Cargando…

Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Although recent evidence shows that the programmed intermittent epidural bolus can provide improved analgesia compared to continuous epidural infusion during labor, its usefulness in major upper abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus vers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Yeon-Ju, Lee, Do-Kyeong, Kwon, Hyun-Jung, Kwon, Hye-Mee, Lee, Jong-Hyuk, Kim, Doo-Hwan, Jeong, Sung-Moon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8619973/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34830661
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225382
_version_ 1784605113141166080
author Kim, Yeon-Ju
Lee, Do-Kyeong
Kwon, Hyun-Jung
Kwon, Hye-Mee
Lee, Jong-Hyuk
Kim, Doo-Hwan
Jeong, Sung-Moon
author_facet Kim, Yeon-Ju
Lee, Do-Kyeong
Kwon, Hyun-Jung
Kwon, Hye-Mee
Lee, Jong-Hyuk
Kim, Doo-Hwan
Jeong, Sung-Moon
author_sort Kim, Yeon-Ju
collection PubMed
description Although recent evidence shows that the programmed intermittent epidural bolus can provide improved analgesia compared to continuous epidural infusion during labor, its usefulness in major upper abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion on the consumption of postoperative rescue opioids, pain intensity, and consumption of local anesthetic by retrospective analysis of data of patients who underwent major upper abdominal surgery under ultrasound-assisted thoracic epidural analgesia between July 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was total opioid consumption up to 72 h after surgery. The data of postoperative pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and adverse events from 193 patients were analyzed (continuous epidural infusion: n = 124, programmed intermittent epidural bolus: n = 69). There was no significant difference in the rescue opioid consumption in the 72 h postoperative period between the groups (33.3 mg [20.0–43.3] vs. 28.3 mg [18.3–43.3], p = 0.375). There were also no significant differences in the pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and incidence of adverse events. Our findings suggest that the quality of postoperative analgesia and safety following major upper abdominal surgery were comparable between the groups. However, the use of programmed intermittent epidural bolus requires further evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8619973
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86199732021-11-27 Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study Kim, Yeon-Ju Lee, Do-Kyeong Kwon, Hyun-Jung Kwon, Hye-Mee Lee, Jong-Hyuk Kim, Doo-Hwan Jeong, Sung-Moon J Clin Med Article Although recent evidence shows that the programmed intermittent epidural bolus can provide improved analgesia compared to continuous epidural infusion during labor, its usefulness in major upper abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion on the consumption of postoperative rescue opioids, pain intensity, and consumption of local anesthetic by retrospective analysis of data of patients who underwent major upper abdominal surgery under ultrasound-assisted thoracic epidural analgesia between July 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was total opioid consumption up to 72 h after surgery. The data of postoperative pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and adverse events from 193 patients were analyzed (continuous epidural infusion: n = 124, programmed intermittent epidural bolus: n = 69). There was no significant difference in the rescue opioid consumption in the 72 h postoperative period between the groups (33.3 mg [20.0–43.3] vs. 28.3 mg [18.3–43.3], p = 0.375). There were also no significant differences in the pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and incidence of adverse events. Our findings suggest that the quality of postoperative analgesia and safety following major upper abdominal surgery were comparable between the groups. However, the use of programmed intermittent epidural bolus requires further evaluation. MDPI 2021-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8619973/ /pubmed/34830661 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225382 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Kim, Yeon-Ju
Lee, Do-Kyeong
Kwon, Hyun-Jung
Kwon, Hye-Mee
Lee, Jong-Hyuk
Kim, Doo-Hwan
Jeong, Sung-Moon
Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_full Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_fullStr Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_short Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_sort programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion in major upper abdominal surgery: a retrospective comparative study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8619973/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34830661
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225382
work_keys_str_mv AT kimyeonju programmedintermittentepiduralbolusversuscontinuousepiduralinfusioninmajorupperabdominalsurgeryaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT leedokyeong programmedintermittentepiduralbolusversuscontinuousepiduralinfusioninmajorupperabdominalsurgeryaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT kwonhyunjung programmedintermittentepiduralbolusversuscontinuousepiduralinfusioninmajorupperabdominalsurgeryaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT kwonhyemee programmedintermittentepiduralbolusversuscontinuousepiduralinfusioninmajorupperabdominalsurgeryaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT leejonghyuk programmedintermittentepiduralbolusversuscontinuousepiduralinfusioninmajorupperabdominalsurgeryaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT kimdoohwan programmedintermittentepiduralbolusversuscontinuousepiduralinfusioninmajorupperabdominalsurgeryaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT jeongsungmoon programmedintermittentepiduralbolusversuscontinuousepiduralinfusioninmajorupperabdominalsurgeryaretrospectivecomparativestudy