ArticleSpringerPlus2016
High thoracic anesthesia offers no major benefit over general anesthesia in on-pump cardiac surgery patients: a retrospective study.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery - a prospective randomized trial.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) has been proposed to improve and facilitate early postoperative outcome in cardiac surgery. The aim of our study was to analyze early postoperative outcome data of patients undergoing cardiac surgery under general anesthesia (GA) with comparison to patients receiving combined TEA and GA.
methodsMedical records data from 288 patients who underwent elective on-pump cardiac surgery were retrieved and analyzed. Patients were divided into two study groups according to the type of anesthesia used: GA group (n = 141) and TEA group (n = 147). Early postoperative outcome data including quality of analgesia and major organ outcome parameters were compared between the study groups.
resultsThere was no major difference in early postoperative outcome data between the study groups, except for shorter time to extubation (6.0 ± 10.0 vs. 6.9 ± 8.8 h, respectively, P < 0.05) and hospital stay (10.7 ± 5.9 vs. 12.9 ± 8.8 days, respectively, P < 0.05) in TEA group compared to GA group. Also TEA group as compared to GA group had lower pain numeric rating scale scores (1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 1.5 at 24 h, respectively, P < 0.05) and morphine requirements during the first 24 h after surgery (148.2 vs. 193 ± 85.4 μg/kg, respectively, P < 0.05).
conclusionBoth anesthetic methods were equivalent in most postoperative outcome measures. Thoracic epidural analgesia provided superior pain relief, shorter time to extubation and earlier hospital discharge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.