James McFadyen, MD

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pectoral nerve blocks (PECS) can reduce intra-procedural anesthetic requirements and postoperative pain. Little is known on the utility of PECS in reducing pain and narcotic use after pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement in children.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PECS can decrease postoperative pain and opioid use after PM or ICD placement in children.METHODS: A single center, retrospective review of pediatric patients undergoing transvenous PM or ICD placement between 2015-2020 was performed. Patients with recent cardiothoracic surgery or neurologic/developmental deficits were excluded. Demographics, procedural variables, postoperative pain, and postoperative opioid usage were compared between patients who underwent PECS and those who underwent conventional local anesthetic (CONTROL).RESULTS: A total of 74 patients underwent PM or ICD placement with 20 patients (27%) undergoing PECS. There were no differences between PECS and CONTROL with regard to age, weight, gender, type of device placed, presence of congenital heart disease, type of anesthesia, procedural time or complication rates. Patients who underwent PECS had lower pain scores at 1, 2, 6, 18, and 24-hours compared to CONTROL. PECS patients had a lower mean cumulative pain score [PECS 1.5 (95%-CI 0.8-2.2) vs CONTROL 3.1 (95%-CI 2.7-3.5); P<0.001] and lower total opioid use [PECS 6.0 MME/m2 (95%-CI 3.4-8.6) vs CONTROL 15.0 MME/m2 (95%-CI 11.8-18.2); P=0.001] over the 24-hours post-implant.CONCLUSIONS: Pectoralis nerve blocks reduce postoperative pain scores and lower total opioid usage after ICD or PM placement. PECS should be considered at the time of transvenous device placement in children.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.03.009

View details for PubMedID 32201270

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.09.036

View details for Web of Science ID 000461001800008

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) was first described in 2016 as a regional block for thoracic neuropathic pain. Given its short history, there are a paucity of controlled clinical trials, yet an abundance of case reports. The primary aim of this review is to examine pooled clinical data from published literature to gain an understanding of ESPB characteristics.DESIGN: A PubMed search was conducted to identify all ESPB related publications. Inclusion criteria included reports of ESP single shot, continuous infusion, intermittent bolus, human and cadaveric studies. Only publications obtained in English were included. Measures included type of publication, year and country of publication, journal of publication, block technique, anatomic location, age, opioid and adjunct pain medication use, sensory and motor changes, side effects and adverse events. Qualitative statistics were used.MAIN RESULTS: The initial search yielded 201 publications. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 85 publications from 21 journals were included in the pooled review which yielded 242 reported cases between 2016 and 2018. The majority of publications reported single shot techniques (80.2%), followed by intermittent boluses (12.0%) and continuous infusions (7.9%). 90.9% reported use of multimodal analgesia in addition to the ESPB and 34.7% reported sensory changes from ESPB. A reduction in opioid use was reported in 34.7% of cases. One adverse event involving a pneumothorax was reported.CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first review providing a pooled review of ESPB characteristics. The ESPB appears to be a safe and effective option for multiple types thoracic, abdominal, and extremity surgeries.

View details for PubMedID 30292068

View details for DOI 10.1111/pan.12893

View details for PubMedID 27119304