导管式竖脊肌平面阻滞的程序化间歇栓注与持续输注对胸腔镜手术恢复质量的影响:单中心随机对照试验。

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
{"title":"导管式竖脊肌平面阻滞的程序化间歇栓注与持续输注对胸腔镜手术恢复质量的影响:单中心随机对照试验。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.05.041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Regional anaesthesia techniques, including the erector spinae fascial plane (ESP) block, reduce postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Fascial plane blocks rely on spread of local anaesthetic between muscle layers, and thus, intermittent boluses might increase their clinical effectiveness. We tested the hypothesis that postoperative ESP analgesia with a programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) regimen is better than a continuous infusion (CI) regimen in terms of quality of recovery after VATS.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We undertook a prospective, double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial involving 60 patients undergoing VATS. All participants received ESP block catheters and were randomly assigned to CI or PIB of local anaesthetic regimen for postoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative respiratory function, opioid consumption, verbal rating pain score, time to first mobilisation, nausea, vomiting, and length of hospital stay.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall QoR-15 scores at 24 h after VATS were similar (PIB 115.5 [interquartile range 107–125] <em>vs</em> CI 110 [93–128]; Δ&lt;6, <em>P</em>=0.29). The only quality of recovery descriptor showing a significant difference was nausea and vomiting, which was favourable in the PIB group (10 [10–10] <em>vs</em> 10 [7–10]; <em>P</em>=0.03). Requirement for rescue antiemetics up to 24 h after surgery was lower in the PIB group (4 [14%] <em>vs</em> 11 [41%]; <em>P</em>=0.04). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Delivering ESP block analgesia after VATS via a PIB regimen resulted in similar QoR-15 at 24 h compared with a CI regimen.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Programmed intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion for catheter-based erector spinae plane block on quality of recovery in thoracoscopic surgery: a single-centre randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2024.05.041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Regional anaesthesia techniques, including the erector spinae fascial plane (ESP) block, reduce postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Fascial plane blocks rely on spread of local anaesthetic between muscle layers, and thus, intermittent boluses might increase their clinical effectiveness. We tested the hypothesis that postoperative ESP analgesia with a programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) regimen is better than a continuous infusion (CI) regimen in terms of quality of recovery after VATS.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We undertook a prospective, double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial involving 60 patients undergoing VATS. All participants received ESP block catheters and were randomly assigned to CI or PIB of local anaesthetic regimen for postoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative respiratory function, opioid consumption, verbal rating pain score, time to first mobilisation, nausea, vomiting, and length of hospital stay.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall QoR-15 scores at 24 h after VATS were similar (PIB 115.5 [interquartile range 107–125] <em>vs</em> CI 110 [93–128]; Δ&lt;6, <em>P</em>=0.29). The only quality of recovery descriptor showing a significant difference was nausea and vomiting, which was favourable in the PIB group (10 [10–10] <em>vs</em> 10 [7–10]; <em>P</em>=0.03). Requirement for rescue antiemetics up to 24 h after surgery was lower in the PIB group (4 [14%] <em>vs</em> 11 [41%]; <em>P</em>=0.04). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Delivering ESP block analgesia after VATS via a PIB regimen resulted in similar QoR-15 at 24 h compared with a CI regimen.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000709122400401X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000709122400401X","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

背景:包括竖脊肌筋膜平面(ESP)阻滞在内的区域麻醉技术可减轻视频辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)后的术后疼痛。筋膜面阻滞依赖于局部麻醉剂在肌肉层之间的扩散,因此间歇性注射可能会提高其临床效果。我们对以下假设进行了测试:就 VATS 术后恢复质量而言,采用程序化间歇栓剂(PIB)方案进行术后 ESP 镇痛优于持续输注(CI)方案:我们进行了一项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验,60 名患者接受了 VATS 手术。所有参与者都接受了 ESP 阻滞导管,并随机分配到 CI 或 PIB 局麻药方案进行术后镇痛。主要结果是术后 24 小时恢复质量-15(QoR-15)评分。次要结果包括术后呼吸功能、阿片类药物消耗量、口头疼痛评分、首次活动时间、恶心、呕吐和住院时间:结果:VATS术后24小时的QoR-15总评分相似(PIB 115.5 [四分位间范围107-125] vs CI 110 [93-128];Δ结论:VATS 术后通过 PIB 方案提供 ESP 阻滞镇痛与 CI 方案相比,24 小时后的 QoR-15 评分相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Programmed intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion for catheter-based erector spinae plane block on quality of recovery in thoracoscopic surgery: a single-centre randomised controlled trial

Background

Regional anaesthesia techniques, including the erector spinae fascial plane (ESP) block, reduce postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Fascial plane blocks rely on spread of local anaesthetic between muscle layers, and thus, intermittent boluses might increase their clinical effectiveness. We tested the hypothesis that postoperative ESP analgesia with a programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) regimen is better than a continuous infusion (CI) regimen in terms of quality of recovery after VATS.

Methods

We undertook a prospective, double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial involving 60 patients undergoing VATS. All participants received ESP block catheters and were randomly assigned to CI or PIB of local anaesthetic regimen for postoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative respiratory function, opioid consumption, verbal rating pain score, time to first mobilisation, nausea, vomiting, and length of hospital stay.

Results

Overall QoR-15 scores at 24 h after VATS were similar (PIB 115.5 [interquartile range 107–125] vs CI 110 [93–128]; Δ<6, P=0.29). The only quality of recovery descriptor showing a significant difference was nausea and vomiting, which was favourable in the PIB group (10 [10–10] vs 10 [7–10]; P=0.03). Requirement for rescue antiemetics up to 24 h after surgery was lower in the PIB group (4 [14%] vs 11 [41%]; P=0.04). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between groups.

Conclusions

Delivering ESP block analgesia after VATS via a PIB regimen resulted in similar QoR-15 at 24 h compared with a CI regimen.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
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