A Novel Approach for Pain Management in Cardiac Surgery via Median Sternotomy: Bilateral Single-Shot Paravertebral Blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional analgesia has entered cardiac anesthesia in the form of spinal or epidural analgesia. However, the risk of spinal or epidural hematoma is a constant worry. Alternative regional techniques might be applicable in cardiac surgery. The purpose of this study is to present a novel technique of bilateral single-shot paravertebral blocks (BSS-PVB) for cardiac surgery via median sternotomy and compare its efficacy versus high thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). Fifty-two patients were compared in this prospective cohort audit. In 26 patients, cardiac surgery was performed using low-dose fentanyl/BSS-PVB (bilateral blocks of 3 mL bupivacaine 0.5% each, T1-7) and general anesthesia; in another 26 patients, TEA (bupivacaine 0.125% at 10 mL/hour) and general anesthesia were used. Patients were assigned to cohorts according to their preoperative data and types of surgery. All patient data are shown as mean +/- SD; pain scores were compared between groups using the t test immediately, 6 hours, and 24 hours after surgery (P < .05). In the BSS-PVB-group (19 men, 7 women), mean age was 65 +/- 11 years, weight 74 +/- 16 kg, ejection fraction 59% +/- 12%, and duration of surgery 130 +/- 27 minutes; in the TEA-group (17 men, 9 women), mean age was 63 +/- 10 years, weight 75 +/- 16 kg, ejection fraction 58% +/- 12%, and duration of surgery 113 +/- 27 minutes. These data and preoperative comorbidity variables were not significantly different between the two groups. In each group, 18 patients underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 3 on-pump and 5 mitral valve replacements. All patients were successfully immediately extubated. Postoperative pain scores were at any point significantly lower with TEA, immediately at 2.4 +/- 2.2 versus 3.7 +/- 2.6, at 6 hours at 1.1 +/- 1.5 versus 2.4 +/- 1.8, and at 24 hours at 1.0 +/- 1.4 versus 2.3 +/- 1.6 (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain). There was no complications related to epidural catheter placement or BSS-PVB. Using both techniques, immediate extubation after cardiac surgery is feasible; TEA provides better pain relief after cardiac surgery than BSS-PVB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".