Scott 2001.

Methods	Parallel RCT Ethics committee: the hospital ethics committee approved the study Informed consents: all participants gave written informed consent Site: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Setting: university hospital Dates of data collection: unspecified Funding: departmental/institutional Registration: unspecified
Participants	408 participants; mean age: 59 years; sex distribution: 56 females and 352 males Inclusion criteria Patients undergoing elective CABG Normal coagulation screen LVEF > 35% Exclusion criteria Abnormal preoperative coagulation screen that included prothrombin time, international normalized ratio, fibrinogen, platelet count, and activated partial thromboplastin time
Interventions	Intervention Epidural analgesia (N = 206) Comparator Systemic analgesia (N = 202) Premedication: temazepam, ranitidine, and metoclopramide Induction and maintenance: propofol, alfentanil, and pancuronium Surgery: CABG with CPB
Outcomes	Relevant to this review Risk of mortality Risk of myocardial infarction Risk of pulmonary complications (respiratory depression or pneumonia) Risk of neurological complications (cerebrovascular accident) Others Acute confusion Significant bleeding Renal failure Incidence of major organ complications
Notes	Correspondence: letter sent 16 March 2018; no reply Conflict of interest: none reported DOI: n/a
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "patients were randomized to one of two regimens...by using cards drawn from a sealed envelope"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sealed envelope
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Study was conducted in an open manner; therefore, neither the anaesthesiologists nor the nurses taking measurements were blinded to participants’ treatment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Study was conducted in an open manner; therefore, neither the anaesthesiologists nor the nurses taking measurements were blinded to participants’ treatment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	12 participants had insufficient data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All results reported
Other bias	Low risk	In intention‐to‐treat for remaining 408 participants Groups had similar demographic data