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

Mehta 2008.

Methods Parallel RCT
Ethics committee: approved by institutional review board
Informed consents: informed consents obtained
Site: Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India
Setting: university hospital
Dates of data collection: 2006 to 2007
Funding: departmental
Registration: not registered
Participants 36 participants; mean age: 53.9; sex distribution: 2 females and 34 males
Inclusion criteria

  1. Patients undergoing elective robotic‐assisted CABG


Exclusion criteria

  1. LVEF < 35%

  2. Anomaly of the vertebral column

  3. Receiving heparin and antiplatelet medication within the preceding week

  4. With significant respiratory disease

  5. Requiring preoperative inotropic support or intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation
Interventions Intervention

  1. Epidural analgesia (N = 19)


Comparator

  1. Paravertebral blockade (N = 17)


Premedication: oral lorazepam 2 mg and morphine sulphate 0.1 mg/kg with glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg IM
Induction: midazolam, fentanyl
Maintenance: isoflurane in oxygen and air, and vecuronium bromide
Surgery: off‐pump robotic‐assisted CABG
Outcomes Relevant to this review

  1. Risk of mortality

  2. Risk of myocardial infarction

  3. Risk of pulmonary complications (respiratory depression and pneumonia)

  4. Risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

  5. Risk of neurological complications (cerebrovascular accident or epidural hematoma)

  6. Tracheal extubation

  7. Pain scores

  8. Haemodynamic variables


Others

  1. Rescue analgesia

  2. Lung function tests

  3. Re‐exporation

  4. Hospital length of stay
Notes Correspondence: information received from study authors
Conflict of interest: none
DOI: 10.4103/0971‐9784.41576
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote. "randomised"; "chit system"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Unclear
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unclear
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk An independent observer who was blinded to the analgesic techniques recorded visual analogue scale scores
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 Analysed in intention‐to‐treat
Groups had similar demographic data