ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Continuous Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Versus Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block for Pain Management in Coronary Bypass Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of thoracic epidural anesthesia with an erector spinae plane infusion for post-esophagectomy analgesia: a pragmatic retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Effective pain control is vital for patients undergoing heart surgery. Utilizing a multimodal approach to analgesia is essential, as poor pain management can result in hemodynamic and systemic complications. This study aimed to compare perioperative pain management techniques in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), specifically evaluating continuous thoracic epidural analgesia and ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae block. Methods This randomized comparative study was conducted at a tertiary care centre over a period of six months, with approval from the institute's ethics committee. A total of 24 patients undergoing CABG under general anesthesia participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to either the continuous thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) group (Group A) or the ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane (ESP) block group (Group B) using a simple randomization method. The study assessed intraoperative intravenous opioid requirements for maintaining stable hemodynamics, as well as postoperative resting and coughing Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores and peak inspiratory spirometry. Results Twelve patients from each group completed the study, with comparable demographics (age, gender). Both groups exhibited similar resting and coughing VAS scores at 0, 3, 6, and 12 hours postoperatively (p > 0.05). However, at 24, 36, and 48 hours, Group A had significantly higher VAS scores compared to Group B (p < 0.05). Group A maintained an overall mean VAS score of 4 or less during rest and coughing. Peak inspiratory spirometry results were consistent between both groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion The ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae block provided pain control comparable to thoracic epidural analgesia, making it a viable alternative for perioperative pain management. This is particularly beneficial for CABG patients where early postoperative anticoagulant therapy is crucial for graft patency. Effective pain management also contributes to faster recovery in coronary artery bypass grafting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.