Optimal timing of parasternal intercostal nerve block application (pre-incisional versus post-incisional) for acute pain management in cardiac surgery; a randomized double-blinded clinical trial

Samar Amin, Mona Emara
{"title":"Optimal timing of parasternal intercostal nerve block application (pre-incisional versus post-incisional) for acute pain management in cardiac surgery; a randomized double-blinded clinical trial","authors":"Samar Amin, Mona Emara","doi":"10.4103/ejca.ejca_1_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background In patients undergoing cardiac operations, parasternal intercostal nerve block (PSIB) has been suggested to enhance pain management and lower opioids consumption. However, inadequate literature has discussed its effectiveness as a pre-emptive analgesic approach. This trial was designed to investigate the optimal timing to perform the block pre- or post-surgical incision. Methods This prospective study enrolled 51 patients, aged 18–70 years, with ASA status II/III, who underwent on-pump cardiac surgery. Participants were allocated to two groups randomly; Group-A received ultrasound-guided PSIB pre-incisional, while in Group-B, the surgeon performed the block under direct vision. Ten bilateral injections of four milliliters each containing bupivacaine (0.25%) were given (40 ml total volume). The study primary outcome was the amount of morphine consumed within postoperative 24 h. The secondary measures included fentanyl utilization and hemodynamic swings during surgery, as well as postoperative pain scores, rescue analgesic doses, adverse events, extubation time, ICU and hospital stay durations, and patients’ satisfaction. Results The pre-incisional PSIB demonstrated significant decrease in intraoperative fentanyl utilization (893.85±113.39 ug vs. 982±129.81 ug, P =0.01) and more stabilization of hemodynamics at skin incision and sternal retraction time-points, compared to postincisional group. Otherwise, no significant differences were noted regarding the total postoperative morphine consumption (28.54±17.17 mg vs. 27.92±15.52 mg), pain scores, rescue analgesic demand, extubation time, length of ICU stay, hospitalization duration in both groups. Conclusion Pre-incisional and post-incisional PSIB presented comparable pain profile in the early postoperative period after open heart surgeries. But pre-emptive application of PSIB showed better control of intraoperative hemodynamics and less fentanyl utilization.","PeriodicalId":289218,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Journal of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Journal of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejca.ejca_1_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background In patients undergoing cardiac operations, parasternal intercostal nerve block (PSIB) has been suggested to enhance pain management and lower opioids consumption. However, inadequate literature has discussed its effectiveness as a pre-emptive analgesic approach. This trial was designed to investigate the optimal timing to perform the block pre- or post-surgical incision. Methods This prospective study enrolled 51 patients, aged 18–70 years, with ASA status II/III, who underwent on-pump cardiac surgery. Participants were allocated to two groups randomly; Group-A received ultrasound-guided PSIB pre-incisional, while in Group-B, the surgeon performed the block under direct vision. Ten bilateral injections of four milliliters each containing bupivacaine (0.25%) were given (40 ml total volume). The study primary outcome was the amount of morphine consumed within postoperative 24 h. The secondary measures included fentanyl utilization and hemodynamic swings during surgery, as well as postoperative pain scores, rescue analgesic doses, adverse events, extubation time, ICU and hospital stay durations, and patients’ satisfaction. Results The pre-incisional PSIB demonstrated significant decrease in intraoperative fentanyl utilization (893.85±113.39 ug vs. 982±129.81 ug, P =0.01) and more stabilization of hemodynamics at skin incision and sternal retraction time-points, compared to postincisional group. Otherwise, no significant differences were noted regarding the total postoperative morphine consumption (28.54±17.17 mg vs. 27.92±15.52 mg), pain scores, rescue analgesic demand, extubation time, length of ICU stay, hospitalization duration in both groups. Conclusion Pre-incisional and post-incisional PSIB presented comparable pain profile in the early postoperative period after open heart surgeries. But pre-emptive application of PSIB showed better control of intraoperative hemodynamics and less fentanyl utilization.
胸骨旁肋间神经阻滞应用于心脏手术急性疼痛的最佳时机(切口前与切口后)一项随机双盲临床试验
在接受心脏手术的患者中,胸骨旁肋间神经阻滞(PSIB)已被建议用于加强疼痛管理和降低阿片类药物的消耗。然而,没有足够的文献讨论其作为一种先发制人的镇痛方法的有效性。这项试验的目的是研究进行手术前或手术后阻滞切口的最佳时机。方法本前瞻性研究纳入51例患者,年龄18-70岁,ASA状态为II/III,接受无泵心脏手术。参与者随机分为两组;a组在超声引导下行PSIB切前手术,b组在直视下行阻滞。双侧注射10次,每次4毫升,含0.25%布比卡因(总容积40 ml)。研究的主要结果是术后24小时内吗啡的用量。次要指标包括术中芬太尼的使用和血流动力学波动,以及术后疼痛评分、抢救镇痛剂量、不良事件、拔管时间、ICU和住院时间、患者满意度。结果切口前PSIB组术中芬太尼使用率明显降低(893.85±113.39 ug vs 982±129.81 ug, P =0.01),皮肤切口和胸骨牵开时间点血流动力学更稳定。两组术后吗啡总用量(28.54±17.17 mg vs. 27.92±15.52 mg)、疼痛评分、抢救镇痛需求、拔管时间、ICU住院时间、住院时间等差异无统计学意义。结论切开前与切开后PSIB在心脏直视手术术后早期的疼痛情况相当。但先期应用PSIB能更好地控制术中血流动力学,减少芬太尼的使用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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