Thoracic Epidural Analgesia in Multiple Traumatic Fracture Ribs

July 12, 2018 updated by: Ahmed khalid Fathy, Assiut University

Comparative Study of Magnesium Sulfate Versus Fentanyl as Adjuvants to Bupivacaine for Thoracic Epidural Analgesia in Multiple Traumatic Fracture Ribs

This work aims at comparing the analgesic effect of Thoracic Epidural Magnesium sulfate versus Fentanyl when added as adjuvants to Bupivacaine in patients with multiple traumatic fracture ribs.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Rib fractures are a common condition following trauma with a reported incidence of up to 10% in trauma in general, and up to 39% in blunt chest trauma. Traumatic rib fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and mortality rates reaching 10-16% has been reported. An estimated one third of patients with traumatic rib fractures develop secondary pulmonary complications with an associated mortality rate as high as 65% . Pain is recognized as a contributing factor to adverse outcome in traumatic rib fractures due to pain-induced inadequate respiratory efforts leading to atelectasis, difficulties in clearing secretions and an increased risk of developing pneumonia. Consequently, adequate analgesia is considered a core intervention in the management of patients with traumatic rib fractures.

There are a variety of ways to manage a patient's pain. Oral analgesic drugs and regional modes are more likely to be used .

Regional analgesia is often supplemented with a small dose of either NSAIDs or opioids and pain reduction is typically strong and immediate. There is little sedation, so evaluation of head and abdominal injuries is easier. A major disadvantage is the technical complexity of the procedures, leading to occasional errors in the administering of the treatments. They can also be painful while the needle is entering (or catheter is being installed), toxicity is a possibility, and the patients require more intensive monitoring and care by the physicians and nurses. There are a variety of modes; the four most common are TEA, thoracic paravertebral block, intercostal block, and intrapleural block. This study focuses on thoracic epidural analgesia.

Narcotic infusions and continuous local anesthetic can be delivered through thoracic or lumbar epidural catheters. Opioid receptors exist in the spinal cord that can alter the perception of pain without needing stimulation of receptors in the brain. After inserting the catheter into this area, local anesthetics and narcotics are administered, blocking the anterior and posterior nerve roots crossing this space. The anesthetic/analgesic agents diffuse across the dura and begin to block sensory nerves. Motor nerves are affected to a lesser degree. It takes a large dose to achieve the desired effect.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

60

Phase

  • 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.

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

Ages Eligible for Study

16 years to 75 years (Child, Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Patients 16 years of age and greater
  2. Non-intubated at the time of block placement
  3. Traumatic Rib Fractures two or greater
  4. Block must be done within 12-24 hours of presentation to the emergency room
  5. ASA physical status: I-II

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Patient refusal
  2. BMI more than 30 kg/m2
  3. Need for mechanical ventilation on admission
  4. Hemodynamic instability
  5. Haemothorax or Pneumothorax
  6. Contraindications of performing blocks as coagulopathy, vertebral column deformities, local infection
  7. Traumatic head injury
  8. Allergy to local anesthetic agents

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: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Quadruple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Group I
20 patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia with a loading dose of 8 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine, followed by continuous infusion of 8 ml/hour
20 patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia with a loading dose of 8 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine, followed by continuous infusion of 8 ml/hour
All patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia
Active Comparator: Group II
20 patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia with a loading dose of 8 ml mixture of 0.125% bupivacaine and 30 mg/kg magnesium sulfate, followed by continuous infusion of 8 ml/hour of a mixture of 0.125% bupivacaine and 20% magnesium sulfate
All patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia
20 patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia with a loading dose of 8 ml mixture of 0.125% bupivacaine and 30 mg/kg Magnesium Sulfate, followed by continuous infusion of 8 ml/hour mixture of 0.125% bupivacaine and 20% Magnesium sulfate
Other Names:
  • bupivacaine
Active Comparator: Group III
20 patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia with a loading dose of 8 ml of 0.125 bupivacaine and 2 mcg/ml fentanyl, followed by continuous infusion of 8 ml/hour
All patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia
20 patients will receive mid-thoracic epidural analgesia with a loading dose of 8 ml of 0.125 bupivacaine and 2 mcg/ml fentanyl, followed by continuous infusion of 8 ml/hour.
Other Names:
  • bupivacaine

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Difference in Pain Scores (Visual Analogue pain scale)
Time Frame: 48 hours

Visual analog scale [VAS] is a measure of pain intensity. It is a continuous scale comprised of a horizontal or vertical scale usually 10 cm or 100 mm length. For pain intensity, the scale is most commonly anchored by "no pain" (score of 0) and "pain as bad as it could be" or "worst imaginable pain" (score of 100 [on 100-mm scale].

The pain visual analog scale is self completed by the respondent. The respondent is asked to place a line perpendicular to the VAS line at the point that represents their pain intensity.

After the patient has marked, using a ruler, the score is determined by measuring the distance (mm) on the 10-cm line between the "no pain" anchor and the patient's mark.

The scores can be from 0-100.

A higher score indicates greater pain intensity.

Based on the distribution of pain, the following cut points on the pain VAS have been recommended:

No pain (0 -4 mm) Mild pain (5-44 mm) Moderate pain (45-74 mm) Severe pain (75-100 mm)

48 hours

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Development of pulmonary complications: respiratory rate by breath per minute (need for mechanical ventilation)
Time Frame: 48 hours
By observing respiratory rate of patients using clinical assessment every 1 hour
48 hours
Assessment of parameters of adequate ventilation and oxygenation: PaO2/FIO2 ratio
Time Frame: 48 hours
by measuring O2 level in the blood using arterial blood gases every 3 hours
48 hours
Assessment of parameters of adequate ventilation and oxygenation: PaCO2 in mmHg
Time Frame: 48 hours
by measuring CO2 level in the blood using arterial blood gases every 3 hours
48 hours
Changes in heart rate (HR) by beats per minute
Time Frame: 48 hours
By monitoring patients heart rate every 1 hour
48 hours
changes in arterial blood pressure (ABP) by mmHg
Time Frame: 48 hours
By monitoring patients arterial blood pressure using non invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring every 1 hour
48 hours

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

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 (Anticipated)

July 1, 2018

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

July 1, 2019

Study Completion (Anticipated)

August 1, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 1, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 12, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

July 23, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

July 23, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 12, 2018

Last Verified

July 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

Undecided

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

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.

Clinical Trials on Thoracic Epidural Analgesia, Fracture Ribs

Clinical Trials on Bupivacaine

3
Subscribe