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

Kundu 2007.

Methods Parallel RCT
Ethics committee: approved by institutional ethics committee
Informed consents: informed written consents were taken from all participants
Site: National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD), Dhaka, Bangladesh
Setting: university hospital
Dates of data collection: between July 2006 and March 2007
Funding: unspecified
Registration: unspecified
Participants 40 participants: mean age: 51.2; sex distribution: 6 females and 34 males
Inclusion criteria
  1. ASA II or III patients

  2. Aged between 40 and 65 years

  3. LVEF ≥ 40%

  4. Scheduled for off‐pump CABG


Exclusion criteria
  1. Left main artery coronary disease

  2. Any contraindication to neuraxial block or catheter placement

  3. Hypersensitivity to any drugs used in the study

  4. Taking antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs within 3 to 5 days before operation

Interventions Intervention
  1. Epidural analgesia (N = 20)


Comparator
  1. Systemic analgesia (N= 20)


Premedication: diazepam
Induction: midazolam, morphine, and pancuronium bromide
Maintenance: halothane, midazolam, morphine, and pancuronium bromide
Surgery: off‐pump CABG
Outcomes Relevant to this review
  1. Risk of myocardial infarction

  2. Risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

  3. Haemodynamic variables


Other
  1. Myocardial ischaemia

Notes Correspondence: letter sent 16 March 2018; no reply
Conflict of interest: not reported
DOI: n/a
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "randomly selected and divided in two groups"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All results reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No loss to follow‐up
Other bias Low risk No failed epidural mentioned
Groups well balanced