OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided celiac plexus block/neurolysis (CPB/N) can be performed by injecting at the base (central) or on either side (bilateral) of the celiac axis. Central CPB/N is easier and possibly safer. Bilateral CPB/N is more difficult but may be more effective as it reaches more ganglia. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term safety and efficacy of central and bilateral CPB/N. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for CPB/N to a quaternary EUS center were eligible for this study. Central CPB/N was used in the first half of the study period and bilateral CPB/N in the last half. The primary outcome was the percent reduction in visual analog pain scores at day 7. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were eligible. Out of them, 24 (13%) were excluded for incomplete data. A total of 160 were left (71 central, 89 bilateral). The groups were similar for all cogent variables. Bilateral CPB/N was more effective than central CPB/N (mean percent pain reduction 70.4% (61.0-80.0) vs. 45.9% (32.7-57.4); P=0.0016). The only predictor of a >50% pain reduction was bilateral CPB/N (odds ratio 3.55, 1.72-7.34). Only one complication was noted: self-limited bleeding because of laceration of the adrenal artery following bilateral celiac plexus (CP) block in an anticoagulated patient. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Bilateral CPB/N is more effective than central CPB/N; (ii) bilateral CPB/N is safe, but on rare occasions can cause trauma to the left adrenal artery; it should therefore be avoided in patients with a bleeding diathesis.
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided celiac plexus block/neurolysis (CPB/N) can be performed by injecting at the base (central) or on either side (bilateral) of the celiac axis. Central CPB/N is easier and possibly safer. Bilateral CPB/N is more difficult but may be more effective as it reaches more ganglia. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term safety and efficacy of central and bilateral CPB/N. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for CPB/N to a quaternary EUS center were eligible for this study. Central CPB/N was used in the first half of the study period and bilateral CPB/N in the last half. The primary outcome was the percent reduction in visual analog pain scores at day 7. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were eligible. Out of them, 24 (13%) were excluded for incomplete data. A total of 160 were left (71 central, 89 bilateral). The groups were similar for all cogent variables. Bilateral CPB/N was more effective than central CPB/N (mean percent pain reduction 70.4% (61.0-80.0) vs. 45.9% (32.7-57.4); P=0.0016). The only predictor of a >50% pain reduction was bilateral CPB/N (odds ratio 3.55, 1.72-7.34). Only one complication was noted: self-limited bleeding because of laceration of the adrenal artery following bilateral celiac plexus (CP) block in an anticoagulated patient. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Bilateral CPB/N is more effective than central CPB/N; (ii) bilateral CPB/N is safe, but on rare occasions can cause trauma to the left adrenal artery; it should therefore be avoided in patients with a bleeding diathesis.
Authors: Carlo Fabbri; Carmelo Luigiano; Andrea Lisotti; Vincenzo Cennamo; Clara Virgilio; Giancarlo Caletti; Pietro Fusaroli Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 5.742