Comparison Between Epidural and Bilateral Paravertebral Blocks in Liver Resection

December 2, 2014 updated by: University of Pittsburgh

Prospective Randomized Comparative Study Between Epidural and Bilateral Paravertebral Blocks for Perioperative Pain Management in Patients Undergoing Open Liver Resection

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.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

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.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
100

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Pennsylvania
      • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 15213
        • University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

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.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Bilateral paravertebral blocks
Bilateral continuous paravertebral blocks for open liver resection
Procedure: paravertebral blocks
use bilateral thoracic paravertebral blocks for pain control
Other Names:
  • regional anesthesia
No Intervention: epidural block
received thoracic epidural block for open liver resection

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain immediately after maximum incentive spirometry
Time Frame: 24 hours postoperatively
Pain will be assessed using an 11-point verbal numerical pain scale (VAS) with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating the worst pain imaginable;(21) pain will be determined 24 hours postoperatively immediately after maximum incentive spirometry.
24 hours postoperatively

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
date of the removal of the catheter
Time Frame: up to one week after the surgery
date of the removal of the catheter with any requirement of blood transfusion because of coagulation
up to one week after the surgery

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
University of Pittsburgh

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Tetsuro Sakai, MD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
August 1, 2010

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
August 1, 2014

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
November 1, 2014

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
February 17, 2011

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 29, 2011

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
August 2, 2011

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
December 3, 2014

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
December 2, 2014

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
December 1, 2014

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • MOD09070393-01 / PRO09070393

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings