Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2005 Feb;19(1):32-9.
doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2004.11.006.

Comparison of three anesthetic techniques for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: general anesthesia, combined general and high thoracic epidural anesthesia, or high thoracic epidural anesthesia alone

Paul Kessler  1 , Tayfun Aybek, Gerd Neidhart, Selami Dogan, Volker Lischke, Dorothee H Bremerich, Christian Byhahn
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparison of three anesthetic techniques for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: general anesthesia, combined general and high thoracic epidural anesthesia, or high thoracic epidural anesthesia alone

Paul Kessler et al. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2005 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: This study compared general anesthesia (GA), combined GA plus thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA), and TEA alone in patients scheduled for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

Design: Prospective, nonrandomized clinical study

Setting: University hospital.

Participants: Ninety consenting patients undergoing beating-heart coronary artery revascularization with comparable coronary status and left ventricular function.

Interventions: GA (n=30) was conducted with propofol, remifentanil, and cisatracurium or combined with TEA (GA+TEA, n=30) or TEA as the sole anesthetic with ropivacaine plus sufentanil (TEA, n=30).

Measurements and main results: Groups were comparable regarding the surgical approaches and the number of anastomoses. Four patients (GA, n=2; GA+TEA, n=2) who required unplanned cardiopulmonary bypass, and 4 patients in the TEA group who underwent unexpected intubation because of pneumothorax (n=2), phrenic nerve palsy, or incomplete analgesia were excluded from further analysis. Intraoperative heart rate decreased significantly with both GA+TEA and TEA. None of the patients with TEA alone was admitted to the intensive care unit, they all were monitored on average for 6 hours postoperatively in the intermediate care unit and allowed to eat and drink as desired on admission. Postoperative pain scores were lower in both groups with TEA. There were no differences among groups in patients overall satisfaction.

Conclusion: Based on the authors data, all anesthetic techniques were equally safe from the clinicians standpoint. However, GA+TEA appeared to be most comprehensive, allowing for revascularization of any coronary artery, providing good hemodynamic stability and reliable postoperative pain relief. Nonetheless, the actual and potential risks of TEA during cardiac surgery should not be underestimated.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources