Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Programmed intermittent boluses of ropivacaine do not reduce opioid consumption compared to continuous infusionTrial Shows Different Delivery Methods for Heart Surgery Pain Relief

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that ropivacaine delivery via programmed intermittent bolus does not significantly reduce opioid consumption.

This randomized trial evaluated the impact of delivery methods for ropivacaine 0.2% via indwelling erector spinae (ESP) catheters in 240 adults undergoing open heart surgery via midline sternotomy. The study compared programmed intermittent boluses (PIB) to continuous infusion. The primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption in oral morphine milligram equivalents (OMME) over a 72-hour period.

Results showed a 1.08-fold greater OMME in the PIB group compared to the continuous infusion group (95% CI, 0.90-1.31; p = 0.40). Additionally, the PIB group received 4.1 OMME greater per day compared to the continuous infusion group (95% CI, -5.6 to +13.8 mg; p = 0.41).

Secondary outcomes, including postoperative pain intensity on a numerical rating scale, length of stay, quality of recovery (QoR-15), time to first bowel movement, and antiemetic use, showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Safety and tolerability data were not reported.

Clinical relevance is limited as the study compares delivery methods rather than the efficacy of the ESP block itself. The findings suggest that switching from continuous to intermittent bolus delivery does not significantly alter early postoperative opioid requirements or other measured outcomes in this population.

How this fits prior evidence

How this fits prior evidence: This finding addresses a gap in managing postoperative pain for heart failure patients. While previous coverage noted that GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i combination therapy is associated with improved outcomes in heart failure, and that NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction are the most robust predictors of sudden cardiac death in heart failure, this study specifically addresses the nuances of regional anesthesia delivery methods for surgical heart failure patients.

Researchers conducted a randomized trial to compare two ways of delivering ropivacaine, a numbing medication, to patients undergoing open heart surgery. The study focused on whether giving the medicine in intermittent boluses was more effective than a continuous infusion through a specific type of catheter called an ESP catheter.

The study included 240 adults in a large academic hospital. The results showed that patients receiving the intermittent boluses used slightly more opioid medication over 72 hours than those receiving the continuous infusion. However, this difference was not statistically significant, meaning the two methods performed similarly in practice.

Other measures, such as pain intensity, length of stay in the hospital, and the time to the first bowel movement, showed no significant differences between the two groups. Because the results were so similar, the study suggests that both methods of delivering the numbing medication are comparable for managing early pain after heart surgery.

What this means for you:
Two different ways of delivering numbing medicine showed similar results for pain management after heart surgery.

Common questions

How did the two treatment methods compare?

The study compared giving ropivacaine in intermittent boluses versus a continuous infusion. While the group receiving intermittent boluses used 1.08-fold more opioid medication over 72 hours, the difference was not statistically significant. This means both methods were similar in how they managed pain after heart surgery.

Did the method of delivery affect how long patients stayed in the hospital?

No, the study found no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding the length of stay in the hospital. Other factors, such as pain intensity and the time to the first bowel movement, also showed no significant differences between the two delivery methods.

Is one method better for managing pain after heart surgery?

The study did not find one method to be significantly better than the other. Both the intermittent bolus and the continuous infusion methods resulted in similar outcomes for pain intensity and quality of recovery. You should talk to your doctor about which pain management plan is best for your specific needs.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 240
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic efficacy of programmed intermittent boluses (PIB) and continuous infusion via indwelling erector spinae plane (ESP) catheters following open heart surgery. It was hypothesized that the use of PIB would result in superior analgesia compared to continuous infusion of local anesthetics through ESP catheters after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: An Institutional Review Board-approved parallel-group, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: A large academic hospital in the midwestern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing open heart surgery via midline sternotomy and scheduled ESP analgesia with bilateral indwelling catheters. INTERVENTIONS: Continuous infusion versus PIB of ropivacaine 0.2% via an electronic infusion pump. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption in oral morphine milligram equivalents (OMME) through 72 hours. The secondary outcomes included postoperative pain intensity on a numerical rating scale, length of stay, quality of recovery (QoR-15), time to first bowel movement, and antiemetic use. A total of 240 participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to PIB or continuous infusion. The PIB group had an estimated 1.08-fold greater OMME than the continuous infusion group (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.31; p = 0.40). The mean difference was 4.1 OMME greater per day for the PIB group (95% CI, -5.6 to +13.8 mg; p = 0.41). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In adults undergoing open heart surgery, ESP catheter-based analgesia via PIB did not significantly reduce early postoperative opioid consumption compared to a continuous infusion method.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.