A randomised comparison of transverse abdominal plane block versus thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative opioid consumption for colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery programme (OPIATE study).

IF 1.2 Q3 SURGERY
Reshma Ambulkar, Sohan Lal Solanki, Bindiya Salunke, Pavithra Ps, Supriya Gholap, Ashwin L Desouza, Sumitra G Bakshi, Vandana Agarwal
{"title":"A randomised comparison of transverse abdominal plane block versus thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative opioid consumption for colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery programme (OPIATE study).","authors":"Reshma Ambulkar, Sohan Lal Solanki, Bindiya Salunke, Pavithra Ps, Supriya Gholap, Ashwin L Desouza, Sumitra G Bakshi, Vandana Agarwal","doi":"10.1177/17504589241288670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The transverse abdominis plane block is increasingly being used as a less-invasive alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia for effective pain management. This study aimed to compare transverse abdominis plane block with opioid-based thoracic epidural analgesia in terms of postoperative opioid consumption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients in the thoracic epidural analgesia group received a continuous infusion of 0.1% levobupivacaine with 2mcg/ml of fentanyl, while those in the transverse abdominis plane group received 6-hourly boluses of 0.4ml/kg of 0.25% levobupivacaine. The primary objective was to compare the average fentanyl consumption, measured as intravenous fentanyl equivalents, over 72 hours.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data of 35 patients were analysed. Fentanyl consumption at the end of 72 hours was significantly lower in the transverse abdominis plane group (median [interquartile range] 495 mcg (255, 750), and mean (95% confidence interval) 717.35mcg (403.54-1031.16)) compared to the thoracic epidural analgesia group (median [interquartile range] 760mcg (750, 760), and mean (95% confidence interval) 787mcg (746.81-827.19)) with a p value of 0.010. Pain scores at rest and during movement were comparable between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). However, the median pain scores during movement were significantly lower in the thoracic epidural analgesia group at 60 and 72 hours (<i>p</i> ⩽ 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multimodal analgesia with transverse abdominis plane resulted in lower opioid consumption over 72 hours compared to thoracic epidural analgesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":35481,"journal":{"name":"Journal of perioperative practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of perioperative practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589241288670","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The transverse abdominis plane block is increasingly being used as a less-invasive alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia for effective pain management. This study aimed to compare transverse abdominis plane block with opioid-based thoracic epidural analgesia in terms of postoperative opioid consumption.

Methods: Patients in the thoracic epidural analgesia group received a continuous infusion of 0.1% levobupivacaine with 2mcg/ml of fentanyl, while those in the transverse abdominis plane group received 6-hourly boluses of 0.4ml/kg of 0.25% levobupivacaine. The primary objective was to compare the average fentanyl consumption, measured as intravenous fentanyl equivalents, over 72 hours.

Results: Data of 35 patients were analysed. Fentanyl consumption at the end of 72 hours was significantly lower in the transverse abdominis plane group (median [interquartile range] 495 mcg (255, 750), and mean (95% confidence interval) 717.35mcg (403.54-1031.16)) compared to the thoracic epidural analgesia group (median [interquartile range] 760mcg (750, 760), and mean (95% confidence interval) 787mcg (746.81-827.19)) with a p value of 0.010. Pain scores at rest and during movement were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). However, the median pain scores during movement were significantly lower in the thoracic epidural analgesia group at 60 and 72 hours (p ⩽ 0.05).

Conclusion: Multimodal analgesia with transverse abdominis plane resulted in lower opioid consumption over 72 hours compared to thoracic epidural analgesia.

随机比较腹横肌平面阻滞与胸硬膜外镇痛对结肠直肠癌术后恢复增强计划(OPIATE 研究)术后阿片类药物消耗量的影响。
背景:腹横肌平面阻滞作为胸硬膜外镇痛的一种微创替代方法,越来越多地被用于有效的疼痛治疗。本研究旨在比较腹横肌平面阻滞与基于阿片类药物的胸硬膜外镇痛在术后阿片类药物消耗方面的差异:胸膜硬膜外镇痛组患者持续输注 0.1% 左布比卡因和 2mcg/ml 芬太尼,而腹横肌平面组患者每 6 小时注射 0.4ml/kg 0.25% 左布比卡因。主要目的是比较 72 小时内平均芬太尼消耗量(以静脉注射芬太尼当量计算):结果:分析了 35 名患者的数据。腹横肌平面组在 72 小时结束时的芬太尼消耗量明显较低(中位数[四分位距] 495 毫微克(255,750),平均值(95% 置信区间)717.35微克(403.54-1031.16))与胸硬膜外镇痛组(中位数[四分位间范围]760微克(750,760),平均值(95%置信区间)787微克(746.81-827.19))相比,P值为0.010。两组患者在静息和运动时的疼痛评分相当(P>0.05)。然而,胸腔硬膜外镇痛组在 60 小时和 72 小时内活动时的疼痛评分中位数明显较低(P ⩽ 0.05):结论:与胸腔硬膜外镇痛相比,腹横肌平面多模式镇痛在 72 小时内的阿片类药物用量更低。
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
Journal of perioperative practice
Journal of perioperative practice Nursing-Medical and Surgical Nursing
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perioperative Practice (JPP) is the official journal of the Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP). It is an international, peer reviewed journal with a multidisciplinary ethos across all aspects of perioperative care. The overall aim of the journal is to improve patient safety through informing and developing practice. It is an informative professional journal which provides current evidence-based practice, clinical, management and educational developments for practitioners working in the perioperative environment. The journal promotes perioperative practice by publishing clinical research-based articles, literature reviews, topical discussions, advice on clinical issues, current news items and product information.
×
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