| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||








Departments of *Anesthesiology and
Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and
Department of Anesthesiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Terese T. Horlocker, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905. Address e-mail to horlocker.terese{at}mayo.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
IMPLICATIONS: Previous studies performed in obstetric and surgical populations have demonstrated that antiplatelet therapy does not increase the risk of spinal hematoma associated with spinal or epidural anesthesia and analgesia. We confirm the safety of epidural steroid injection in patients receiving aspirin-like medications.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although previous investigations involving surgical or obstetrical patients have demonstrated the safety of neuraxial block in patients receiving NSAIDs (1012), the results have not routinely been applied to the outpatient pain clinic population. As a result, antiinflammatory medications are discontinued, causing increased patient discomfort, or costly platelet function tests are performed before the epidural steroid injection. This study prospectively evaluated the risk of spinal hematoma in patients undergoing epidural steroid injection. In addition, because the presence of blood during needle or catheter placement has been implicated as a risk factor for the development of spinal hematoma (3), other patient and anesthetic variables associated with traumatic (bloody) needle placement were identified.
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Predictors of minor spinal bleeding and transient neurologic deficits were assessed using separate logistic regression analyses. In each case, variables found to be univariately predictive were included in a multivariate analysis to identify a set of independent predictors. For the multivariate analysis, all univariately significant variables were entered in the model in the first step, and a backward elimination procedure was used to eliminate nonsignificant variables. A P value
0.05 was considered statistically significant in all cases.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Blood was noted during needle or catheter placement in 63 (5.2%) patients, including 12 patients in who frank blood was noted. NSAID therapy and platelet count did not affect the incidence of traumatic (bloody) needle placement. There was no difference in the frequency of minor hemorrhagic complications among NSAIDs (Table 1). However, patient and regional anesthetic variables associated with increased frequency of minor hemorrhagic complications identified by logistic regression included increasing age (odds ratio, 1.3 for each 10-yr increase; P < 0.001), needle gauge larger than 18-gauge (odds ratio, 1.8; P = 0.027), needle approach (odds ratio, 2.5 for paramedian; odds ratio, 10.5 for both approaches; P = 0.005), needle placement at multiple interspaces (odds ratio, 4.3; P < 0.001), multiple needle passes (odds ratio, 2.3; P < 0.001), injectant volume <8 mL (odds ratio, 1.2; P = 0.023), accidental dural puncture (odds ratio, 8.2; P = 0.003), and multiple personnel required for successful placement (odds ratio, 4.1; P = 0.014) (Tables 2 and 3). Multivariate analysis identified increased age (odds ratio, 1.3 per 10-yr increase; P < 0.001), multiple needle passes (odds ratio, 2.4; P < 0.001), and injection volume <8 mL (odds ratio, 1.2; P = 0.016) as independent risk factors for minor hemorrhagic complications (Table 4).
|
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This study evaluated risk factors for hemorrhagic complications in outpatients undergoing epidural steroid injection. Nearly one third of the patients studied reported NSAID therapy before treatment. Whereas several patient and anesthetic variables for minor hemorrhagic complications were identified, NSAIDs were not a significant risk factor. NSAID therapy has been considered a relative contraindication to central neural blockade because of the associated prolongation of the bleeding time and potential for neuraxial bleeding (3). NSAIDs exert their antiplatelet effect through inhibiting the acetylation of cyclooxygenase and preventing the synthesis of thromboxane A2. Thromboxane A2 is not only a potent vasoconstrictor, but also facilitates secondary platelet aggregation and release reactions. Depending on the dose administered, aspirin (and other NSAIDs) may produce opposing effects on the hemostatic mechanism. For example, platelet cyclooxygenase is inhibited by small-dose aspirin (60325 mg/d). However, larger doses (1.52 g/d) will also inhibit the production of prostacyclin (a potent vasodilator and platelet aggregation inhibitor) by vascular endothelial cells. Therefore, small-dose aspirin produces a greater antiplatelet effect than larger doses, hence the recommendation for a baby aspirin a day to prevent cerebro- or cardiovascular events. With aspirin, the effect is irreversible and present for the life of the platelet. Other NSAIDs (naproxen, piroxicam, and ibuprofen) produce a short-term defect that normalizes within one to five days (13). We did not detect a difference in the frequency of bleeding during needle placement in patients who reported aspirin doses of
325 mg/d compared with larger daily doses.
Several new classes of antiplatelet drugs have been recently introduced. The antiplatelet effect of the thienopyridine derivatives ticlopidine and clopidogrel results from inhibition of adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation. Because of their extended plasma half lives, clopidogrel must be discontinued five to seven days and ticlopidine 1014 days before normal platelet function is restored. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists, such as abciximab, eptifibatide, and tirofiban, not only inhibit platelet aggregation, but also interfere with platelet-fibrinogen binding and subsequent platelet-platelet interactions. Time to normal platelet aggregation after discontinuation of therapy ranges from 8 hours (eptifibatide and tirofiban) to 48 hours (abciximab). The pharmacologic differences of the thienopyridine derivatives glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and NSAIDs make it impossible to extrapolate among the groups of drugs regarding the practice of neuraxial techniques. However, the increase in perioperative bleeding in patients undergoing cardiac and vascular surgery after receiving ticlopidine, clopidogrel, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists (15) warrants concern regarding the risk of spinal hematoma. There have been two spinal hematomas attributed to neuraxial techniques and thienopyridine derivatives, including one patient undergoing a series of epidural steroid injections (6,8). Because no patient in our study received ticlopidine, clopidogrel, or a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist before the epidural steroid injection, our results and conclusions do not pertain to these drugs.
