Busca avançada
Ano de início
Entree
(Referência obtida automaticamente do Web of Science, por meio da informação sobre o financiamento pela FAPESP e o número do processo correspondente, incluída na publicação pelos autores.)

Commonly-used versus less commonly-used methods in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Texto completo
Autor(es):
Carvalho, Larissa Pierri ; Agarwal, Arnav ; Kashiwagi, Flavio T. ; Correa, Ione ; Pereira, Jose Eduardo G. ; El Dib, Regina
Número total de Autores: 6
Tipo de documento: Artigo de Revisão
Fonte: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA; v. 38, p. 41-51, MAY 2017.
Citações Web of Science: 2
Resumo

Study objective: To summarize the efficacy of less-commonly used modern methods (e.g. epidrum, lidocaine, acoustic device, Macintosh balloon) compared to more commonly-used methods (i.e. air, saline, both) in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space. Design: A systematic review. Setting: A hospital-affiliated university. Measurements: The following databases were searched: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS. We used the GRADE approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence. Results: Eight randomized trials including 1583 participants proved eligible. Results suggested a statistically significantly reduction in inability to locate the epidural space (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11, 0.77; P = 0.01; I-2 = 60%, risk difference (RD) 104/1000, moderate quality evidence), accidental intravascular catheter placement and accidental subarachnoid catheter placement (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21, 0.59; P < 0.0001; I-2 = 0%, risk difference (RD) 108/1000, moderate quality evidence), and unblocked segments (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18, 0.77; P = 0.008; I-2 = 0%, risk difference (RD) 56/1000, moderate quality evidence) with the use of epidrum, lidocaine, acoustic device, or modified Macintosh epidural balloon methods in comparison to air. Compared to saline, lidocaine presented higher rates of reduction in the inability to locate the epidural space (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12, 0.82; P = 0.02; I-2 = not applicable). Conclusions: Moderate-quality evidence shows that less commonly-used modern methods such as epidrum, lidocaine and acoustic devices, are more efficacious compared to more commonly-used methods (i.e. air, saline, both) in terms of the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space. These findings should be explored further in the context of the clinical practice among anaesthesiologists. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (AU)

Processo FAPESP: 13/12368-2 - Ar versus solução salina na técnica da perda de resistência para a identificação do espaço epidural: revisão sistemática de ensaios clínicos randomizados
Beneficiário:Regina Paolucci El Dib
Linha de fomento: Auxílio à Pesquisa - Regular