PK/PD Levobupivacaine with and Without Epinephrine After Ultrasound Guided ESP Block
NCT ID: NCT04799184
Last Updated: 2025-03-12
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
PHASE4
38 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-04-03
2022-03-09
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The pharmacokinetic profile that local anesthetics would have when injected into this interfacial compartment has not yet been described, and what the real impact of the use of vasoconstrictor will be in terms of plasma levels and duration of the block.
Our objective is to compare the plasma levels of levobupivacaine achieved after performing an ESP Block with or without epinephrine.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) Block vs Intravenous Lignocaine Infusion in (VATS)
NCT06289790
Erector Spinae Plane Block For Analgesia Following Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery
NCT03860480
Erector Spinae Block Versus Surgeon Infiltration in VATS Procedures
NCT03859635
Plasma Concentrations of Levobupivacaine With and Without Epinephrine in Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks
NCT01596998
Ropivacaine Pharmacokinetics in ESP Blocks
NCT04807504
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Less invasive procedures such as VATS, where the surgical incision is small and avoids costal resection, produces less postoperative pain when compared to a thoracotomy, this has been objectified by numerous studies that have found lower scores on the numerical verbal scale (NVE) and fewer requirements for pain relievers. Despite the fact that VATS produces less acute postoperative pain (VNS 4-5 on the first postoperative day in VATS vs VNS 6 in thoracotomies), the incidence of chronic postoperative pain ranges from 20 to 47%, which is comparable to thoracotomy, mainly due to damage to the intercostal nerves and inadequate analgesia.
It has been seen that one of the factors associated with the appearance of chronic pain after chest surgery is severe acute pain in the first three postoperative days. Acute pain in VATS is caused by surgical trauma to muscular and bone structures of the thorax, achieving good analgesia is important to maintain adequate respiratory function and avoid complications such as atelectasis, hypoxemia and possible pneumonia.
Currently, there is no standardized management or single technique to manage postoperative pain after VATS, there are many options available ranging from intravenous opioids, morphine or fentanyl Patient-controlled analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks, intercostals, paravertebral and epidural blocks. Each of them with advantages and disadvantages, but without being able to demonstrate a clear superiority between them, both the paravertebral and epidural blocks are the ones that accumulate the most reports in the literature regarding the management of postoperative pain, but at the same time they are not exempt from complications such as technical failure, hypotension and difficulty of the procedure. In addition to documenting a low use of thoracic epidurals in VATS.
At the end of 2016, the description of the Erector Spinal Block (ESP) by Forero was published, it blocks the ventral and dorsal branch of the unilateral thoracic roots. It corresponds to an interfacial block that produces an extensive multidermatomal sensitive block with a single puncture, covering the anterior, lateral and posterior aspect of the thorax. One of its main advantages would be safety, possible less nerve damage and pneumothorax, as well as the simplicity of execution of this block. What has positioned it as another analgesic alternative in this type of surgery.
In ESP, the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile that local anesthetics would have when injected into this interfacial compartment has not yet been described, and what will be the real impact of the use of vasoconstrictor in terms of plasma levels and duration of the block.
Considering the above, it is important to know the pharmacodynamics of levobupivacaine after performing an ESP block with ultrasonography in order to know the risks of toxicity from local anesthetics as well as to clinically characterize this block in patients who will undergo VATS.
The first objective of this study is to compare the plasma levels of levobupivacaine achieved after performing an ESP Block with or without epinephrine. As secondary objectives, it is proposed to characterize the block in terms of duration, pain, opioid requirements in the first 24 hours and adverse events, in both groups.
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
Group I will receive ESP block with vasoconstrictor and Group II will receive ESP block without vasoconstrictor.
TREATMENT
QUADRUPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Group I Epi
The ESP will be performed under ultrasound vision at T5 level, with the patient seated.
Once the ultrasound image is achieved, a 100 mm, 20 G Stimuplex needle will be punctured and a solution of levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 ug/ml completing a volume of 20 ml.
Levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 ug/ml
The block will be performed under ultrasound vision at T5 level, with the patient seated.
Once the ultrasound image is achieved, a 100 mm, 20 G Stimuplex needle will be punctured and a solution of levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 ug / ml until completing a volume of 20 ml in fractional form.
Group II no Epi
The ESP will be performed under ultrasound vision at T5 level, with the patient seated.
Once the ultrasound image is achieved, a 100 mm, 20 G Stimuplex needle will be punctured and a solution of levobupivacaine 0.25% without epinephrine completing a volume of 20 ml.
Levobupivacaine 0.25% without epinephrine 5 ug/ml
The block will be performed under ultrasound vision at T5 level, with the patient seated.
Once the ultrasound image is achieved, a 100 mm, 20 G Stimuplex needle will be punctured and a solution of levobupivacaine 0.25% without epinephrine 5 ug / ml until completing a volume of 20 ml in fractional form.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 ug/ml
The block will be performed under ultrasound vision at T5 level, with the patient seated.
Once the ultrasound image is achieved, a 100 mm, 20 G Stimuplex needle will be punctured and a solution of levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 ug / ml until completing a volume of 20 ml in fractional form.
Levobupivacaine 0.25% without epinephrine 5 ug/ml
The block will be performed under ultrasound vision at T5 level, with the patient seated.
Once the ultrasound image is achieved, a 100 mm, 20 G Stimuplex needle will be punctured and a solution of levobupivacaine 0.25% without epinephrine 5 ug / ml until completing a volume of 20 ml in fractional form.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* ASA I-II
* Body mass index (BMI) 20-34 kg / m2
Exclusion Criteria
* History of chronic pain
* Drug abuse
* Psychiatric illness
* Allergic to some of the drugs used in the study
* Chronic analgesic users
* History of peripheral neuropathy
* Who refuse the procedure
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Andrea Araneda, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Clinician
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Santiago, Santiago Metropolitan, Chile
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Corvetto MA, Echevarria GC, De La Fuente N, Mosqueira L, Solari S, Altermatt FR. Comparison of plasma concentrations of levobupivacaine with and without epinephrine for transversus abdominis plane block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012 Nov-Dec;37(6):633-7. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e31826c330a.
Araneda A, De la Cuadra JC, Corvetto M, Balde D, Fuente R, Ibacache M, Contreras V, Solari S, Cortinez I. Pharmacokinetic modelling and simulation for prolonged infusion of levobupivacaine with or without epinephrine in transversus abdominis plane and erector spinae plane blocks: a randomised controlled trial and analysis of pooled data. Br J Anaesth. 2025 Oct;135(4):1051-1058. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2025.05.047. Epub 2025 Jul 9.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
170627010
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.