Continuous Pecto-Intercostal Fascial Block Provides Effective Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Open Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Issue 3 (2nd October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhang, Yang; Min, Jia; Chen, Shibiao
• Is Part Of: Pain medicine. Volume 23:Issue 3(2022)
• Page Start: 440
• Page End: 447
• Publication Date: 2021-10-02
• Subjects: Continuous Pecto-Intercostal Fascial Block -- Length of Hospital Stay -- Sufentanil -- Open Cardiac Surgery -- Postoperative Pain; Pain -- Periodicals; Pain -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Analgesics -- Periodicals; Pain -- Periodicals; Pain Management -- Periodicals; Douleur -- Périodiques; Douleur -- Traitement -- Périodiques; Analgésiques -- Périodiques; Analgésique; Soulagement de la douleur; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.047205
• DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnab291
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-2375

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The optimal analgesia regimen after open cardiac surgery has been unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the beneficial effects of continuous pecto-intercostal fascial blocks (PIFB) initiated before surgery on outcomes after open cardiac surgery. Methods: A group of 116 patients were randomly allocated to receive either bilateral continuous PIFB (PIF group) or the same block with saline (SAL group). The primary endpoint was postoperative pain at 4, 8, 16, 24, 48, and 72 hours after extubation at rest and during exercise. The secondary outcome measures included analgesia requirements (sufentanil and flurbiprofen consumption), time to extubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, time until return of bowel function, time to mobilization, time to urinary catheter removal, and the length of hospital stay. Results: The length of stay in the intensive care unit (29 ± 7 hours vs 13 ± 4 hours, P < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (8.9 ± 0.9 days vs 6.5 ± 1.1 days, P < 0.01) were significantly longer in the SAL group than in the PIF group. Resting pain scores (2 hours after extubation: 1.1 vs 3.3, P < 0.01; 4 hours after extubation: 1.0 vs 3.5, P < 0.01; 8 hours after extubation: 1.2 vs 3.7, P < 0.01; 16 hours after extubation: 1.3 vs 3.7, P < 0.01; 24 hours after extubation: 1.4 vs 2.8, P < 0.01; 48 hours after extubation: 0.9 vs 2.2, P < 0.01; 72 hours after extubation: 0.8 vs 2.1, P < 0.01) and dynamic pain scores (2 hours after extubation: 1.4 vs 3.7, P < 0.01; 4 hours after extubation: 1.3 vs 3.8, P < 0.01; 8 hours after extubation: 1.4 vs 3.5, P < 0.01; 16 hours after extubation: 1.2 vs 3.4, P < 0.01; 24 hours after extubation: 1.1 vs 3.1, P < 0.01; 48 hours after extubation: 1.0 vs 2.9, P < 0.01; 72 hours after extubation: 0.9 vs 2.8, P < 0.01) were significantly lower in the PIF group than in the SAL group at all time points. The PIF group required significantly less intraoperative sufentanil consumption (123 ± 32 μg vs 63 ± 16 μg, P < 0.01), postoperative sufentanil consumption (102 ± 22 μg vs 52 ± 17 μg, P < 0.01), and postoperative flurbiprofen consumption (350 ± 100 mg vs 100 ± 100 mg, P < 0.01) than the SAL groups. Time to extubation (8.9 ± 2.4 hours vs 3.2 ± 1.3 hours, P < 0.01), time to first flatus (43 ± 6 hours vs 30 ± 7 hours, P < 0.01), time until mobilization (35 ± 5 hours vs 24 ± 7 hours, P < 0.01), and time until urinary catheter removal (47 ± 9 hours vs 31 ± 4 hours, P < 0.01) were significantly earlier in the PIF group than in the SAL group. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in the PIF group (9.1% vs 27.3%, P < 0.01). Conclusion: Bilateral continuous PIFB reduced the length of hospital stay and provided effective postoperative pain relief for 3 days.