Senthilkumar Muhilan, Parida Satyen, Rudingwa Priya, Selvaraj Raja
Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, JIPMER, Puducherry, India.
Department of Cardiology, JIPMER, Puducherry, India.
Ann Card Anaesth. 2025 Apr 1;28(2):170-175. doi: 10.4103/aca.aca_164_24. Epub 2025 Apr 16.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在过去几十年中,心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)的植入率呈指数级增长。在此手术过程中,无痛方案的选择有限。传统上,采用局部浸润联合清醒镇静的方法。胸神经(PECS)阻滞在乳腺手术中的镇痛效果已得到评估。我们的研究评估了在CIED植入过程中,PECS 1阻滞联合肋间神经阻滞相对于局部浸润作为一种镇痛技术的有效性。
在这项随机对照试验中,将70例计划进行CIED植入的年龄在18 - 75岁的ASA 2和3级患者随机分为两组。A组接受14毫升0.375%罗哌卡因的局部浸润,B组在超声引导下接受PECS 1阻滞(10毫升)联合肋间神经阻滞(4毫升)。在手术过程中,必要时额外给予2毫升1%的利多卡因作为补救措施。我们记录了利多卡因给药的频率和时间。在术后1、2、4、8和24小时评估疼痛情况,如果数字评分量表(NRS)大于3,则给予静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚。记录两组所需对乙酰氨基酚的总量和平均住院时间。
除皮肤缝合外,B组在手术最初五个步骤中的NRS评分有统计学意义的下降,P值 = 0.044。B组首次需要镇痛的时间显著延长,分别为39.6 ± 15.9分钟,而局部浸润组为19.6 ± 15.1分钟,P值 = 0.001。与A组相比,B组手术期间芬太尼平均需求量显著更低(30.4 ± 10.4微克对50.7 ± 17.7微克),P值 < 0.001,术后对乙酰氨基酚需求量也是如此,P值 = 0.003。两组术后疼痛评分和住院时间相当。
PECS 1联合肋间神经阻滞替代传统局部浸润可显著降低手术期间NRS评分和补救药物需求量。对于这些患者来说,这是一个合适的选择。