Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 1;2019(3):CD006715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006715.pub3

Bektas 2015.

Methods Parallel RCT
Ethics committee: approved by the Turkey High Education and Research Hospital Ethics Committee
Informed consents: written informed consents obtained
Site: Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
Setting: university hospital
Dates of data collection: between 15 February 2009 and 10 August 2011
Funding: departmental/institutional
Registration: not registered
Participants 34 participants; mean age: 55 years; sex distribution: 10 females and 24 males
Inclusion criteria

  1. ASA II to III

  2. Ejection fraction > 50%

  3. Not previously undergone CABG

  4. Did not have any contraindications for epidural anaesthesia

  5. Scheduled for elective CABG


Exclusion criteria

  1. Contraindication for epidural catheter

  2. Abnormal coagulation parameters (APTT > 40 s, INR > 1.25, fibrinogen concentration < 1 g/L)

  3. Renal or hepatic failure

  4. Local anaesthetic or opioid allergy
Interventions Intervention

  1. TEA (N = 17)


Comparator

  1. Systemic analgesia (N =17)


Premedication: midazolam
Induction: fentanyl, midazolam, and rocuronium
Maintenance: fentanyl, midazolam, and rocuronium
Surgery: CABG with CPB
Outcomes Relevant to this review

  1. Risk of mortality

  2. Risk of myocardial infarction

  3. Risk of neurological complications (epidural haematoma)

  4. Pain scores

  5. Haemodynamic variables


Others

  1. Rescue analgesia
Notes Correspondence: information received from study authors
Conflict of interest: "the authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper"
DOI: org/10.1155/2015/658678
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote. "randomly divided into 2 groups"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote. "patient selection, data collection and evaluation were performed by separate workers unaware of each other"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Quote: "patient selection, data collection and evaluation were performed by separate workers unaware of each other"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Quote: "outcomes were evaluated by another doctor"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No loss to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All results reported
Other bias Low risk No failed epidural
Groups had similar demographic data