Pedro Hilton de Andrade Filho, Victor Egypto Pereira, Daniel da Escossia Melo Sousa, Ladyer da Gama Costa, Yuri Pinto Nunes, Giovani Taglialegna, Waynice Neiva de Paula-Garcia, Joao Manoel Silva
{"title":"肺部手术中竖脊平面阻滞与椎旁阻滞的镇痛效果--非劣效性随机对照试验。","authors":"Pedro Hilton de Andrade Filho, Victor Egypto Pereira, Daniel da Escossia Melo Sousa, Ladyer da Gama Costa, Yuri Pinto Nunes, Giovani Taglialegna, Waynice Neiva de Paula-Garcia, Joao Manoel Silva","doi":"10.1111/aas.14325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain management plays an essential role in postoperative recovery after lung surgeries. The Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) is a widely used regional anaesthesia technique; however, few clinical trials have compared this block to active control in thoracic surgeries. This study evaluated the non-inferiority of the analgesia provided by ESPB when compared to paravertebral block (PVB) in lung surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomised, active-controlled, blinded for patients and assessors, non-inferiority trial. Patients who underwent unilateral lung surgeries were divided into two groups according to the regional anaesthesia technique-continuous ESPB or PVB at the T5 level. The primary outcome was to assess pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) with a test of the interaction of three measures over 24 h postoperatively. An NRS score ≥ 7 was considered analgesia failure, and the prespecified non-inferiority margin was 10%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the interim analysis that terminated this study, 120 participants were enrolled. ESPB patients reported higher mean NRS general values over 24 h, 4.6 ± 3.2 in the ESPB group versus 3.9 ± 2.9 in the PVB group, with a difference of -0.67 (-15.2%) and 95%CI: -1.29 to -0.05 (p = .02), demonstrating not non-inferiority. In addition, the ESPB group presented higher NRS failure of analgesia over 24 h (p < .01) and required more postoperative opioids (p = .01 over 24 h). There was no difference in patient satisfaction between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This trial demonstrated that a continuous erector spinae plane block was not non-inferior to a continuous paravertebral block for analgesia after lung surgery but resulted in higher levels of postoperative pain and opioid consumption.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"71-79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block in lung surgeries-A non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Pedro Hilton de Andrade Filho, Victor Egypto Pereira, Daniel da Escossia Melo Sousa, Ladyer da Gama Costa, Yuri Pinto Nunes, Giovani Taglialegna, Waynice Neiva de Paula-Garcia, Joao Manoel Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aas.14325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain management plays an essential role in postoperative recovery after lung surgeries. The Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) is a widely used regional anaesthesia technique; however, few clinical trials have compared this block to active control in thoracic surgeries. This study evaluated the non-inferiority of the analgesia provided by ESPB when compared to paravertebral block (PVB) in lung surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomised, active-controlled, blinded for patients and assessors, non-inferiority trial. Patients who underwent unilateral lung surgeries were divided into two groups according to the regional anaesthesia technique-continuous ESPB or PVB at the T5 level. The primary outcome was to assess pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) with a test of the interaction of three measures over 24 h postoperatively. An NRS score ≥ 7 was considered analgesia failure, and the prespecified non-inferiority margin was 10%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the interim analysis that terminated this study, 120 participants were enrolled. ESPB patients reported higher mean NRS general values over 24 h, 4.6 ± 3.2 in the ESPB group versus 3.9 ± 2.9 in the PVB group, with a difference of -0.67 (-15.2%) and 95%CI: -1.29 to -0.05 (p = .02), demonstrating not non-inferiority. In addition, the ESPB group presented higher NRS failure of analgesia over 24 h (p < .01) and required more postoperative opioids (p = .01 over 24 h). There was no difference in patient satisfaction between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This trial demonstrated that a continuous erector spinae plane block was not non-inferior to a continuous paravertebral block for analgesia after lung surgery but resulted in higher levels of postoperative pain and opioid consumption.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"71-79\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14325\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14325","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block in lung surgeries-A non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.
Background: Pain management plays an essential role in postoperative recovery after lung surgeries. The Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) is a widely used regional anaesthesia technique; however, few clinical trials have compared this block to active control in thoracic surgeries. This study evaluated the non-inferiority of the analgesia provided by ESPB when compared to paravertebral block (PVB) in lung surgeries.
Methods: Randomised, active-controlled, blinded for patients and assessors, non-inferiority trial. Patients who underwent unilateral lung surgeries were divided into two groups according to the regional anaesthesia technique-continuous ESPB or PVB at the T5 level. The primary outcome was to assess pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) with a test of the interaction of three measures over 24 h postoperatively. An NRS score ≥ 7 was considered analgesia failure, and the prespecified non-inferiority margin was 10%.
Results: In the interim analysis that terminated this study, 120 participants were enrolled. ESPB patients reported higher mean NRS general values over 24 h, 4.6 ± 3.2 in the ESPB group versus 3.9 ± 2.9 in the PVB group, with a difference of -0.67 (-15.2%) and 95%CI: -1.29 to -0.05 (p = .02), demonstrating not non-inferiority. In addition, the ESPB group presented higher NRS failure of analgesia over 24 h (p < .01) and required more postoperative opioids (p = .01 over 24 h). There was no difference in patient satisfaction between groups.
Conclusion: This trial demonstrated that a continuous erector spinae plane block was not non-inferior to a continuous paravertebral block for analgesia after lung surgery but resulted in higher levels of postoperative pain and opioid consumption.
期刊介绍:
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.