Comparison Between Epidural and Bilateral Paravertebral Blocks in Liver Resection

NCT ID: NCT01407666

Last Updated: 2014-12-03

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

100 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2010-08-31

Study Completion Date

2014-11-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This prospective, randomized study is intended to assess the efficacy and safety of bilateral continuous paravertebral blocks compared to continuous epidural block for open liver resection. Hypotheses: Bilateral paravertebral blocks are: 1) equally effective in controlling the perioperative pain; and 2) safe, with less frequent complications following open liver resection when compared to continuous epidural block.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Background: A number of studies evaluating unilateral continuous paravertebral block demonstrate equal or superior analgesia when compared to epidural analgesia for postoperative pain control (1-7). At the same time, these studies show a decreased incidence of side effects and complications, including: hypotension, pulmonary complications, urinary retention, nausea and vomiting and failed blocks. Several studies also indicate that bilateral paravertebral blocks provide adequate postoperative analgesia (8-14). However, no study has been performed to date that shows a direct comparison between epidural and bilateral paravertebral blocks in patients undergoing open liver resection.Objectives: This prospective, randomized study is intended to assess the efficacy and safety of bilateral continuous paravertebral blocks compared to continuous epidural block for open liver resection. Hypotheses: Bilateral paravertebral blocks are: 1) equally effective in controlling the perioperative pain; and 2) safe, with less frequent complications following open liver resection when compared to continuous epidural block.Methods: A hundred adult patients undergoing elective open liver resection will be randomized to receive a continuous epidural block or continuous bilateral paravertebral blocks for perioperative analgesia. The primary outcome will be the degree of pain control measured by visual analog scale at 24 hours post surgery (at rest and while the patient is performing maximum incentive spirometry). The secondary outcomes will include: 1) Assessment of pain (at rest, with cough, and with ambulation) using the verbal numerical pain scale will be performed postoperatively every 8 hours by floor nursing staff until discharge. During the night the patient will not be awakened for pain assessment. 2) Intravenous opioid requirement: In addition to pain score, postoperative intravenous opioid requirements \[hydromorphone (mg)\] will also be recorded daily; Frequency of side effects and complications; and other functional status (volume of maximum incentive spirometry, time to extubation, total time for initial ambulation, the length of the hospital stay, time to return of bowel function, readiness for discharge from the hospital, and length of hospital stay). At one month post surgery, health-related quality of life, mortality, and any morbidities will be assessed. Each variable will be compared between the paravertebral group and the epidural group to examine the hypotheses above. Clinical Implications: Bilateral continuous paravertebral blocks could be an equally effective and safe alternative to a continuous epidural block for perioperative pain management in patients who undergo open liver resection.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Liver Disease Pain

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Bilateral paravertebral blocks

Bilateral continuous paravertebral blocks for open liver resection

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

paravertebral blocks

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

use bilateral thoracic paravertebral blocks for pain control

epidural block

received thoracic epidural block for open liver resection

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

paravertebral blocks

use bilateral thoracic paravertebral blocks for pain control

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

regional anesthesia

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASAPS) I to III patients aged over 18 years and scheduled to undergo elective open liver resection at UPMC Presbyterian/Montefiore Hospital will be screened for enrollment in the study. One hundred (100) patients will be enrolled in this study with equal numbers (n = 50) in each arm of the trial. In order to avoid skewed sex difference between the two groups, the sex will be allocated.

Exclusion Criteria

* non elective surgery,
* ASAPS IV or greater,
* age younger than 18 years,
* any contraindication to the placement of an epidural catheter or bilateral paravertebral catheters
* chronic pain conditions
* preoperative opioid use
* coagulation abnormalities or patients who are expected to be on therapeutic anticoagulants postoperatively
* allergy to any of the drugs/agents used our study protocol
* preoperative chronic renal dysfunction, who requires renal replacement therapy or serum creatinine greater than 1.4 mg/dL
* altered mental status (not oriented to place, person, or time),
* any comorbid conditions that, in the judgment of the consulting surgeon or anesthesiologist, would proscribe the patient from any aspect of the study, -
* inability to provide adequate informed consent
* refusal to participate in the study.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Pittsburgh

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Tetsuro Sakai, MD, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Pittsburgh

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

MOD09070393-01 / PRO09070393

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id