liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Seven years of patient-controlled epidural analgesia in a Swedish hospital A prospective survey
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Drug Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
2014 (English)In: European Journal of Anaesthesiology, ISSN 0265-0215, E-ISSN 1365-2346, Vol. 31, no 11, 589-596 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND Epidural analgesia for postoperative pain relief needs to be monitored regularly in order to evaluate benefits and avoid potential hazards. OBJECTIVES To evaluate efficacy and safety profile of a ward- based regimen for postoperative epidural analgesia combining patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and continuous epidural infusion (CEI). DESIGN We conducted a prospective survey in all patients who received postoperative epidural analgesia between March 2004 and February 2011. PATIENTS We analysed 4663 patients undergoing elective and acute surgery. SETTING University hospital in Sweden. RESULTS The median level of catheter insertion ranged from T8 in high abdominal surgery to T11 in gynaecological surgery. Mean infusion rate was 5.4 +/- 1.6ml h (-1) and was adjusted for age. Mean duration was 3.3 +/- 2.1 days. Eighty-seven percent of the patients rated satisfaction 8 to 10 out of 10 on a post-treatment scale. Reasons for termination were elective in 77.1%, due to inadequate pain relief in 11.4%, due to suspected infection in 0.7% and due to other causes in 10.9%. Of the latter, dislodgement of the catheter (4.0%) and leakage from the puncture site (1.4%) dominated. Catheter reinsertion was performed in 5.3% of the patients, and in 5.0%, the treatment was converted into an intravenous (i. v.) morphine patientcontrolled analgesia regimen. The incidence of motor blockade was 1.7%, sedation 2.1%, nausea 12.8% and pruritus 18.8%. Bolus doses accounted for 16% of the total infusion volume. No epidural haematoma was seen. One epidural abscess requiring antibiotic treatment occurred. CONCLUSION Our prospective survey indicates that PCEA in combination with CEI is effective and relatively well tolerated. The incidence of side effects is generally low and severe adverse events very rare.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins / Wiley: No OnlineOpen , 2014. Vol. 31, no 11, 589-596 p.
National Category
Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-112297DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000105ISI: 000343303400003PubMedID: 24922048OAI: diva2:765684
Available from: 2014-11-24 Created: 2014-11-24 Last updated: 2015-10-02

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Golster, Martin
By organisation
Division of Drug ResearchFaculty of Health SciencesDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping
In the same journal
European Journal of Anaesthesiology
Anesthesiology and Intensive Care

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 96 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link