3.9 Review

Protective Effects of Epidural Analgesia on Pulmonary Complications After Abdominal and Thoracic Surgery A Meta-Analysis

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 143, 期 10, 页码 990-999

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.143.10.990

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

objective: To review the impact of epidural vs systemic analgesia on postoperative pulmonary complications. Data Sources: Search of databases (1966 to March 2006) and bibliographies. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were randomized comparison of epidural vs systemic analgesia lasting 24 hours or longer postoperatively and reporting of pulmonary complications, lung function, or gas exchange. Fifty-eight trials (5904 patients) were included. Data Extraction: Articles were reviewed and data extracted. Data were combined using fixed-effect and random-effects models. Data Synthesis: The odds of pneumonia were decreased with epidural analgesia (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.68), independent of site of surgery or catheter insertion, duration of analgesia, or regimen. The effect was weaker in trials that used patient-controlled analgesia in controls (OR, 0.64; 95% Cl, 0.49-0.83) compared with trials that did not (OR, 0.30; 95% Cl, 0.18-0.49) and in larger studies (OR, 0.62; 95% Cl, 0.47-0.81) compared with smaller studies (OR, 0.37; 95% Cl, 0.23-0.58). From 1971-2006, the incidence of pneumonia with epidural analgesia remained about 8% but decreased from 34% to 12% with systemic analgesia (P<.001); consequently, the relative benefit of epidural analgesia decreased also. Epidural analgesia reduced the need for prolonged ventilation or reintubation, improved lung function and blood oxygenation, and increased the risk of hypotension, urinary retention, and pruritus. Technical failures occurred in 7%. Conclusion: Epidural analgesia protects against pneumonia following abdominal or thoracic surgery, although this beneficial effect has lessened over the last 35 years because of a decrease in the baseline risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据