effectiveness, dosage and adverse reaction of sufentanil versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), so as to provide evidence for rational drug use in clinic. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, the special trials registered in the Cochrane anesthesia group, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched by the end of 2012, and the relevant periodicals were also manually searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on sufentanil versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia. According to the Cochrane Handbook 5.0, literature was screened, data were extracted, and quality of the included studies was critically assessed. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 25 RCTs involving 1 944 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) as for visual analog scale (VAS), compared with the fentanyl group, the postoperative VAS at 2-hour, 4-hour, 8-hour, 12-hour, 24-hour and 48-hour was decreased in the sufentanil group; b) as for sedation scale, the fentanyl group, the postoperative sedation at 12-hour and 24-hour was lower in the sufentanil group when adopting 0 to 3 points scoring method, but there were no significant differences at other time points; c) as for drug dosage, compared with the fentanyl group, the postoperative drug consumption at 24-hour and 48-hour was less in the sufentanil group; d) as for adverse reaction, the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, dizziness and somnolence in the sufentanil group was lower than those in the fentanyl group. But there was no significant difference in other adverse reactions such as skin itching, limbs numbness and motor disturbance between the two groups; and e) as for the demands of additional analgesic drugs, compared with the fentanyl group, the incidence of demanding additional analgesic drugs was lower in the sufentanil group. Conclusion Compared with fentanyl, sufentanil has better effects of analgesia and sedation for PCEA; Its dosage and incidence of adverse reactions are lower, so sufentanil is safer in clinic.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of COX inhibitor flurbiprofen axetil in relieving propofol injection pain and preemptive analgesia after general anesthesia. Methods Databases such as PubMed, CBM, Springer, Ovid, CNKI and ISI were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about flurbiprofen axetil in relieving propofol injection pain and preemptive analgesia after general anesthesia published from 2000 to 2010. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane Handbook 5.0.1. Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 4.2.10 software. Results A total of 15 RCTs involving 1 425 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) Relieving propofol injection pain: Compared with the placebo group, flurbiprofen axetil could prevent the propofol injection pain (RR=3.13, 95%CI 1.08 to 9.11, P=0.04), and relieve the moderate and severe pain in injecting propofol (RR=0.57, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.81, P=0.002; RR=0.14, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.34, Plt;0.000 1, respectively), but there were no significant differences in relieving mild pain between the two groups; b) Preemptive analgesia: the visual analog scale (VAS) of post-operation at 2-hour (WMD= –2.25, 95%CI –4.20 to –0.29, P=0.02), 4-hour (WMD= –1.99, 95%CI –3.19 to –0.79, P=0.001), 8-hour (WMD= –1.39, 95%CI –1.86 to –0.93, Plt;0.000 01) and 12-hour (WMD= –2.70, 95%CI –4.73 to –0.68, P=0.009) was decreased when flurbiprofen axetil was injected before the operation, but there were no significant differences in VAS of post-operation at 48-hour between the two groups. When flurbiprofen axetil was injected at the end of the operation, VAS of post-operation at 12-hour (WMD= –0.94, 95%CI –1.73 to –0.16, P=0.02) was decreased, but there were no significant differences in VAS of post-operation at 24-hour between the two groups; flurbiprofen axetil could lessen the need for opioid analgesics (RR=0.47, 95%CI 0.27 to 0.82, P=0.008); and c) Safety: there were no significant differences in postoperative nausea, vomit and somnolence between the two groups. Conclusion Flurbiprofen axetil can significantly prevent or relieve the propofol injection pain; flurbiprofen axetil injected before operation can relieve post-operative pain at 2-, 4-, 8- and 12-hour; flurbiprofen axetil injected at the end of the operation can relieve post-operative pain at 12-hour. Yet more RCTs are required to discuss its effects on nausea, vomit and somnolence.
