Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
Phase 3 Completed N=106 Randomized Double-blind Treatment

A Comparison Between Conventional and Waveform-Confirmed Loss-of-Resistance for Thoracic Epidural Blocks

Anesthesia
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02479763 ↗
Enrolled (actual)
106
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Feb 2016
Primary outcomePrimary: Percentage of Patients With Successful Epidural Blocks — 76; 98 percentage of patients

Summary

In the investigators' institution, the failure rate for thoracic epidural blocks is 23.1%. This stems from the prevalence of trainee operators coupled with the non-specific nature of loss-of-resistance. In the current randomized trial, we will set out to compare conventional and epidural waveform analysis-confirmed loss-of-resistance. The investigators' research hypothesis is that loss-of-resistance combined with epidural waveform analysis will decrease the failure rate of thoracic epidural blocks.

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Percentage of Patients With Successful Epidural Blocks
76; 98

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • the patients undergoing thoracic epidural catheter insertion for thoracic and abdominal surgery or rib fractures with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification 1-3 and body mass index between 18 and 35

Exclusion Criteria

  • adults who are unable to give their own consent
  • coagulopathy (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up ie platelets ≤ 100, or International Normalized Ratio ≥ 1.4)
  • renal failure (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up ie creatinine ≥ 100)
  • hepatic failure (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up ie transaminases ≥ 100)
  • allergy to local anesthetic (LA)
  • pregnancy
  • prior surgery in the thoracic spine
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02479763). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication. Informational only — not medical advice.

Back to search