The risk of spinal hematoma associated with neuraxial block in a patient receiving antiplatelet medications remains controversial. Whereas Vandermeulen et al. (3) implicated antiplatelet medications in three of the 61 cases of spinal hematoma occurring after spinal or epidural techniques, several large studies have demonstrated the relative safety of neuraxial block in combination with aspirin or other NSAIDs (1012). Indeed, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia Consensus Conference on Neuraxial Anesthesia and Anticoagulation concluded that "antiplatelet drugs, by themselves, appear to represent no added significant risk for the development of spinal hematoma in patients having epidural or spinal anesthesia (16)."
Because difficult and/or bloody needle placements are risk factors for clinically significant neuraxial bleeding (3), identification of patient, surgical, and anesthetic variables associated with traumatic needle insertion may decrease the incidence of spinal hematoma. In a prospective study of 1000 patients undergoing neuraxial block for orthopedic surgery, 39% reported preoperative NSAIDs (12). There were no spinal hematomas. Preoperative NSAID therapy was not a risk factor for bloody needle or catheter placement. In addition, there was no difference in the frequency of minor hemorrhagic complications between antiplatelet medications. However, multiple patient and anesthetic variables including female sex, increased age, a history of excessive bruising or bleeding, continuous catheter technique, large needle gauge, multiple needle passes, and difficult needle placement were significant risk factors.
Despite different patient populations, our results are strikingly similar. Factors associated with difficulty in localization of the epidural space such as needle approach, needle insertion at multiple interspaces, number of needle passes, accidental dural puncture, and the need for assistance with needle placement all affected the frequency of minor hemorrhagic complications. Increased patient age has also consistently been a suggested risk factor for both major and minor hemorrhagic events (12,17). We were unable to assess epidural catheter placement as a potential risk factor in the current study because only 14 patients underwent a continuous technique.
Although there were no spinal hematomas among the patients evaluated, it does not imply that the risk is zero for all patients. The absence of major hemorrhagic events in the 383 patients who received NSAIDs before the epidural steroid injection places the maximum risk of spinal hematoma (with 95% confidence interval) at 0.96%. In comparison, the lack of spinal hematoma among the total study population of 1214 corresponds to a maximum frequency of 0.3%. Although the rarity of spinal hematoma makes it impossible to make definitive conclusions on the safety of epidural steroid injection in combination with NSAID therapy, the lack of correlation between these drugs and minor hemorrhagic events, combined with the paucity of spinal hematomas reported among patients receiving these medications, once again suggests that NSAIDs do not significantly increase the risk of spinal hematoma in patients who undergo neuraxial techniques while receiving these medications.
We were intrigued by the transient worsening of neurologic function in patients undergoing epidural steroid injection. Although initially attributed to local anesthetic in the injectant, the occurrence of new sensory or motor findings that persisted for a number of days after the injection, as well as the presence of these symptoms in patients who received only saline as a diluent, excluded local anesthetic effect as a likely etiology. We speculate that either a pressure (ischemic) effect of the injection or an inflammatory response from one or more components of the injectant contributed to these neurologic deficits. Whereas psychosocial issues may also influence patient description of pain and function, an expanding spinal hematoma should be considered in the patient reporting significant worsening of (radicular) pain, progression of a sensory or motor deficit, or bowel/bladder dysfunction. Patients should be instructed to seek medical attention should symptoms of neurologic compromise occur. Additional studies are required to characterize and evaluate these phenomena.
In summary, our results confirm those of previous studies performed in obstetric and surgical populations that document the safety of neuraxial techniques in patients receiving NSAIDs. We conclude that epidural steroid injection is safe in patients receiving aspirin-like antiplatelet medications. However, pain clinic personnel should be aware that minor worsening of neurologic function may occur after epidural steroid injection and must be differentiated from etiologies requiring intervention.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
I. A. Young, G. S. Hyman, L. N. Packia-Raj, and A. J. Cole The Use of Lumbar Epidural/Transforaminal Steroids for Managing Spinal Disease J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., April 1, 2007; 15(4): 228 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Armon, C. E. Argoff, J. Samuels, and M.-M. Backonja Assessment: Use of epidural steroid injections to treat radicular lumbosacral pain: Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology Neurology, March 6, 2007; 68(10): 723 - 729. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. F. Layton, D. F. Kallmes, and T. T. Horlocker Recommendations for Anticoagulated Patients Undergoing Image-Guided Spinal Procedures AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2006; 27(3): 468 - 470. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Djaiani, L. Fedorko, and W. S. Beattie Regional Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery: A Friend or A Foe? Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, March 1, 2005; 9(1): 87 - 104. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. T. Horlocker What's a nice patient like you doing with a complication like this? Diagnosis, prognosis and prevention of spinal hematoma/Qu'est-ce qu'un patient comme vous fait avec une complication comme celle-la ? Diagnostic, pronostic et prevention d'un hematome rachidien Can J Anesth, June 1, 2004; 51(6): 527 - 534. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. T. Horlocker Regional Anesthesia and Anticoagulation in Patients undergoing Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, December 1, 2003; 7(4): 417 - 426. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. J. S. Koo Acute Pain Management Journal of Pharmacy Practice, August 1, 2003; 16(4): 231 - 248. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|