| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
DOI: 10.1177/108925320500900109 Regional Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery: A Friend or A Foe?
Escalating costs and change in the profile of patients presenting for cardiac surgery requires modification of perioperative management strategies. Regional anesthesia has played an integral part of many fast-track anesthesia protocols across North America and Europe. This review suggests that for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, the risk-to-benefit ratio is in favor of epidural and spinal anesthesia, provided there are no specific contraindications and the guidelines for the use of regional techniques in cardiac surgery are followed. Patients managed with regional techniques seem to benefit from superior postoperative analgesia, shorter postoperative ventilation, reduced incidence of supraventricular arrhythmia, and lower rates of perioperative myocardial infarction. The results of this analysis suggest that for each episode of neurologic complication, 20 myocardial infarctions and 76 episodes of atrial fibrillation would be prevented, thus, we would consider the regional anesthesia and analgesia to be an effective strategy that improves perioperative morbidity. However, other treatment modalities such as the addition of calcium channel blockers, aspirin, and beating heart surgery, are also suggested to be beneficial in cardiac surgical patients and may impose less risk than the use of regional techniques. We believe that the results presented in this review are encouraging enough to permit continued investigation. A prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial needs to be adequately powered to answer important clinical questions and allow for a long-term follow-up.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
