胸肌平面阻滞与肋间神经阻滞联合局部浸润镇痛在心脏植入式电子装置植入中的比较——一项随机对照试验。

IF 1.3 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-16 DOI:10.4103/aca.aca_164_24
Muhilan Senthilkumar, Satyen Parida, Priya Rudingwa, Raja Selvaraj
{"title":"胸肌平面阻滞与肋间神经阻滞联合局部浸润镇痛在心脏植入式电子装置植入中的比较——一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Muhilan Senthilkumar, Satyen Parida, Priya Rudingwa, Raja Selvaraj","doi":"10.4103/aca.aca_164_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates have increased exponentially over the past few decades. Limited options are available for pain-free courses during this procedure. Traditionally, local infiltration with conscious sedation is being used. The pectoral nerves (PECS) block has been evaluated for its analgesic efficacy in breast surgeries. Our study assessed the effectiveness of combined PECS 1 block and intercostal nerve block over local infiltration as an analgesic technique during CIED implantations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, 70 ASA 2 and 3 patients in the age group of 18-75 years scheduled for CIED implantation were randomized into two groups. Group A received local infiltration with 14 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine, and group B received a combined PECS 1 block (10 ml) and intercostal nerve block (4 ml) under ultrasound guidance. Additional lignocaine 1% as 2 ml aliquots was given as rescue during the procedure. We noted the frequency and timing of aliquots. The pain was assessed at 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 hours post procedure, and intravenous paracetamol was given if the numeric rating scale (NRS) was more than 3. The total paracetamol required and the mean duration of hospital stay were noted for both groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant decrease in NRS scores at the initial five steps of the procedure in group B except at skin closure, P value = 0.044. The time for the first demand for analgesia was significantly prolonged in group B with 39.6 ± 15.9 vs 19.6 ± 15.1 minutes in the local infiltration group, respectively, with P value = 0.001. Mean fentanyl requirement during the procedure was significantly lower in B (30.4 ± 10.4 mcg vs 50.7 ± 17.7 mcg) when compared to group A, P value < 0.001, and so was the paracetamol requirement in the postprocedure period, P value = 0.003. The postprocedure pain scores and the duration of hospital stay were comparable for both.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined PECS 1 and intercostal nerve block in place of traditional local infiltration significantly reduced NRS score and rescue drug requirement during the procedure. It is a suitable option for these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7997,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia","volume":"28 2","pages":"170-175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12058071/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Combined Pectoralis Plane Block and Intercostal Nerve Block with Local Infiltration Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation - A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Muhilan Senthilkumar, Satyen Parida, Priya Rudingwa, Raja Selvaraj\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/aca.aca_164_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates have increased exponentially over the past few decades. Limited options are available for pain-free courses during this procedure. Traditionally, local infiltration with conscious sedation is being used. The pectoral nerves (PECS) block has been evaluated for its analgesic efficacy in breast surgeries. Our study assessed the effectiveness of combined PECS 1 block and intercostal nerve block over local infiltration as an analgesic technique during CIED implantations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, 70 ASA 2 and 3 patients in the age group of 18-75 years scheduled for CIED implantation were randomized into two groups. Group A received local infiltration with 14 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine, and group B received a combined PECS 1 block (10 ml) and intercostal nerve block (4 ml) under ultrasound guidance. Additional lignocaine 1% as 2 ml aliquots was given as rescue during the procedure. We noted the frequency and timing of aliquots. The pain was assessed at 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 hours post procedure, and intravenous paracetamol was given if the numeric rating scale (NRS) was more than 3. The total paracetamol required and the mean duration of hospital stay were noted for both groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant decrease in NRS scores at the initial five steps of the procedure in group B except at skin closure, P value = 0.044. The time for the first demand for analgesia was significantly prolonged in group B with 39.6 ± 15.9 vs 19.6 ± 15.1 minutes in the local infiltration group, respectively, with P value = 0.001. Mean fentanyl requirement during the procedure was significantly lower in B (30.4 ± 10.4 mcg vs 50.7 ± 17.7 mcg) when compared to group A, P value < 0.001, and so was the paracetamol requirement in the postprocedure period, P value = 0.003. The postprocedure pain scores and the duration of hospital stay were comparable for both.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined PECS 1 and intercostal nerve block in place of traditional local infiltration significantly reduced NRS score and rescue drug requirement during the procedure. It is a suitable option for these patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"28 2\",\"pages\":\"170-175\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12058071/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_164_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_164_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去的几十年里,心脏植入式电子装置(CIED)的植入率呈指数增长。在这个过程中,有限的选择是无痛的。传统的治疗方法是局部浸润加清醒镇静。胸神经阻滞(PECS)在乳房手术中的镇痛效果已被评估。我们的研究评估了PECS - 1阻滞和肋间神经阻滞联合作为CIED植入过程中局部浸润镇痛技术的有效性。方法:随机对照试验选择年龄在18 ~ 75岁的ASA 2、3期植入术患者70例,随机分为两组。A组给予0.375%罗哌卡因局部浸润14 ml, B组在超声引导下联合PECS 1阻滞(10 ml)和肋间神经阻滞(4 ml)。在手术过程中,额外给予1%的利多卡因2毫升作为抢救。我们注意到等价物的频率和时间。在手术后1、2、4、8和24小时对疼痛进行评估,如果数值评定量表(NRS)大于3,则给予静脉注射扑热息痛。记录了两组患者所需的扑热息痛总量和平均住院时间。结果:B组除皮肤闭合时外,前5步NRS评分均有统计学意义降低,P值= 0.044。B组第一次需要镇痛时间明显延长,分别为39.6±15.9 min和19.6±15.1 min, P值= 0.001。B组手术期间芬太尼平均需取量(30.4±10.4 mcg vs 50.7±17.7 mcg)显著低于A组,P值< 0.001,术后对乙酰氨基酚需取量也显著低于A组,P值= 0.003。两者的术后疼痛评分和住院时间具有可比性。结论:PECS - 1联合肋间神经阻滞代替传统的局部浸润可显著降低术中NRS评分和抢救用药需求。对于这些患者来说,这是一个合适的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Combined Pectoralis Plane Block and Intercostal Nerve Block with Local Infiltration Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation - A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates have increased exponentially over the past few decades. Limited options are available for pain-free courses during this procedure. Traditionally, local infiltration with conscious sedation is being used. The pectoral nerves (PECS) block has been evaluated for its analgesic efficacy in breast surgeries. Our study assessed the effectiveness of combined PECS 1 block and intercostal nerve block over local infiltration as an analgesic technique during CIED implantations.

