Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Programmed intermittent bolus for erector spinae plane block versus intercostal nerve block in minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveContinuous intercostal nerve block (ICNB) has been shown to offer effective pain relief after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB). The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) could represent a viable alternative approach. This study aimed to compare the analgesic effect of programmed intermittent bolus(PIB) for ESPB to ICNB in patients undergoing MIDCAB.
methodsA prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Eighty patients scheduled for MIDCAB were randomized into two groups (n = 40 per group). ESPB using a PIB injection was performed in the ESPB group, while ICNB was performed in the ICNB group. The primary outcome was numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at movement immediately after extubation. Secondary outcomes included the cumulative area under the curve (AUC) of the pain scores, perioperative analgesic consumption, adverse events and recovery data.
resultsA total of 73 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 71 patients in the per-protocol analysis. There was no significant difference in numeric rating scale (NRS) scores at rest or movement between the two groups immediately after extubation, at 8, 24 and 48 h. The cumulative area under the curve (AUC) of the time NRS curve until 48 h after extubation and the necessity of rescue analgesics did not differ to a statistically significant degree between the two groups. Compared with the ICNB group, the ESPB group had significantly lower usage of intraoperative sufentanil (93.8 ± 33.6 vs. 128.9 ± 48.4 µg; p = 0.001).
conclusionsPostoperative analgesic effect between ESPB and ICNB did not differ in patients after MIDCAB.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900022388, retrospectively registered on Apr 09, 2019).
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.