Spinal Marginally Hyperbaric Ropivacaine for Cesarean Delivery

NCT ID: NCT03142880

Last Updated: 2017-05-09

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

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

120 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2017-05-31

Study Completion Date

2017-11-30

Brief Summary

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

BACKGROUND: One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and commonly hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have a higher incidence of side reaction. It is unclear what the efficacy of spinal marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.We hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.

OBJECTIVE In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, Investigator will compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effect of spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric and marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.

Main outcome measures: The maximum cephalad sensory block level; the change of continuous cerebral oxygen desaturation (ScO2) over time; the incidence of hypotension and nausea and vomiting; the change of invasive arterial pressure; the consumption of ephedrine; the incidence of shivering; the onset time to T8 dermatome; the quality of anesthesia (efficacy of motor block and sensory block)

Detailed Description

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

INTRODUCTION:

One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and commonly hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have a higher incidence of side reaction such as hypotension. It is unclear what the efficacy of spinal marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.The investigator of this study hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine would get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, Investigator will compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effect of spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric and marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.

Ethical approval for this clinical trial (Ethical Committee No.) was provided by the Ethics Committee of Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao), Qingdao, China on 1 February 2016. Informed written consent will be obtained from all patients. Investigator expected to recruit 120 Pregnant women who will scheduled for elective cesarean section and meet the inclusion criteria.

A computer-generated random number sequence will be used for group allocation. To ensure the study will be double blinded, the anesthesiologist who will administer the anesthesia will take no other part in the study, whilst another anesthesiologist blind to the allocation will collected intraoperative and postoperative data. The patients would be unaware of the treatment allocation. Women will be randomised into two groups: the commonly hyperbaric group (CH) will receive ropivacaine solution with 8.3% glucose; group marginally hyperbaric group (MH) will receive ropivacaine solution with 0.83% glucose; Density will be determined by using a digital density meter (DMA4500M; Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria) at 37°C.Fifteen minutes prior to administration of anesthesia, the ropivacaine solution will be prepared by one nurse who is blind to the patient allocation.Commomly hyperbaric ropivacaine solutions will be made of 0.75% ropivacaine + 50% glucose + isotonic saline and Marginally hyperbaric solutions will be made of 0.75% ropivacaine +5% glucose + isotonic saline. The doses of ropivacaine and the volume of spinal solution will be same and only the density of the solution will be different.

When the patient arrived at the operating room, an IV cannula will be inserted in one forearm. Standard monitoring with electrocardiography and pulse oximetry and cerebral oxygen saturation(ScO2) and invasive blood pressure (IBP) will be attached.

During the operation, the room temperature will be kept at 24°C. The body temperature of each patient will be maintained by an electric warming blanket and infusion heating device.

The data of systolic pressure and ScO2 wil be recorded at 5-6 second intervals on the device's accessory disk drive for later analysis. To establish a baseline for blood pressure and ScO2. No prehydration will be given. Lactated Ringers' solution at 0.4 ml kg-1 min-1 will be infused after anesthesia. Supplemental oxygen is planned to be administered in case SpO2 values would be below 91%.

The combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) would be performed in the lateral position at the intervertebral space between L3 and L4. Then, spinal solution will be injected intrathecalley after CSF releas. The epidural catheter will be inserted. The patient will be immediately placed in a supine position with 15° left tilt. Completion of the spinal injection would be considered as time zero. The sensory block will be determined by pinprick along both sides of the midclavicular line at 2 min intervals post injection. The sensory block had not reached T8 before surgery, or there was moderate pain during the skin incision, spinal anesthesia would be considered to have failed.

The efficacy of anesthesia would be evaluated using three criteria: lower limb motor block, muscle relaxation and pain during skin incision and abdominal exploration.

To treat intraoperative hypotension, 6mg ephedrine will be injected followed by 3 mg every 2 min until the blood pressure was restored to normal. Instances of nausea, vomiting, shivering and pruritus will be also recorded.

After delivery, Apgar scores will be assessed at 1 and 5 min by the attending pediatrician.

On the basis of the results of a pilot study, 40 patients in each group were needed to compare a two-segment difference in the upper sensory level and 30 % difference in the incidence of hypotension at a significance level of P less than 0.05 with 80% power. However, We expect to enroll 120 patients to get a more precise result.

For IBP and ScO2 the median value of the sliding averages of the 30-second period before spinal induction will be used as the baseline value for the figures and statistical analyses. Time 0 for hemodynamic analyses will be defined as the end of spinal injection. This two variables analyses will be run for the first 15 minutes, which almost equaled to the interval from induction of spinal anesthesia to delivery.

SPSS 16.0 will be used for data analysis. T-test would be used to assess the difference in sensory block level amongst the groups, The linear mixed model to analyze the continuous changes in systolic pressure and ScO2 over time. X2 test for trends would be used to test the association between adverse effects of anesthesia and the groups. In all cases, a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Conditions

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

Anesthesia, Spinal

Study Design

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

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Investigators

Study Groups

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

commonly hyperbaric ropivacaine group

This group will receive spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric ropivacaine solution,which was made by adding 50% glucose to the plain ropivacaine commercially availablethe to make it's density is close to commonly hyperbaric bupivacaine.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

hyperbaric ropivacaine

Intervention Type COMBINATION_PRODUCT

We change the density of ropivacaine solution to make it into an marginally hyperbaric state or into an commonly hyperbaric state.and we hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.

marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine group

This group will receive spinal anesthesia with marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine,which was made by adding 5% glucose to the plain ropivacaine commercially availablethe to make it's density is slightly denser than cerebrospinal fluid but much less denser than commonly hyperbaric bupivacaine/ropivacaine.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

hyperbaric ropivacaine

Intervention Type COMBINATION_PRODUCT

We change the density of ropivacaine solution to make it into an marginally hyperbaric state or into an commonly hyperbaric state.and we hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.

Interventions

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

hyperbaric ropivacaine

We change the density of ropivacaine solution to make it into an marginally hyperbaric state or into an commonly hyperbaric state.and we hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.

Intervention Type COMBINATION_PRODUCT

Other Intervention Names

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

commonly or marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine

Eligibility Criteria

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

Exclusion Criteria

* They had dysfunctional coagulation; had pregnancy-induced hypertension; or had infection around the anesthesia puncture site; or multiple pregnancies, suspected fetal abnormality, and if the gestational age of the infant was less than 36 weeks.
Minimum Eligible Age

20 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

42 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao)

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

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Tang WX, Li JJ, Bu HM, Fu ZJ. Spinal anaesthesia with low-dose bupivacaine in marginally hyperbaric solutions for caesarean section: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 Jul;32(7):493-8. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000112.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25032943 (View on PubMed)

Khaw KS, Ngan Kee WD, Wong M, Ng F, Lee A. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions. Anesth Analg. 2002 Mar;94(3):680-5; table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200203000-00037.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11867397 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

ZX01

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.