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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update
DerSimonian, R., & Kacker, R. (2007) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004 · Cited by 2,374
Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2889 · Cited by 716
Cited by
2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Hillis, L. D., Smith, P. K., Anderson, J. L., Bittl, J. A., Bridges, C. R., Byrne, J. G., Cigarroa, J. E., DiSesa, V. J., Hiratzka, L. F., Hutter, A. M., et al. (2011) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.009 · Cited by 820
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.