METHODS: A total of 128 patients with HZ were retrospectively stratified into antiviral treatment (AVT) plus US-guided TPVB (TPVB group), AVT plus US-guided ICNB (ICNB group) or AVT alone (control group) based on the treatment they received. HZ-related illness burden (HZ-BOI) over 30 days after inclusion as the primary endpoint was determined by a severity-by-duration composite pain assessment. Rescue analgesic requirement, health-related quality of life, PHN incidence, and adverse events were also recorded.
RESULTS: Significantly lower HZ-BOI scores within post-procedural 30 days using the area under the curve were reported with TPVB and ICNB compared with the control group: mean difference of 57.5 (p < 0.001) and 40.3 (p = 0.003). No difference was reported between TPVB and ICNB (p = 1.01). Significant greater improvements in PHN incidence, EQ-5D-3L scores, and rescue analgesic requirements were observed during follow-up favoring two trial groups, while comparable between two trial groups. No serious adverse events were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: US-guided ICNBs were as effective as TPVBs for acute HZ. The ICNB technique was an easier and time-efficient approach as opposed to conventional TPVB, which might be encouraged as a more accessible preemptive mean for preventing PHN.
方法:对128例HZ患者进行回顾性分层,分为抗病毒治疗(AVT)加美国指导的TPVB(TPVB组),AVT加US指导的ICNB(ICNB组)或单独的AVT(对照组)基于他们接受的治疗。纳入后30天内与HZ相关的疾病负担(HZ-BOI)作为主要终点,由严重程度随持续时间的复合疼痛评估确定。抢救镇痛要求,与健康相关的生活质量,PHN发病率,并记录不良事件.
结果:使用TPVB和ICNB在术后30天内使用曲线下面积,与对照组相比,HZ-BOI评分明显降低:平均差异为57.5(p<0.001)和40.3(p=0.003)。TPVB和ICNB之间没有差异(p=1.01)。PHN发病率的显著改善,EQ-5D-3L分数,随访期间观察到抢救镇痛药的需求,有利于两个试验组,而两个试验组之间具有可比性。未观察到严重不良事件。
结论:美国指导的ICNBs与TPVBs一样有效。与传统的TPVB相比,ICNB技术是一种更简单、更省时的方法,这可能会被鼓励作为一种更容易获得的预防PHN的先发制人的手段。