连续肋间神经阻滞或硬膜外镇痛对外伤性肋骨骨折后呼吸并发症发生率、重症监护病房和住院时间的比较评价:回顾性回顾

T. Britt, Ryan Sturm, R. Ricardi, V. LaBond
{"title":"连续肋间神经阻滞或硬膜外镇痛对外伤性肋骨骨折后呼吸并发症发生率、重症监护病房和住院时间的比较评价:回顾性回顾","authors":"T. Britt, Ryan Sturm, R. Ricardi, V. LaBond","doi":"10.2147/LRA.S80498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Thoracic trauma accounts for 10%–15% of all trauma admissions. Rib fractures are the most common injury following blunt thoracic trauma. Epidural analgesia improves patient outcomes but is not without problems. The use of continuous intercostal nerve blockade (CINB) may offer superior pain control with fewer side effects. This study’s objective was to compare the rate of pulmonary complications when traumatic rib fractures were treated with CINB vs epidurals. Methods A hospital trauma registry provided retrospective data from 2008 to 2013 for patients with 2 or more traumatic rib fractures. All subjects were admitted and were treated with either an epidural or a subcutaneously placed catheter for continuous intercostal nerve blockade. Our primary outcome was a composite of either pneumonia or respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included total hospital days, total ICU days, and days on the ventilator. Results 12.5% (N=8) of the CINB group developed pneumonia or had respiratory failure compared to 16.3% (N=7) in the epidural group. No statistical difference (P=0.58) in the incidence of pneumonia or vent dependent respiratory failure was observed. There was a significant reduction (P=0.05) in hospital days from 9.72 (SD 9.98) in the epidural compared to 6.98 (SD 4.67) in the CINB group. The rest of our secondary outcomes showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study did not show a difference in the rate of pneumonia or ventilator-dependent respiratory failure in the CINB vs epidural groups. It was not sufficiently powered. Our data supports a reduction in hospital days when CINB is used vs epidural. CINB may have advantages over epidurals such as fewer complications, fewer contraindications, and a shorter time to placement. Further studies are needed to confirm these statements.","PeriodicalId":77347,"journal":{"name":"Regional anesthesia","volume":"8 1","pages":"79 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/LRA.S80498","citationCount":"32","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of continuous intercostal nerve block or epidural analgesia on the rate of respiratory complications, intensive care unit, and hospital stay following traumatic rib fractures: a retrospective review\",\"authors\":\"T. Britt, Ryan Sturm, R. Ricardi, V. LaBond\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/LRA.S80498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Thoracic trauma accounts for 10%–15% of all trauma admissions. Rib fractures are the most common injury following blunt thoracic trauma. Epidural analgesia improves patient outcomes but is not without problems. The use of continuous intercostal nerve blockade (CINB) may offer superior pain control with fewer side effects. This study’s objective was to compare the rate of pulmonary complications when traumatic rib fractures were treated with CINB vs epidurals. Methods A hospital trauma registry provided retrospective data from 2008 to 2013 for patients with 2 or more traumatic rib fractures. All subjects were admitted and were treated with either an epidural or a subcutaneously placed catheter for continuous intercostal nerve blockade. Our primary outcome was a composite of either pneumonia or respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included total hospital days, total ICU days, and days on the ventilator. Results 12.5% (N=8) of the CINB group developed pneumonia or had respiratory failure compared to 16.3% (N=7) in the epidural group. No statistical difference (P=0.58) in the incidence of pneumonia or vent dependent respiratory failure was observed. There was a significant reduction (P=0.05) in hospital days from 9.72 (SD 9.98) in the epidural compared to 6.98 (SD 4.67) in the CINB group. The rest of our secondary outcomes showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study did not show a difference in the rate of pneumonia or ventilator-dependent respiratory failure in the CINB vs epidural groups. It was not sufficiently powered. Our data supports a reduction in hospital days when CINB is used vs epidural. CINB may have advantages over epidurals such as fewer complications, fewer contraindications, and a shorter time to placement. Further studies are needed to confirm these statements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":77347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional anesthesia\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"79 - 84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/LRA.S80498\",\"citationCount\":\"32\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S80498\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S80498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

摘要

背景:胸部创伤占所有入院创伤的10%-15%。肋骨骨折是钝性胸外伤后最常见的损伤。硬膜外镇痛改善了患者的预后,但并非没有问题。使用连续肋间神经阻滞(CINB)可以提供更好的疼痛控制和更少的副作用。本研究的目的是比较外伤性肋骨骨折采用CINB和硬膜外治疗时肺部并发症的发生率。方法回顾性分析2008 - 2013年2例及以上外伤性肋骨骨折患者的创伤登记资料。所有受试者入院并接受硬膜外或皮下置管持续肋间神经阻滞治疗。我们的主要结局是肺炎或呼吸衰竭的复合结局。次要结局包括总住院天数、ICU总天数和使用呼吸机天数。结果12.5% (N=8) CINB组发生肺炎或呼吸衰竭,而硬膜外组为16.3% (N=7)。肺炎和通气依赖性呼吸衰竭的发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.58)。硬膜外组的住院天数为9.72天(SD 9.98),而CINB组为6.98天(SD 4.67),显著减少(P=0.05)。其余次要结果无显著差异。结论:本研究未显示CINB组与硬膜外组在肺炎或呼吸机依赖性呼吸衰竭发生率上存在差异。它的动力不足。我们的数据支持使用CINB与硬膜外相比减少住院天数。CINB可能比硬膜外有优势,如更少的并发症,更少的禁忌症,更短的放置时间。需要进一步的研究来证实这些说法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of continuous intercostal nerve block or epidural analgesia on the rate of respiratory complications, intensive care unit, and hospital stay following traumatic rib fractures: a retrospective review
Background Thoracic trauma accounts for 10%–15% of all trauma admissions. Rib fractures are the most common injury following blunt thoracic trauma. Epidural analgesia improves patient outcomes but is not without problems. The use of continuous intercostal nerve blockade (CINB) may offer superior pain control with fewer side effects. This study’s objective was to compare the rate of pulmonary complications when traumatic rib fractures were treated with CINB vs epidurals. Methods A hospital trauma registry provided retrospective data from 2008 to 2013 for patients with 2 or more traumatic rib fractures. All subjects were admitted and were treated with either an epidural or a subcutaneously placed catheter for continuous intercostal nerve blockade. Our primary outcome was a composite of either pneumonia or respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included total hospital days, total ICU days, and days on the ventilator. Results 12.5% (N=8) of the CINB group developed pneumonia or had respiratory failure compared to 16.3% (N=7) in the epidural group. No statistical difference (P=0.58) in the incidence of pneumonia or vent dependent respiratory failure was observed. There was a significant reduction (P=0.05) in hospital days from 9.72 (SD 9.98) in the epidural compared to 6.98 (SD 4.67) in the CINB group. The rest of our secondary outcomes showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study did not show a difference in the rate of pneumonia or ventilator-dependent respiratory failure in the CINB vs epidural groups. It was not sufficiently powered. Our data supports a reduction in hospital days when CINB is used vs epidural. CINB may have advantages over epidurals such as fewer complications, fewer contraindications, and a shorter time to placement. Further studies are needed to confirm these statements.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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