Efficacy of pecto-intercostal fascial plane block versus transversus thoracic muscle plane block under ultrasound guidance in coronary artery bypass grafting with general anesthesia
10.3760/cma.j.cn131073.20230508.00214
- VernacularTitle:超声引导下胸骨旁胸大肌肋间肌平面阻滞与胸横肌平面阻滞用于全麻冠状动脉旁路移植术效果的比较
- Author:
Hailing YIN
1
;
Yali GE
;
Haiyan WEI
;
Zhonghong SU
;
Hongwei SHI
;
Tao SHI
;
Jialin YIN
Author Information
1. 南京医科大学附属南京医院（南京市第一医院）麻醉疼痛与围术期医学科，南京 210006
- Keywords:
Coronary artery bypass;
Nerve block;
Pecto-intercostal fascial plane;
Transversus thoracic muscle plane
- From:
Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology
2024;44(2):194-198
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy of pecto-intercostal fascial plane (PIFP) block versus transversus thoracic muscle plane (TTP) block under ultrasound guidance in coronary artery bypass grafting with general anesthesia.Methods:Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification Ⅱor Ⅲ patients of either sex, aged 50-79 yr, scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting, were divided into 3 groups ( n=30 each) using a random number table method: PIFP block combined with general anesthesia group (PG group), TTP block combined with general anesthesia group (TG group), and general anesthesia group (G group). After anesthesia induction, bilateral PIFP block was performed under ultrasound guidance in group PG, TTP block was performed under ultrasound guidance in group TG. Three groups used the same general anesthesia method and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after surgery. Visual analog scale scores (cough, position change, etc) at rest and during activity were recorded at 6, 12, 18 and 24 h after operation. The total consumption of intraoperative sufentanil, extubation time, length of stay in intensive care units, rate of rescue analgesia, effective pressing times of patient-controlled analgesia, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, skin pruritus and nerve block-related adverse events were recorded. The operation time of nerve block was recorded and ultrasound-guided needle visibility score was assessed in PG group and TG group. Results:Compared with group G, the total consumption of intraoperative sufentanil was significantly reduced, the extubation time and length of stay in intensive care units were shortened, visual analog scale scores at rest and during activity were decreased at 6, 12 and 18 h after operation, the rate of rescue analgesia was decreased, and the effective pressing times of patient-controlled analgesia were decreased in group PG and group TG ( P<0.05), and no significant change was found in the aforementioned parameters in PG and TG groups ( P> 0.05). Compared with group TG, the operational time of nerve block was significantly shortened, and the ultrasound-guided needle visibility score was increased in group PG ( P<0.05). No nerve block-related adverse events were found in PG and TG groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and skin pruritus among the three groups ( P>0.05). Conclusions:PIFP block can provide good perioperative analgesia and promote the rapid recovery in the patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with general anesthesia. Although the analgesic effect of PIFP blockade is similar to that of TTP blockade, PIFP blockade is more clinically valuable due to its simpler operation and less relative risk.