Method: In this randomized controlled trial, 70 ASA 2 and 3 patients in the age group of 18-75 years scheduled for CIED implantation were randomized into two groups. Group A received local infiltration with 14 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine, and group B received a combined PECS 1 block (10 ml) and intercostal nerve block (4 ml) under ultrasound guidance. Additional lignocaine 1% as 2 ml aliquots was given as rescue during the procedure. We noted the frequency and timing of aliquots. The pain was assessed at 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 hours post procedure, and intravenous paracetamol was given if the numeric rating scale (NRS) was more than 3. The total paracetamol required and the mean duration of hospital stay were noted for both groups.

Results: There was a statistically significant decrease in NRS scores at the initial five steps of the procedure in group B except at skin closure, P value = 0.044. The time for the first demand for analgesia was significantly prolonged in group B with 39.6 ± 15.9 vs 19.6 ± 15.1 minutes in the local infiltration group, respectively, with P value = 0.001. Mean fentanyl requirement during the procedure was significantly lower in B (30.4 ± 10.4 mcg vs 50.7 ± 17.7 mcg) when compared to group A, P value < 0.001, and so was the paracetamol requirement in the postprocedure period, P value = 0.003. The postprocedure pain scores and the duration of hospital stay were comparable for both.

Conclusion: Combined PECS 1 and intercostal nerve block in place of traditional local infiltration significantly reduced NRS score and rescue drug requirement during the procedure. It is a suitable option for these patients.

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
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
147
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia (ACA) is the official journal of the Indian Association of Cardiovascular Thoracic Anaesthesiologists. The journal is indexed with PubMed/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, IndMed and MedInd. The journal’s full text is online at www.annals.in. With the aim of faster and better dissemination of knowledge, we will be publishing articles ‘Ahead of Print’ immediately on acceptance. In addition, the journal would allow free access (Open Access) to its contents, which is likely to attract more readers and citations to articles published in ACA. Authors do not have to pay for submission, processing or publication of articles in ACA.
×
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