Could benefits of epidural analgesia following oesophagectomy be measured by perceived perioperative patient workload?
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 19025520.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01734.x.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
A controversy exists whether beneficial analgesic effects of epidural analgesia over intravenous analgesia influence the rate of post-operative complications and the length of hospital stay. There is some evidence that favours epidural analgesia following major surgery in high-risk patients. However, there is a controversy as to whether epidural analgesia reduces the intensive care resources following major surgery. In this study, we aimed at comparing the post-operative costs of intensive care in patients receiving epidural or intravenous analgesia. Clinical data and rates of post-operative complications were extracted from a previously reported trial following thoraco-abdominal oesophagectomy. Cost data for individual patients included in that trial were retrospectively obtained from administrative records. Two separate phases were defined: costs of pain treatment and the direct cost of intensive care. Higher calculated costs of epidural vs. intravenous pain treatment, 1,037 vs. 410 Euros / patient, were outweighed by lower post-operative costs of intensive care 5,571 vs. 7,921 Euros / patient (NS). Higher costs and better analgesic effects of epidural analgesia compared with intravenous analgesia do not reduce total costs for post-operative care following major surgery.
Medical subject headings
- Analgesia, Epidural
- Critical Care
- Esophagectomy
- Workload