Effectiveness of Erector Spinae Plane Block as Perioperative Analgesia in Midline Sternotomies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 1.1 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-04 DOI:10.4103/aca.aca_134_23
Nimesh Patel, Mohamed Fayed, Wissam Maroun, Hannah Milad, Katie Adlaka, Lonnie Schultz, Rohit Aiyer, Patrick Forrest, John D Mitchell
{"title":"Effectiveness of Erector Spinae Plane Block as Perioperative Analgesia in Midline Sternotomies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Nimesh Patel, Mohamed Fayed, Wissam Maroun, Hannah Milad, Katie Adlaka, Lonnie Schultz, Rohit Aiyer, Patrick Forrest, John D Mitchell","doi":"10.4103/aca.aca_134_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>With the advancements in regional anesthesia and ultrasound techniques, the use of non-neuraxial blocks like the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been increasing in cardiac surgeries with promising outcomes. A total of 3,264 articles were identified through a literature search. Intervention was defined as ESPB. Comparators were no regional technique performed or sham blocks. Four studies with a total of 226 patients were included. Postoperative opioid consumption was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -204.08; 95% CI: -239.98 to -168.19; P < 0.00001). Intraoperative opioid consumption did not differ between the two groups (WMD: -398.14; 95% CI: -812.17 to 15.98; P = 0.06). Pain scores at 0 hours were lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.56; P = 0.0005). Pain scores did not differ between the two groups at 4-6 hours (WMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.13; P = 0.09) and 12 hours (WMD: -0.83; 95% CI: -1.82 to 0.16; P = 0.10). Duration of mechanical ventilation in minutes was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -45.12; 95% CI: -68.82 to -21.43; P = 0.0002). Given the limited number of studies and the substantial heterogeneity of measured outcomes and interventions, further studies are required to assess the benefit of ESPB in midline sternotomies.</p>","PeriodicalId":7997,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11315266/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_134_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: With the advancements in regional anesthesia and ultrasound techniques, the use of non-neuraxial blocks like the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been increasing in cardiac surgeries with promising outcomes. A total of 3,264 articles were identified through a literature search. Intervention was defined as ESPB. Comparators were no regional technique performed or sham blocks. Four studies with a total of 226 patients were included. Postoperative opioid consumption was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -204.08; 95% CI: -239.98 to -168.19; P < 0.00001). Intraoperative opioid consumption did not differ between the two groups (WMD: -398.14; 95% CI: -812.17 to 15.98; P = 0.06). Pain scores at 0 hours were lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.56; P = 0.0005). Pain scores did not differ between the two groups at 4-6 hours (WMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.13; P = 0.09) and 12 hours (WMD: -0.83; 95% CI: -1.82 to 0.16; P = 0.10). Duration of mechanical ventilation in minutes was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -45.12; 95% CI: -68.82 to -21.43; P = 0.0002). Given the limited number of studies and the substantial heterogeneity of measured outcomes and interventions, further studies are required to assess the benefit of ESPB in midline sternotomies.

脊束肌平面阻滞作为中线缝合术围手术期镇痛的有效性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。
摘要:随着区域麻醉和超声技术的发展,心脏手术中越来越多地使用非神经轴阻滞,如竖脊平面阻滞(ESPB),并取得了良好的效果。通过文献检索共找到 3264 篇文章。干预定义为 ESPB。比较者为未实施区域技术或假阻滞。四项研究共纳入了226名患者。接受ESPB治疗组的术后阿片类药物消耗量低于未接受ESPB治疗组(加权平均差[WMD]:-204.08;95% CI:-239.98至-168.19;P < 0.00001)。两组的术中阿片类药物消耗量没有差异(WMD:-398.14;95% CI:-812.17 至 15.98;P = 0.06)。接受ESPB治疗组的0小时疼痛评分低于未接受ESPB治疗组(WMD:-1.27;95% CI:-1.99至-0.56;P = 0.0005)。两组患者在 4-6 小时(WMD:-0.79;95% CI:-1.70 至 0.13;P = 0.09)和 12 小时(WMD:-0.83;95% CI:-1.82 至 0.16;P = 0.10)的疼痛评分没有差异。接受 ESPB 治疗组的机械通气时间(以分钟计)低于未接受 ESPB 治疗组(WMD:-45.12;95% CI:-68.82 至 -21.43;P = 0.0002)。鉴于研究数量有限,且测量结果和干预措施存在很大的异质性,因此需要进一步研究来评估ESPB在中线胸骨切开术中的益处。
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
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
147
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia (ACA) is the official journal of the Indian Association of Cardiovascular Thoracic Anaesthesiologists. The journal is indexed with PubMed/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, IndMed and MedInd. The journal’s full text is online at www.annals.in. With the aim of faster and better dissemination of knowledge, we will be publishing articles ‘Ahead of Print’ immediately on acceptance. In addition, the journal would allow free access (Open Access) to its contents, which is likely to attract more readers and citations to articles published in ACA. Authors do not have to pay for submission, processing or publication of articles in ACA.
×
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