4.5 Article

The Impact of Paravertebral Block Analgesia on Breast Cancer Survival After Surgery

Journal

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages 696-703

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000479

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) NCI [P30 CA016672]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: The impact of regional anesthesia on breast cancer recurrence is controversial. We tested the hypothesis that the use of paravertebral block (PVB) analgesia during breast cancer surgery prolongs the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of women with breast cancer. Methods: Seven hundred ninety-two women with nonmetastatic breast cancer were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided based on the administration of PVB analgesia for mastectomy surgeries. One hundred ninety-eight (25%) were given a PVB, the remainder were treated with opioid-based analgesia. Propensity score matching was developed using several variables. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess the impact of PVB analgesia on RFS and OS. Results: The median follow-up times for RFS and OS were 5.8 and 6 years, respectively. In the propensity score matching model, a total of 396 women were included in each group of treatment (non-PVB group, n = 198 vs PVB group, n = 198). As expected, the fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in PVB (122.8 +/- 77.85 mu g) patients than non-PVB subjects (402.23 +/- 343.8 mu g). Other variables were not statistically significant. After adjusting for several important covariates, the analysis indicated that the use of PVB is not associated with a significant change in RFS [1.60 (0.81-3.16), P = 0.172] or OS [1.28 (0.55-3.01)] survival. Discussion: This retrospective study does not support the hypothesis that the use of regional analgesia is associated with longer survival after surgery for breast cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available