Prospective controlled study shows reduced pain and lower analgesic need in patients receiving PECS II block during CIED implantation.
Background and Objectives: Implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasingly performed in elderly and comorbid patients, for whom minimizing perioperative complications—including pain and systemic drug use—is critical. Traditional local infiltration often provides insufficient analgesia. The ultrasound-guided PECS II block, an interfascial regional technique, offers promising analgesic benefits in thoracic wall procedures but remains underutilized in cardiac electrophysiology. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective, controlled, non-randomized clinical study including 106 patients undergoing de novo CIED implantation. Patients were assigned to receive either a PECS II block (n = 53) or standard lidocaine-based local anesthesia (n = 53). Pain intensity was assessed using the numeric rating scale (NRS) intraoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the need for rescue analgesia, procedural duration, length of hospitalization, and patient satisfaction. Results: Patients in the PECS II group reported significantly lower NRS scores at all time points (mean intraoperative score: 2.1 ± 1.2 vs. 5.7 ± 1.6, p < 0.001; at 1 h: 2.5 ± 1.5 vs. 6.1 ± 1.7, p < 0.001). Rescue analgesia (metamizole sodium) was required in only four PECS II patients (7.5%) vs. 100% in the control group within 1 h. Hospital stay and procedural time were also modestly reduced in the PECS II group. Patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the intervention group. Conclusions: The ultrasound-guided PECS II block significantly reduces perioperative pain and the need for additional analgesia during CIED implantation, offering an effective, safe, and opioid-sparing alternative to conventional local infiltration. Its integration into clinical protocols for device implantation may enhance procedural comfort and recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Butiulca et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: