Fentanyl Versus Morphine in Spinal Anesthesia for Caesarian Section - Study on Analgesia, Side Effects and Patient 's Satisfaction
NCT ID: NCT05533229
Last Updated: 2023-08-30
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
160 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2022-04-01
2023-08-10
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel study including 80 parturients scheduled for elective CS. Spinal anesthesia is consisting in bupivacaine (7.5 - 10 mg in relation to height) and either fentanyl 25 mcg (F group) either morphine 100 mcg (m group). It will be assessed intraoperative and postoperative pain scores, the incidence of sides effects, patient's satisfaction and systemic opioids consumption.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effects of Analgesics in Cesarean Section Elective
NCT03386630
Use of Intrathecal Fentanyl and Development of Hyperalgesia in Patients Undergoing Elective Cesarean
NCT02387060
Quality of Postoperative Analgesia and Functional Recovery After Elective Cesarean Delivery
NCT06355271
Continuous Infusion for Pain Relief
NCT02711072
Analgesic Efficacy of Intrathecal Fentanyl-Morphine Combination Versus Morphine Alone for Intraoperative Pain During Elective Cesarean Delivery
NCT06570343
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Group F (fentanyl) was administered hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% along with a standard dose of 25 mcg fentanyl, while group M (morphine) received hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% with a standard dose of 100 mcg morphine. The dose of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% to be injected, was based on the patient's height and here were used a range of doses between 7.5 mg and 11 mg.
The study required two anesthetists. The first anesthetist was "in charge" and performed the spinal anesthesia and he was blind to the solution used. The second anesthetist randomly assigned the patient, drew up the intrathecal solution and provided the anesthetic mixture. By this method, the first anesthetist was totally blinded to the opioid used. All drugs were from the same manufacturer.
During the pre-anesthetic visit, the patient received information about the aims of the study, the method of anesthesia, and details about the pain management and about the pain assessment with the numeric pain scale (NPS). Patient's demographics data were obtained: height, term weight and age. Also, full medical past and drugs history, previous allergies and other important medical data were documented.
Pre-operatively a venous access was obtained with an 18 G. cannula and 500 ml of Ringer lactate solution was infused prior to anesthesia. Participants were fasting and received pantoprazol 40 mg and metoclopramide 10 mg as pre-anesthetic medication. The spinal anesthesia was performed in an aseptic technique with the patient in a sitting position, in the L3 - L4 interspace, using a midline approach, with a Whitacre 27 G. needle and the anesthetic mixture manually injected at a rate of 1 ml.15s-1, with a barbotage effect. A previous skin local anesthetic infiltration was performed with 2 ml of 1% lidocaine. After the block, the patient was placed in a supine position with a roll wedge placed under the right hip to displace the uterus to the left until fetal extraction. Volemic supply was assured with warm Ringer lactate (10-20 ml.kg-1hr-1). All patients than had anti-embolic socks on lower limbs.
Surgery started when sensory block, as assessed by the cold test, reached the T4 dermatome level.
Non-invasive blood pressure (BP) was measured every minute until the baby was delivered and every 3-5 minutes afterwards. Any decrease in systolic blood pressure below the background level resulted in intravenous ephedrine and doses of 5-15 mg being given, repeated every minute until the systolic blood pressure had been restored. At delivery, oxytocin 5 I.U. was given intravenously (normal practice when the study was conducted) and afterwards as required.
We took a proactive action to prevent the perianesthetic emetic syndrome. So, our patients received from the time of surgery a nausea prophylaxis with granisetron 1 mg and a dose o dexamethasone 4 mg. A second dose of granisetron 1 mg was given at 12 hours apart. Afterwards only as required anti-emetic medication was given.
Heart rate, BP, oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2), requirement for supplemental analgesics, need for conversion to general anesthesia were recorded intraoperatively. In addition to these parameters, the level of sensory block was assessed by the cold test, and the maximum motor block score was recorded using a 4-points Bromage scale as the complete motor recovery time.
The postoperative pain control strategy was relaying on regular paracetamol 1 gr., every 6 hrs. and ibuprophen 400 mg every 8 hrs., both drugs given in intravenous or oral administration. As required for breakthrough pain, were available doses of 50 to 100 mg. of iv. tramadol, 6 hourly to a maximum dose of 400 mg.
Data collection We collected data regarding: demographics (age, weight, height, smoke consumption, gesta/para status and preoperative contractions); time from anesthesia to incision; time to sensory block; pain scores (at surgical incision, end of surgery, at 4 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h - postoperative the pain scores were assessed at rest and on mobilizing); AUE72h (sum pain intensity differences area over 72 hours) and SPID72h (time-weighted sum pain intensity differences over 72 hours); side effects associated with anesthesia (pruritus with a grading scale, nausea, vomiting, over sedation, dizziness and respiratory depression).
Contribution to pain intensity assessment metrics Besides assessing and understanding the level of pain, pain scales help healthcare practitioners to make a well-informed and accurate diagnoses as well as to formulate carefully-considered treatment plan for their patients.
The Numeric Pain Rating Scale is a type of unidimensional pain scale which comes with numbers, from 0 to 10. A person simply needs to rate their pain based on written or verbal prompts, from 0 meaning no pain to 10 meaning worst pain imaginable.
But for a more comprehensively comparison of the post-operative pain in the study groups, two additional assessment metrics were employed:
1. time-weighted sum pain intensity differences over 72 hours
2. sum pain intensity differences area over 72 hours Descriptive statistics included the observed frequency counts (percentage) for categorical variables; and mean ± standard deviation for numerical variables, irrespective of their distribution. Normality was tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. For comparing means in normally distributed values, the t-test for independent samples was applied, with Levene's test for equality of variances. For comparing distribution of non-normally distributed numerical values, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U statistical tests was applied and median (Inter-Quartile Range) with Tukey's hinges was additionally provided as a descriptive statistic.
The Chi-square statistical test (either asymptotic, Fisher's exact test, or Monte-Carlo simulation with 10,000 samples) was applied to check the statistical significance of the association between the categorical variables. The odds ratio (OR) values were calculated for the symptoms associated with the two anesthetics, such as nausea and dizziness.
The statistical analysis was conducted at a 95% level of confidence and a 5% level of statistical significance. All reported probability values were two-tailed.
Statistical analysis was performed with the statistical software IBM SPSS v. 20 and open source R v.4.0.5 packages.
Ethics The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committees of Pelican Hospital from Oradea (no.2672/28.12.2021).
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.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Pregnant patients scheduled for C section
Spinal anesthesia
Fentanyl
The trial aims to study the quality of anesthesia and perioperative analgesia and patient's satisfaction provided by fentanyl and bupivacaine versus morphine and bupivacaine.
Morphine
The trial aims to study the quality of anesthesia, perioperative analgesia and patient's satisfaction provided by fentanyl and bupivacaine versus morphine and bupivacaine.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Fentanyl
The trial aims to study the quality of anesthesia and perioperative analgesia and patient's satisfaction provided by fentanyl and bupivacaine versus morphine and bupivacaine.
Morphine
The trial aims to study the quality of anesthesia, perioperative analgesia and patient's satisfaction provided by fentanyl and bupivacaine versus morphine and bupivacaine.
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
* no medical past history
* not known allergies to the used medication
* no history of chronic pain ar regular use of analgesics
* no past history of anxiety or depression
* body weight ≥ 50 kg
* elective C section indication
* single fetus
Exclusion Criteria
* pregnant women with psychiatric disorder;
* history of drug addiction; diagnosis of acute or chronic fetal distress; contraindication of spinal anesthesia;
* patient refusal;
* preeclamptic patients, patients who developed allergic reaction after enrolling in the study;
* refusal of the pain killers or other protocol medication prescribed;
* the necessity of surgical reintervention in the next 72 h after C-section;
* previous administration of opioids and/or other central nervous system depressants.
18 Years
50 Years
FEMALE
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Oradea Pelican Clinic Hospital
UNKNOWN
Dr. Mihai Octavian Botea
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Dr. Mihai Octavian Botea
MD, PhD, Assistant professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Erika Bimbo-Szuhai, MD PhD
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
Head of Anesthesia Department at Oradea Pelican Clinic Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Oradea, Pelican Clinic Hospital
Oradea, Bihor County, Romania
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.
Fonseca NM, Guimaraes GMN, Pontes JPJ, Azi LMTA, de Avila Oliveira R. Safety and effectiveness of adding fentanyl or sufentanil to spinal anesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2023 Mar-Apr;73(2):198-216. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.10.010. Epub 2021 Dec 24.
Karaman S, Gunusen I, Uyar M, Biricik E, Firat V. The effects of morphine and fentanyl alone or in combination added to intrathecal bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. Agri. 2011 Apr;23(2):57-63.
Weigl W, Bierylo A, Wielgus M, Krzemien-Wiczynska S, Kolacz M, Dabrowski MJ. Perioperative analgesia after intrathecal fentanyl and morphine or morphine alone for cesarean section: A randomized controlled study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Dec;96(48):e8892. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008892.
Seki H, Shiga T, Mihara T, Hoshijima H, Hosokawa Y, Hyuga S, Fujita T, Koshika K, Okada R, Kurose H, Ideno S, Ouchi T. Effects of intrathecal opioids on cesarean section: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Anesth. 2021 Dec;35(6):911-927. doi: 10.1007/s00540-021-02980-2. Epub 2021 Aug 2.
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.
Overall JE, Shobaki G, Shivakumar C, Steele J. Adjusting sample size for anticipated dropouts in clinical trials. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1998;34(1):25-33.
Stewart WC, Jackson AL, Jenkins JN. Dropout rates for intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;137(4):639-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2003.11.028.
Girgin NK, Gurbet A, Turker G, Aksu H, Gulhan N. Intrathecal morphine in anesthesia for cesarean delivery: dose-response relationship for combinations of low-dose intrathecal morphine and spinal bupivacaine. J Clin Anesth. 2008 May;20(3):180-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2007.07.010.
Mallick-Searle T, Fillman M. The pathophysiology, incidence, impact, and treatment of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2017 Nov;29(11):704-710. doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12532.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
07FvM_Medical Study
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.