Objective To evaluate the effects of prophylactic ondansetron for preventing intrathecal opioid induced pruritus. Methods According to the Cochrane Handbook, such databases as The Cochrane Library, OVID, EMbase, PubMed, CNKI and CBM were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about ondansetron for preventing intrathecal opioid induced pruritus. According to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the literatures were screened, and meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Eight RCTs involving 577 patients were included. The quality evaluation showed the bias of all studies was unclear. Meta-analysis showed that because the heterogeneity of the included studies was so large (P=0.0001, I2=80%), subgroup analyses were performed. The subgroup analyses on surgery methods showed no statistical heterogeneity among all subgroups. a) There was a significant difference in incidence rate of pruritus between the ondansetron group and the control group in arthroscopic knee or urologic surgery (RR=0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.67); b) There was no significant difference in incidence rate of pruritus between the ondansetron group and the control group in obstetric surgery (RR=0.98, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.12); c) There was a significant difference in incidence rate of pruritus between the ondansetron group and the control group in gynecologic surgery (RR=0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.76); and d) There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of pruritus between the ondansetron group and the control group in outpatient surgery (RR=0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.67). Conclusion The subgroup analyses performed because of the large heterogeneity of the included studies indicate that ondansetron can prevent the intrathecal opioid induced pruritus in arthroscopic knee, urologic and gynecological surgeries rather than obstetric and outpatient surgeries. Due to the small scale, large heterogeneity and unclear quality evaluation of the included studies, more high quality RCTs are required to provide reliable evidence.
Objective To compare the effect of intravenous and epidural analgesia on postoperative complications after abdominal and thoracic surgery. Methods A literature search was conducted by using computerized database on PubMed, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, and CNKI from 1985 to Jan 2009. Further searches for articles were conducted by checking all references describing postoperative complications with intravenous and epidural anesthesia after abdominal and thoracic surgery. All included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed and data were extracted by the standard of Cochrane systematic review. The homogeneous studies were pooled using RevMan 4.2.10 software. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 3 055 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results of meta-analyses showed that, a) pulmonary complications and lung function: patient-controlled epidural analgesia can significantly decrease the incidence of pneumonia (RR=0.66, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.83) and improve the FEV1 (WMD=0.17, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.29) and FVC (WMD=0.21, 95%CI 0.1 to 0.32) of lung function after abdominal and thoracic surgery, but no differences in decreasing postoperative respiratory failure (RR=0.77, 95%CI 0.58 to 1.02) and prolonged ventilation (RR=0.75, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.13) compared with intravenous analgesia; b) cardiovascular event: epidural analgesia could significantly decrease the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR=0.58, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.95) and arrhythmia (RR=0.64, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.88) than the control group, but could not better reduce the risk of heart failure (RR=0.79, 95%CI 0.47 to 1.34) and hypotension (RR=1.21, 95%CI 0.63 to 2.29); and c) Other complications: epidural and intravenous analgesia had no difference in decreasing the risk of postoperative renal insufficient (RR=0.78, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.14), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (RR=0.78, 95%CI 0.49 to 1.23), infection (RR=0.89, 95%CI 0.70 to 1.12) and nausea (RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.38 to 2.81). Conclusions Epidural analgesia can obviously decrease the risk of pneumonia, myocardial infarction and severe arrhythmia, and can improve the lung function after abdominal or thoracic surgery.
Objective To systematically evaluate the effect of epidural analgesia on prognosis after intestinal surgery. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid and CNKI were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effects of epidural analgesia on prognosis after intestinal surgery published from 1985 to 2010. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed and the data was extracted according to the Cochrane Handbook, and then the meta-analyses were conducted by using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Ten RCTs involving 506 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the patient controlled analgesia (PCA), the patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) significantly reduced the waiting time for having first flatus, first defecation, and the length of hospital stay (MD= –1.07, 95%CI –1.63 to –0.50; MD= –0.63, 95%CI –1.19 to –0.08; MD= –1.36, 95%CI –2.28 to –0.44; respectively), lowered the frequency of vomiting on the first and second day after operation (OR=0.33, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.82; OR=0.3, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.84; respectively), and obviously declined the visual analog scale (VAS) scores of rest pain on the first, second and third day after operation (MD= –26.60, 95%CI –33.06 to –20.15; MD= –25.98, 95%CI –30.98 to –20.97; MD= –15.59, 95%CI –27.29 to –3.88; respectively), and the VAS scores of motion pain on the first, second and third day after operation (MD= –26.00, 95%CI –36.00 to –16.00; MD= –27.89, 95%CI –35.70 to –20.08; MD= –11.79, 95%CI –21.28 to –2.30; respectively). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of urinary tract infection, urinary retention, anastomotic leak and ileus. Conclusion PCEA significantly reduces the waiting time for having first flatus and first feces, the length of hospital stay, the VAS scores of pain, and the incidence of postoperative vomiting.
