Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32459322›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2020

Gastrointestinal Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy With Epidural vs Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rosa Klotz, Jan Larmann, Christina Klose, Thomas Bruckner, Laura Benner, Colette Doerr-Harim, Solveig Tenckhoff, Johan F Lock, Elmar-Marc Brede, Roberto Salvia and 19 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Visualization of Intraoperative Pancreatic Leakage (ViP): The IDEAL Stage I First-in-human, Single-arm Clinical Pilot Trial of SmartPAN.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors at 13 institutions in 4 countries.

Rosa KlotzDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jan LarmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christina KloseInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas BrucknerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Laura BennerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Colette Doerr-HarimThe Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Solveig TenckhoffThe Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Johan F LockDepartment of General, Visceral, Transplant, Vascular and Paediatric Surgery, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Elmar-Marc BredeDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Roberto SalviaSurgical and Oncological Department, Pancreas Institute, University Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy.
Enrico PolatiDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Jörg KöningerDepartment of General, Visceral, Thorax and Transplantation Surgery, Klinikum Stuttgart, Katharinenhospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Jan-Henrik SchiffDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care, Klinikum Stuttgart, Katharinenhospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Uwe A WittelDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Alexander HötzelDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Tobias KeckDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Carla NauDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Anca-Laura AmatiDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic, Transplant and Paediatric Surgery, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Christian KochDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Thomas EberlDepartment of Surgery, General Public Hospital of the Brothers of St John of God, St Veit/Glan, Austria.
Michael ZinkDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, General Public Hospital of the Brothers of St John of God, St Veit/Glan, Austria.
Ales TomazicDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Vesna Novak-JankovicClinical Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Stefan HoferDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus K DienerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus A WeigandDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus W BüchlerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Phillip KnebelDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
PAKMAN Trial Group
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEHospital of the Brothers of St. John of God · ATLjubljana University Medical Centre · SIUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DEUniversity of Giessen · DEGerman Society of Surgery · DEKatharinenhospital · DEKlinikum Stuttgart · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity of Verona · ITZimmer Biomet (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Morbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications. Objective: To determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol. Interventions: Patients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution. Results: Among the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784.

Indexed as

Analgesia, EpiduralAnalgesia, Patient-ControlledAgedFemaleGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative Pain

Identifiers

PMID32459322
PMCPMC7254441
OpenAlexW3030417803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.