Comparison of Patient-Controlled versus Continuous Epidural Analgesia in Adult Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review

Author:

van Samkar Ganapathy1,Ru Tan Yan2,Hermanns Henning1,Preckel Benedikt1ORCID,Jamaludin Faridi S.3ORCID,Hollmann Markus W.1ORCID,Stevens Markus F.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2. Department of Anesthesiology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169856, Singapore

3. Medical Library AMC, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background: The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear. Methods: Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched, enabling a systematic review of studies comparing PCEA and CEA in adult surgical patients (PROSPERO: CRD42018106644). The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1). Secondary outcomes were 24 or 48 h epidural or intravenous total analgesic dose, systemic analgesics, manual top-ups, side effects, and patient satisfaction. Results: Six randomized controlled trials with high heterogeneity of study characteristics were identified with a moderate risk of bias. Two studies showed significantly reduced resting pain scores on POD1 in PCEA compared with CEA patients (36–44%, p < 0.05). Four studies found comparable pain scores between these groups. PCEA use reduced epidural medication (28% to 40% reduction, p < 0.01) in four studies. One study found a 23% reduction (p < 0.001) of top-ups in PCEA; intravenous morphine use by PCEA patients was reduced (0.16 vs. 3.45 mg per patient, p < 0.05) in one study. PCEA patients were more satisfied with analgesia (p < 0.001) in two studies. Nausea and vomiting were reduced in PCEA (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Regarding the reduction in pain scores, the effects of PCEA were not significant or clinically not relevant. However, regarding the amount of epidural drug use, the amount of required rescue systemic analgesics, patient satisfaction, and the number of required top-ups, PCEA had advantages over CEA in surgical patients.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

General Medicine

Reference35 articles.

1. Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery;Guay;Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.,2016

2. Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia: A meta-analysis;Block;J. Am. Med. Assoc.,2003

3. Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations;Melloul;World J. Surg.,2016

4. Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Pancreatoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Recommendations 2019;Melloul;World J. Surg.,2020

5. Failed epidural: Causes and management;Hermanides;Br. J. Anaesth.,2012

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3