Objective To study the special traits of primiparae’s compliance with labor analgesia, so as to offer individualized analgesia solutions during spontaneous labor. Methods The uniparous primiparae with cephalic presentation between gestational weeks 38 and 40 were divided into two groups based on their educational background (college education or above, and high school education or below), each group with 20 cases. The demographical statistics of the two groups including their State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) grading, PCA results, and delivery situation were recorded and analyzed. Results Differences in age, height, and weight were not statisticallysignificant (Pgt;0.05); differences in T-AI were not statistically significant (Pgt;0.05); differences in S-AI were statistically significant (Plt;0.05); differences in anxiety and numbers of adding anesthetics were not statistically significant (Pgt;0.05); differences in failure to tolerate labor pains and requiring caesarean section were statistically significant (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Primiparae with higher educational degree tend to have higher S-AI grading and perform poorly in compliance with labor analgesia.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of intravertebral analgesia for external cephalic version. Methods We electronically searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2009), PubMed (1980 to 2009), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 2009), Ovid EBM Database (1991 to 2009), EMbase (1980 to 2009), CBM (1978 to 2009) and CNKI (1979 to 2009) to collect literature about intravertebral analgesia for external cephalic version. We screened randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the included studies, and then performed meta-analyses by using RevMan 5.0.13 software. Results Seven RCTs involving 620 women met the inclusion criteria. Five trials were of relatively high quality, and 1 of low quality and 2 not clear. The result of meta-analyses showed that intravertebral analgesia was superior in external cephalic version with a RR 1.53 and 95%CI 1.24 to 1.88. Conclusion Intravertebral analgesia can increase the successful rate of external cephalic version in the treatment of breech presentation compared with intravenous medicine for systematic use or no analgesia.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia versus epidural patient-controlled analgesia for postoperative analgesia, sedation, and the incidence of side effects. Methods We searched the specialized trials registered in the Cochrane anesthesia group, The Cochrane Library (CCTR), MEDLINE (1966 to Sept. 2008), EMbase (1966 to Sept. 2008), PubMed (1966 to Sept. 2008), and handsearched some Chinese anesthesia Journals and Clinical anesthesia journals. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of intravenous versus epidural analgesia for post-operation were included. The quality of the trials was critically assessed. RevMan 4.2.8 software was used for meta-analyses. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 580 patients of intravenous versus epidural analgesia for post-operation were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that there were no significant differences in postoperative analgesia and sedation at the hour-points of 2nd, 4th, 8th, 12th, and 24th hours after operation. There were no significant differences in plasma fentanyl concentration in the two groups on the same analgesia effects. There were also no significant differences in side effects. Conclusion Both intravenous patient-controlled analgesia and epidural patient-controlled analgesia have the same clinical effects. Compared with epidural patient-controlled analgesia, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia has fewer side effects and is more convenient. At the same time, it can reduce more costs of hospitalization. But because of the low quality and small sample size of the included studies, more well-designed, large scale, randomized controlled trials are needed.
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of local versus systemic application of opioids for labor analgesia. Methods We searched PubMed (1966 to January 2008), EMBASE (1980 to January 2008), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), CBM (1978 to January 2008), CNKI (1979 to January 2008) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving local versus systemic application of opioids for labor analgesia. Quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers independently. Meta-analyses were conducted with The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2.10 software. Results A total of 12 trials involving 5909 participants met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that local application of opioids was superior to systemic application in terms of maternal satisfaction with pain relief during labor (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.09). No significant difference was found between the two groups in the incidence of low neonatal Apgar score at 5 minutes (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.01). Conclusion Local application of opioids for labor analgesia appears to be more effective than systematic use in reducing pain during labor. But as for safety concerns, maternal and neonatal adverse effects are observed in both groups. Thus, more high-quality and large-scale RCTs are needed.