Epidural Catheterization in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Risk Assessment of Epidural Hematoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The potential benefits of epidural anesthesia on mortality, atrial fibrillation, and pulmonary complications must be weighed against the risk of epidural hematoma associated with intraoperative heparinization. This study aims to provide an updated assessment of the clinical risks of epidural anesthesia in cardiac surgery, focusing on the occurrence of epidural hematomas and subsequent paralysis. A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Ovid Central, Web of Science, and PubMed was conducted to identify relevant publications between 1966 and 2022. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of the retrieved manuscripts. Studies reporting adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with epidural catheterization were included. The incidence of hematomas was calculated by dividing the number of hematomas by the total number of patients in the included studies. Risk calculations utilized various denominators based on the rigor of trial designs, and the risks of hematoma and paralysis were compared to other commonly encountered risks. The analysis included a total of 33,089 patients who underwent cardiac surgery with epidural catheterization. No epidural hematomas were reported across all published RCTs, prospective, and retrospective trials. Four case reports associated epidural hematoma with epidural catheterization and perioperative heparinization. The risks of epidural hematoma and subsequent paralysis were estimated at 1:7643 (95% CI 1:3860 to 380,916) and 1:10,190 (95% CI 1:4781 to 0:1), respectively. The risk of hematoma is similar to the non-obstetric population (1:5405; 95% CI 1:4784 to 6134). The risk of hematoma in cardiac surgery patients receiving epidural anesthesia is therefore similar to that observed in some other surgical non-obstetric populations commonly exposed to epidural catheterization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".