Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-analysis of Thoracic Epidural Anesthesia versus General Anesthesia for Cardiac Surgery

Svircevic, Vesna, van Dijk, Diederik, Nierich, Arno P., Passier, Martijn P., Kalkman, Cor J., van der Heijden, Geert J.M.G., Bax, Leon·2011·Anesthesiology

Abstract

Background: A combination of general anesthesia (GA) with thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery. We have performed a meta-analysis to compare mortality and cardiac, respiratory, and neurologic complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with GA alone or a combination of GA with TEA. Methods: Randomized studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with either GA alone or GA in combination with TEA were retrieved from PubMed, Science Citation index, EMBASE, CINHAL, and Central Cochrane Controlled Trial Register databases. Results: The search strategy yielded 1,390 studies; 28 studies that included 2,731 patients met the selection criteria. Compared with GA alone, the combined risk ratio for patients receiving GA with TEA was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.40-1.64) for mortality, 0.80 (95% CI: 0.52-1.24) for myocardial infarction, and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.24-1.46) for stroke. The risk ratios for the respiratory complications and supraventricular arrhythmias were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40-0.69) and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.50-0.93), respectively. Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that the use of TEA in patients undergoing cardiac surgery reduces the risk of postoperative supraventricular arrhythmias and respiratory complications. The sparsity of events precludes conclusions about mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, but the estimates suggest a reduced risk after TEA. The risk of side effects of TEA, including epidural hematoma, could not be assessed with the current dataset, and therefore TEA should be used with caution until its benefit-harm profile is further elucidated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aln.0b013e318201d300

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 162

Metadata

Authors
Svircevic, V., van Dijk, D., Nierich, A. P., Passier, M. P., Kalkman, C. J., van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., & Bax, L.
Venue
Anesthesiology
Published
2011-02-01
Volume
114
Issue
2
Pages
271-282
ISSN
0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097648630
Cited by
162
References
2
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta-analysis of Thoracic Epidural Anesthesia versus General Anesthesia for Cardiac Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aln.0b013e318201d300
The paper
Svircevic, V., van Dijk, D., Nierich, A. P., Passier, M. P., Kalkman, C. J., van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., & Bax, L. (2011). Meta-analysis of Thoracic Epidural Anesthesia versus General Anesthesia for Cardiac Surgery. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e318201d300

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.