Compared Efficacy of Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia With or Without Automatic Boluses
NCT ID: NCT03407209
Last Updated: 2018-01-23
Study Results
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.
COMPLETED
NA
462 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2016-11-06
2018-01-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
However, some women under epidural analgesia have experienced motor block, which has been found to contribute in the lengthening of the duration of labor, dystocia and instrumental delivery. Therefore, in recent years, reducing these side effects by modifying local anesthetics, concentration of local anesthetic and injected volume has been a priority, with one aim: optimize analgesia without motor blockage.
Although epidural analgesia was first provided by continuous epidural infusion, the efficacy of intermittent epidural bolus has been demonstrated. Small regularly spaced intermittent boluses lead to a more extensive and symmetrical spread of local anesthetic in the epidural space. These findings have led to a new kind of administration combining epidural intermittent boluses with patient-controlled boluses called PEIB (Patient Epidural Intermittent Bolus). On clinical grounds, PEIB is associated with reduced local anesthetic consumption and higher maternal satisfaction.
While PEIB is experimentally and clinically approved, incidence of maternal motor block and instrumental vaginal delivery don't decrease significantly with this programming. We hypothesized that automatic intermittent boluses can lead to an accumulation of local anesthetic overlapping with patient bolus. This accumulation can be the source of motor block, dystocia and instrumental delivery. Therefore, we propose to lead a monocentric prospective randomized study upon 308 patients in order to compare PEIB to epidural analgesia totally controlled by the patient. We expect a lower consumption of local anesthetic and a lower incidence of motor block, dystocia and instrumental delivery with the free automatic bolus programming.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Levobupivacaine for Epidural Analgesia in Labour
NCT00929682
Comparison of Epidural, Combined and Dural Puncture Labor Epidural on Pain, and Course of Vaginal Delivery
NCT04290702
Comparison of Epidural Labor Pain Relief Techniques on Maternal and Fetal Outcomes
NCT02008591
The Effects of Intermittent Epidural Bolus on Fever During Labor Analgesia
NCT01708668
Comparison of Combined Spinal-epidural Analgesia Versus Epidural Analgesia for Pain Management During Labor
NCT03600272
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Solution prepared with 200 ml of levobupivacaine 0,625mg/ml associated with analgesic adjuvants: sufentanyl 50 micrograms and clonidine 75 micrograms.
Randomization between:
\- PEIB:
* automatic hourly bolus: 8ml (5mg) on 3 min
* patient controlled bolus: 8ml (5mg) on 3 min
* refractory period: 8min
* continuous infusion: 0
* maximum dose: 65mg/4h
or
\- FREE programming: epidural analgesia totally controlled by the patient
* automatic hourly bolus: 0
* patient controlled bolus: 8ml (5mg) on 3 min
* refractory period: 8min
* continuous infusion: 0
* maximum dose: 65mg/4h
Supervision and care consistent with french expert conference of the SFAR (Société Française d'Anesthésie-Réanimation) on management of women under epidural analgesia.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
PEIB - Use of local levobupivacaine anesthetics: 0.625 mg / ml
* automatic hourly bolus: 8ml (5mg) on 3 min
* patient controlled bolus: 8ml (5mg) on 3 min
* refractory period: 8min
* continuous infusion: 0
* maximum dose: 65mg/4h
consumption of local anesthetic measurement
consumption of local anesthetic measurement in both groups
FREE programming - levobupivacaine anesthetics: 0.625 mg / ml
Epidural analgesia totally controlled by the patient
* automatic hourly bolus: 0
* patient controlled bolus: 8ml (5mg) on 3 min
* refractory period: 8min
* continuous infusion: 0
* maximum dose: 65mg/4h
consumption of local anesthetic measurement
consumption of local anesthetic measurement in both groups
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
consumption of local anesthetic measurement
consumption of local anesthetic measurement in both groups
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Age \>/= 18 years
* Nulliparous
* \>35 weeks of amenorrhea
* In spontaneous or triggered labor
Exclusion Criteria
* Multiple pregnancy
* Fetal death in utero
* Programmed or in emergency caesarian
18 Years
FEMALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University Hospital, Caen
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Caen University Hopital
Caen, , France
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2016-A01346-45
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.