Key result
Erector spinae plane block provided comparable analgesia to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia but significantly reduced 24-hour postoperative morphine consumption (0.23 mg vs 17.92 mg) and nausea (21.0% vs 58.3%).
Why the study?
Pain after cardiac surgery impairs cognitive function, and the analgesic efficacy and disadvantages of erector spinae plane block compared with patient-controlled analgesia needed evaluation.
Does erector spinae plane block reduce postoperative opioid consumption and improve analgesia compared to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in adult patients undergoing open-heart surgery?
RCT (n=204)
Randomized
No
Does erector spinae plane block reduce postoperative opioid consumption and improve analgesia compared to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in adult patients undergoing open-heart surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.23% vs 17.92%
p-value: p=<0.05
Erector spinae plane block provides equivalent analgesia to intravenous PCA with morphine after open-heart surgery but significantly reduces postoperative opioid consumption and associated side effects like nausea and respiratory depression.
ESP may reduce opioid needs and side effects versus PCA after open-heart surgery; leaves open confirmation in larger trials.
Pain after cardiac surgery is always an obsession of patients and a top concern of anesthesiologists. Experimental subjects challenged by acute pain and patients in chronic pain experience impairments in attention control, working memory, mental flexibility, problem solving, and information processing speed. The two most commonly used analgesia methods are patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and erector spinea plane block (ESP). Our study aimed to compare the analgesic effect of ESP with PCA in patients after cardiac surgery using extracorporeal circulation and evaluate the disavantages of these two pain relief techniques. Subject and methods: This study was a randomized controlled intervention study of adult patients who underwent open-heart surgery patients with extracorporeal circulation from May 2020 to September 2021 in the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit - Hanoi Heart Hospital. Results: Two hundred and four (204) consecutive patients were collected, included 108 patients in the ESP group and 96 patients in the PCA group. The mean intraoperative fentanyl amount in the ESP group (0.57±0.50 mg) was lower than in the PCA group (1.00±0.00 mg) (p<0.05). The average VAS score when the patient was lying still and taking deep breaths at the time of assessment in both groups was below 3 (corresponding to low pain level) (p>0.05). The mean morphin consumption 24 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the ESP group (0,23±0,12 mg) than in the PCA group (17,92±3,32 mg) (p<0.05). The mean time after surgery in the ESP group (3.80±1.02 hours) and the PCA group (5.21±1.10 hours) had a clear difference between p<0.05. The mean time of extubation in the ESP group (8.06±1.60 hours) was statistically significantly lower than in the PCA group (8.83±1.43 hours) (p<0.05). The rate of nausea in the ESP group (20.98%) was lower than in the PCA group (58.33%) (p<0.05). Conclusion: Both methods had good analgesic effect with an average VAS score ≤ 3. The ESP group had a lower mean postoperative morphine consumption, a higher patient satisfaction level, and a lower rate of nausea, vomiting, and slow breathing statistically significant less than the PCA group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Phuong et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Open-heart surgery with extracorporeal circulation (n=204). Erector spinae plane (ESP) block vs. Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine was evaluated on Mean morphine consumption 24 hours after surgery (mg) (p=<0.05). Erector spinae plane block provided comparable analgesia to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia but significantly reduced 24-hour postoperative morphine consumption (0.23 mg vs 17.92 mg) and nausea (21.0% vs 58.3%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: