Palomero 2008.

Methods	Parallel RCT Ethics committee: approved by the La Paz Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee Informed consents: written informed consents were obtained from all patients Site: La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; and Gregorio Marañon University Hospital, Madrid, Spain Setting: university hospital Dates of data collection: not reported Funding: departmental Registration: unspecified
Participants	22 participants; mean age: 65.3 years; sex distribution: 4 females and 18 males Inclusion criteria Patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery Exclusion criteria History of inflammatory disease Recent infection Autoimmune disease Corticoid treatment Immunosuppressant treatment Recent preoperative procedure Recent emergency procedure Concurrent valvular surgery or presence of valvular disease Ejection fraction (EF) < 45% Older than 85 years
Interventions	Intervention Epidural analgesia (N = 10) Comparator No epidural (N = 12) Induction: propofol, fentanyl, and vecuronium Maintenance: propofol, sevoflurane, and fentanyl or epidural analgesia Surgery: CABG with CPB
Outcomes	Relevant to this review Risk of myocardial infarction Risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter Risk of neurological complications (cerebrovascular accident or epidural haematoma or abscess) Tracheal extubation Haemodynamic variables Others Markers of inflammation Blood transfusion requirement
Notes	Correspondence: information received from study authors Conflict of interest: no conflict of interest DOI: n/a
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "assigned a computer‐generated randomization code"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "final randomization was performed by a physician not belonging to the hospital team the day before surgery, using the randomization code"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "the study was not blinded"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "the study was not blinded"
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 reported Groups well balanced, except Euroscore was higher in the TEA group (5.4 vs 3.8)