Transversus abdominis plane block combined with intrathecal fentanyl versus intrathecal morphine for post-cesarean analgesia: a randomized non-inferiority clinical trial.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Sun-Kyung Park, Youngwon Kim, Hansol Kim, Jin-Tae Kim
{"title":"Transversus abdominis plane block combined with intrathecal fentanyl versus intrathecal morphine for post-cesarean analgesia: a randomized non-inferiority clinical trial.","authors":"Sun-Kyung Park, Youngwon Kim, Hansol Kim, Jin-Tae Kim","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-106044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intrathecal morphine is the standard for post-cesarean analgesia but often causes pruritus and may be unavailable in resource-limited settings. This study assessed whether a combination of bilateral transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and intrathecal fentanyl provides non-inferior analgesia compared with intrathecal morphine following cesarean delivery within the multimodal analgesia context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty mothers were randomized to receive either intrathecal fentanyl 10 µg with bilateral TAP block using 15 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine per side (TF group) or intrathecal morphine 75 µg with a saline sham block (M group). All patients received standard multimodal analgesia. Primary outcome was pain score with movement at 24 hours postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of 1 on the numeric rating scale. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, time to first opioid, pruritus, nausea/vomiting, patient satisfaction, and neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean pain score with movement at 24 hours was 5.4 in the TF group and 4.8 in the M group (mean difference (95% CI), 0.6 (-0.3 to 1.5), p=0.202), with the upper margin of 95% CI exceeding the non-inferior margin. Postoperative fentanyl consumption was higher in the TF group (median (IQR), 585 (390-745) vs 140 (55-405) µg; p<0.001). Pruritus was more frequent in the M group (60% vs 10%; p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bilateral TAP block with intrathecal fentanyl is not non-inferior to intrathecal morphine for post-cesarean analgesia. However, intrathecal morphine was associated with a higher incidence of pruritus, suggesting TAP block with intrathecal fentanyl as a suitable alternative when reducing pruritus is a priority.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04824274.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-106044","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intrathecal morphine is the standard for post-cesarean analgesia but often causes pruritus and may be unavailable in resource-limited settings. This study assessed whether a combination of bilateral transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and intrathecal fentanyl provides non-inferior analgesia compared with intrathecal morphine following cesarean delivery within the multimodal analgesia context.

Methods: Eighty mothers were randomized to receive either intrathecal fentanyl 10 µg with bilateral TAP block using 15 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine per side (TF group) or intrathecal morphine 75 µg with a saline sham block (M group). All patients received standard multimodal analgesia. Primary outcome was pain score with movement at 24 hours postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of 1 on the numeric rating scale. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, time to first opioid, pruritus, nausea/vomiting, patient satisfaction, and neonatal outcomes.

Results: The mean pain score with movement at 24 hours was 5.4 in the TF group and 4.8 in the M group (mean difference (95% CI), 0.6 (-0.3 to 1.5), p=0.202), with the upper margin of 95% CI exceeding the non-inferior margin. Postoperative fentanyl consumption was higher in the TF group (median (IQR), 585 (390-745) vs 140 (55-405) µg; p<0.001). Pruritus was more frequent in the M group (60% vs 10%; p<0.001).

Conclusions: Bilateral TAP block with intrathecal fentanyl is not non-inferior to intrathecal morphine for post-cesarean analgesia. However, intrathecal morphine was associated with a higher incidence of pruritus, suggesting TAP block with intrathecal fentanyl as a suitable alternative when reducing pruritus is a priority.

Trial registration number: NCT04824274.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
×
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