Analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block in lung surgeries-A non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1111/aas.14325
Pedro Hilton de Andrade Filho, Victor Egypto Pereira, Daniel da Escossia Melo Sousa, Ladyer da Gama Costa, Yuri Pinto Nunes, Giovani Taglialegna, Waynice Neiva de Paula-Garcia, Joao Manoel Silva
{"title":"Analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block in lung surgeries-A non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Pedro Hilton de Andrade Filho, Victor Egypto Pereira, Daniel da Escossia Melo Sousa, Ladyer da Gama Costa, Yuri Pinto Nunes, Giovani Taglialegna, Waynice Neiva de Paula-Garcia, Joao Manoel Silva","doi":"10.1111/aas.14325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain management plays an essential role in postoperative recovery after lung surgeries. The Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) is a widely used regional anaesthesia technique; however, few clinical trials have compared this block to active control in thoracic surgeries. This study evaluated the non-inferiority of the analgesia provided by ESPB when compared to paravertebral block (PVB) in lung surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomised, active-controlled, blinded for patients and assessors, non-inferiority trial. Patients who underwent unilateral lung surgeries were divided into two groups according to the regional anaesthesia technique-continuous ESPB or PVB at the T5 level. The primary outcome was to assess pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) with a test of the interaction of three measures over 24 h postoperatively. An NRS score ≥ 7 was considered analgesia failure, and the prespecified non-inferiority margin was 10%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the interim analysis that terminated this study, 120 participants were enrolled. ESPB patients reported higher mean NRS general values over 24 h, 4.6 ± 3.2 in the ESPB group versus 3.9 ± 2.9 in the PVB group, with a difference of -0.67 (-15.2%) and 95%CI: -1.29 to -0.05 (p = .02), demonstrating not non-inferiority. In addition, the ESPB group presented higher NRS failure of analgesia over 24 h (p < .01) and required more postoperative opioids (p = .01 over 24 h). There was no difference in patient satisfaction between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This trial demonstrated that a continuous erector spinae plane block was not non-inferior to a continuous paravertebral block for analgesia after lung surgery but resulted in higher levels of postoperative pain and opioid consumption.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"71-79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14325","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pain management plays an essential role in postoperative recovery after lung surgeries. The Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) is a widely used regional anaesthesia technique; however, few clinical trials have compared this block to active control in thoracic surgeries. This study evaluated the non-inferiority of the analgesia provided by ESPB when compared to paravertebral block (PVB) in lung surgeries.

Methods: Randomised, active-controlled, blinded for patients and assessors, non-inferiority trial. Patients who underwent unilateral lung surgeries were divided into two groups according to the regional anaesthesia technique-continuous ESPB or PVB at the T5 level. The primary outcome was to assess pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) with a test of the interaction of three measures over 24 h postoperatively. An NRS score ≥ 7 was considered analgesia failure, and the prespecified non-inferiority margin was 10%.

Results: In the interim analysis that terminated this study, 120 participants were enrolled. ESPB patients reported higher mean NRS general values over 24 h, 4.6 ± 3.2 in the ESPB group versus 3.9 ± 2.9 in the PVB group, with a difference of -0.67 (-15.2%) and 95%CI: -1.29 to -0.05 (p = .02), demonstrating not non-inferiority. In addition, the ESPB group presented higher NRS failure of analgesia over 24 h (p < .01) and required more postoperative opioids (p = .01 over 24 h). There was no difference in patient satisfaction between groups.

Conclusion: This trial demonstrated that a continuous erector spinae plane block was not non-inferior to a continuous paravertebral block for analgesia after lung surgery but resulted in higher levels of postoperative pain and opioid consumption.

肺部手术中竖脊平面阻滞与椎旁阻滞的镇痛效果--非劣效性随机对照试验。
背景:疼痛管理在肺部手术后的恢复中起着至关重要的作用。脊柱后凸面阻滞(ESPB)是一种广泛使用的区域麻醉技术;然而,在胸外科手术中,很少有临床试验将这种阻滞与主动控制进行比较。本研究评估了在肺部手术中与椎旁阻滞(PVB)相比,ESPB 所提供的镇痛效果的非劣效性:随机、主动对照、患者和评估者双盲、非劣效试验。根据区域麻醉技术--连续ESPB或T5水平的PVB--将接受单侧肺部手术的患者分为两组。主要结果是使用数字评分量表(NRS)评估疼痛,并测试术后24小时内三种测量方法的交互作用。NRS评分≥7分为镇痛失败,预设的非劣效差为10%:结果:在终止本研究的中期分析中,共有120人参加了研究。ESPB患者在24小时内报告的平均NRS一般值更高,ESPB组为4.6 ± 3.2,而PVB组为3.9 ± 2.9,差异为-0.67(-15.2%),95%CI:-1.29至-0.05(P = .02),表明不存在非劣效性。此外,ESPB 组在 24 小时内的 NRS 镇痛失败率更高(p 结论:ESPB 组的镇痛失败率低于 ESPB 组:该试验表明,在肺部手术后的镇痛方面,连续性竖脊肌平面阻滞并不优于连续性椎旁阻滞,但术后疼痛程度和阿片类药物消耗量更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信