ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2025
Comparative analysis of general anesthesia and ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator perioperative care.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation requires effective anesthesia. General anesthesia (GA) carries risks like hemodynamic instability, while ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block (US-ICNB) may offer better pain control. This study hypothesized US-ICNB is superior in perioperative safety and pain management.
aimTo compare perioperative outcomes of GA and US-ICNB in S-ICD implantation.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 64 patients who received S-ICD implantation between February 2021 and December 2024. They were divided into GA and US-ICNB groups based on anesthesia type. Demographic data, perioperative parameters (operation time, pain scores, analgesic usage), and postoperative outcomes (complications, defibrillation events) were collected and analyzed. Statistical tests were used to compare the two groups.
resultsThis study included 64 patients (20 in the GA group and 44 in the US-ICNB group). Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in the US-ICNB group (39.20% ± 12.00%
conclusionBoth anesthetic methods were safe in the short term. However, US-ICNB was superior in reducing operation and hospital stay times and alleviating peri-operative pain. It has high safety in S-ICD implantation and deserves further clinical promotion, though large-scale, multi-center, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.