The erector spinae plane block vs. usual care for treatment of mechanical back pain in the emergency department: a pilot study.

IF 2.4 CJEM Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1007/s43678-024-00748-7
Ben Ho, Ryan Fyfe-Brown, Shelly Chopra, Kevin McMeel
{"title":"The erector spinae plane block vs. usual care for treatment of mechanical back pain in the emergency department: a pilot study.","authors":"Ben Ho, Ryan Fyfe-Brown, Shelly Chopra, Kevin McMeel","doi":"10.1007/s43678-024-00748-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), traditionally utilized for thoracic regional pain control, has been reported as an effective analgesic option for mechanical back pain, renal colic, and rib fractures in the emergency department (ED). This pilot study aims to compare the effectiveness of the ESPB to usual analgesic treatment for patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted at a Canadian community hospital from March 2020 to December 2022. Adult patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain of at least 7 out of 10 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were randomized to receive either the ESPB or usual care. The primary outcome was the difference in NPRS score reduction at ED discharge. Secondary outcomes included ED length of stay, ED opiate use, follow-up NPRS and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) scores, back pain-related return ED visits, and ongoing opiate use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 patients were enrolled, with 19 randomized to the ESPB cohort and 11 to the usual care cohort. The mean NPRS reduction at ED discharge was significantly higher in the ESPB group compared to the usual care group (5.4 vs. 2.2), with a difference of 3.2 (95% confidence interval 1.4-5.1). ED opiate use was lower in the ESPB group. The ESPB also resulted in a significant reduction in ED length of stay (160 min vs. 235 min). There were no reported adverse effects related to the research interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This pilot study suggests that the ESPB may be an effective opioid-sparing analgesic option for patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong></p><p><strong>Gov identifier: </strong>NCT05982483.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":"543-548"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00748-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), traditionally utilized for thoracic regional pain control, has been reported as an effective analgesic option for mechanical back pain, renal colic, and rib fractures in the emergency department (ED). This pilot study aims to compare the effectiveness of the ESPB to usual analgesic treatment for patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain.

Methods: A prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted at a Canadian community hospital from March 2020 to December 2022. Adult patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain of at least 7 out of 10 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were randomized to receive either the ESPB or usual care. The primary outcome was the difference in NPRS score reduction at ED discharge. Secondary outcomes included ED length of stay, ED opiate use, follow-up NPRS and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) scores, back pain-related return ED visits, and ongoing opiate use.

Results: A total of 30 patients were enrolled, with 19 randomized to the ESPB cohort and 11 to the usual care cohort. The mean NPRS reduction at ED discharge was significantly higher in the ESPB group compared to the usual care group (5.4 vs. 2.2), with a difference of 3.2 (95% confidence interval 1.4-5.1). ED opiate use was lower in the ESPB group. The ESPB also resulted in a significant reduction in ED length of stay (160 min vs. 235 min). There were no reported adverse effects related to the research interventions.

Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that the ESPB may be an effective opioid-sparing analgesic option for patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain.

Clinicaltrials:

Gov identifier: NCT05982483.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在急诊科治疗机械性背痛时,竖脊肌平面阻滞与常规护理的对比:一项试点研究。
背景:据报道,超声引导下竖脊平面阻滞(ESPB)是急诊科(ED)治疗机械性背痛、肾绞痛和肋骨骨折的有效镇痛方法。本试验性研究旨在比较 ESPB 与常规镇痛治疗对急诊科机械性背痛患者的疗效:2020年3月至2022年12月,在加拿大一家社区医院开展了一项前瞻性单盲随机对照试验。因机械性背痛(数字疼痛评分量表(NPRS)满分至少为 7 分)而前往急诊室就诊的成人患者被随机分配接受 ESPB 或常规治疗。主要结果是急诊室出院时 NPRS 评分降低的差异。次要结果包括急诊室住院时间、急诊室阿片类药物使用情况、随访NPRS和简易疼痛量表(BPI)评分、与背痛相关的急诊室复诊情况以及阿片类药物的持续使用情况:共有 30 名患者入组,其中 19 人被随机分配到 ESPB 组群,11 人被随机分配到常规护理组群。与常规护理组相比,ESPB 组患者在急诊室出院时的平均 NPRS 下降率明显更高(5.4 vs. 2.2),差异为 3.2(95% 置信区间为 1.4-5.1)。ESPB组的急诊鸦片使用率较低。ESPB还显著缩短了急诊室停留时间(160分钟对235分钟)。没有任何与研究干预相关的不良反应报告:这项试点研究表明,对于因机械性背痛而到急诊室就诊的患者来说,ESPB可能是一种有效的阿片类药物节约型镇痛选择:Gov 标识符:NCT05982483。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Machine learning outperforms the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in predicting need for early critical care. The role of partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in pre-hospital trauma. Just the facts: evaluation and management of epistaxis. Safety and accuracy of the computer interpretation of normal ECGs at triage. Correction: Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of rapid HIV testing in Canadian Emergency Departments: a mixed methods study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1