Analgesia nociception index as a tool to assess the effectiveness of paravertebral block in total mastectomy: a prospective cohort study

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-07 DOI:10.1016/j.bjane.2025.844699
Julien Raft , Anne-Sophie Lamotte , Cécile Huin Schohn , Caroline Fritz , Philippe Richebé
{"title":"Analgesia nociception index as a tool to assess the effectiveness of paravertebral block in total mastectomy: a prospective cohort study","authors":"Julien Raft ,&nbsp;Anne-Sophie Lamotte ,&nbsp;Cécile Huin Schohn ,&nbsp;Caroline Fritz ,&nbsp;Philippe Richebé","doi":"10.1016/j.bjane.2025.844699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Single-injection Paravertebral Block (PVB) is commonly used for analgesia in major breast surgery; however, its sensory effectiveness may be variable. This study investigated whether intraoperative changes in the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) are associated with PVB effectiveness.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This prospective observational study included 100 women scheduled for total mastectomy. A single-injection PVB was performed preoperatively under ultrasound guidance at the T3 level. Sensory testing was performed from T1 to T10, but block effectiveness was evaluated in the surgical field (T2–T6). PVBs were classified as effective (complete loss of cold sensation in all T2‒T6 dermatomes) or incomplete (partial cold sensation in this range). ANI variations, intraoperative remifentanil consumption, postoperative pain scores, and morphine use were compared.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Ninety-three patients were analyzed. PVB was effective in 75% and incomplete in 25%. The mean ANI variation was significantly greater in the effective group (+1.4 ± 10.3) compared to the incomplete group (-11.0 ± 7.1), with a mean difference of 12.4 (95% CI: 8.8 to 16.0; p &lt; 0.0001). Remifentanil consumption was higher in the incomplete group (0.072 ± 0.018 µg.kg<sup>−1</sup>.min<sup>−1</sup> vs. 0.054 ± 0.008 µg.kg<sup>−1</sup>.min<sup>−1</sup>), mean difference 0.018 (95% CI: 0.010 to 0.026; p &lt; 0.0001). Pain score and morphine consumption were significantly higher for patients with incomplete PVB.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this observational study, a significant decrease in ANI values following skin dissection was associated with incomplete PVB. Early ANI monitoring may help identify insufficient regional block during total mastectomy, thus guiding intraoperative analgesic adjustment to improve patient comfort.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":32356,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"76 1","pages":"Article 844699"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104001425001149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Single-injection Paravertebral Block (PVB) is commonly used for analgesia in major breast surgery; however, its sensory effectiveness may be variable. This study investigated whether intraoperative changes in the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) are associated with PVB effectiveness.

Methods

This prospective observational study included 100 women scheduled for total mastectomy. A single-injection PVB was performed preoperatively under ultrasound guidance at the T3 level. Sensory testing was performed from T1 to T10, but block effectiveness was evaluated in the surgical field (T2–T6). PVBs were classified as effective (complete loss of cold sensation in all T2‒T6 dermatomes) or incomplete (partial cold sensation in this range). ANI variations, intraoperative remifentanil consumption, postoperative pain scores, and morphine use were compared.

Results

Ninety-three patients were analyzed. PVB was effective in 75% and incomplete in 25%. The mean ANI variation was significantly greater in the effective group (+1.4 ± 10.3) compared to the incomplete group (-11.0 ± 7.1), with a mean difference of 12.4 (95% CI: 8.8 to 16.0; p < 0.0001). Remifentanil consumption was higher in the incomplete group (0.072 ± 0.018 µg.kg−1.min−1 vs. 0.054 ± 0.008 µg.kg−1.min−1), mean difference 0.018 (95% CI: 0.010 to 0.026; p < 0.0001). Pain score and morphine consumption were significantly higher for patients with incomplete PVB.

Conclusion

In this observational study, a significant decrease in ANI values following skin dissection was associated with incomplete PVB. Early ANI monitoring may help identify insufficient regional block during total mastectomy, thus guiding intraoperative analgesic adjustment to improve patient comfort.
镇痛痛觉指数作为评估全乳切除术椎旁阻滞效果的工具:一项前瞻性队列研究。
背景:单次注射椎旁阻滞(PVB)是乳房大手术中常用的镇痛方法;然而,它的感官效果可能是可变的。本研究探讨术中镇痛伤害感觉指数(ANI)的变化是否与PVB的有效性相关。方法:这项前瞻性观察研究包括100名计划进行全乳切除术的妇女。术前在超声引导下在T3水平进行单次PVB注射。从T1到T10进行感觉测试,但在手术野(T2-T6)评估阻滞效果。pvb被分为有效(所有T2-T6皮节完全失去冷感觉)和不完全(在这个范围内部分失去冷感觉)。比较ANI变化、术中瑞芬太尼用量、术后疼痛评分和吗啡使用情况。结果:对93例患者进行分析。PVB有效率75%,不完全率25%。有效组的ANI平均值(+1.4±10.3)明显大于不完全组(-11.0±7.1),平均差异为12.4 (95% CI: 8.8 ~ 16.0; p < 0.0001)。不完全组瑞芬太尼消耗量更高(0.072±0.018µg.kg-1)。Min-1 vs. 0.054± 0.008µg.kg-1。min-1),平均差异0.018 (95% CI: 0.010 ~ 0.026; p < 0.0001)。不完全性PVB患者的疼痛评分和吗啡用量均显著增高。结论:在这项观察性研究中,皮肤剥离后ANI值的显著下降与PVB不完全性有关。早期ANI监测有助于发现全乳切除术中区域阻滞不足,从而指导术中镇痛调整,提高患者舒适度。
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
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
68 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书