AzTrials
AzTrials

Postoperative IleusPhase 3NCT00600158

Effects of Intravenous Local Anesthetic on Bowel Function After Colectomy

A Phase 3 study testing bupivacaine with hydromorphone and lidocaine in people with Postoperative Ileus, run by University of Virginia at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Epidural local anesthetics are the gold standard for shortening duration of bowel dysfunction after bowel surgery. Previous studies suggest that their effect may be in part a result of actions of the local anesthetic outside the epidural space. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 75 years
Conditions the study is for
Postoperative Ileus
What is being tested?
bupivacaine with hydromorphone and lidocaine
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
45 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
Apr 2005to Jul 2006
Phase
Phase 3
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 75 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Informed consent
  • Scheduled for colon tumor resection.
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical classification classes I, II, and III.

Who cannot join

  • Age <18 or >75 years
  • Allergy to local anesthetics
  • Severe cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction within 6 months, profoundly decreased left ventricular function (ejection fraction <40%), or high-grade arrhythmias) or liver disease (known AST or ALT or bilirubin >2.5 times the upper limit of normal)
  • Systemic corticosteroid use
  • Chronic use of opiates
  • Unwillingness or contraindication to epidural analgesia.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • University of Virginia

    Charlottesville, Virginia, 22908

Other trials in United States

About this study

Epidural local anesthetics are the gold standard for shortening duration of bowel dysfunction after bowel surgery. Previous studies suggest that their effect may be in part a result of actions of the local anesthetic outside the epidural space. If local anesthetics could be administered intravenously instead, this might be a safer, easier and less expensive approach. Therefore, this trial will compare the effect on bowel function recovery of intravenous local anesthetics with those administered epidurally.

Read the detailed description

Ileus seems an almost unavoidable side effect of most types of bowel surgery. This is unfortunate, since postoperative ileus is not only unpleasant for the patient, but also has detrimental effects on recovery from surgery. The maintenance of enteral nutrition has been shown to be an important factor in ensuring rapid recovery from gastrointestinal surgery, as the catabolic state decreases immune function, delays wound healing, and increases morbidity. However, ileus often precludes enteral feeding. As a result, duration of postoperative ileus is frequently a major determinant of duration of hospitalization. At this time, the most effective manner to minimize the duration of postoperative ileus is the use of continuous local anesthetic epidural analgesia 3 as confirmed by a systematic review on the topic. This effect appears specifically related to the use of local anesthetic, as postoperative epidural administration of opiates alone is without effect on ileus.

Postoperative ileus is largely inflammatory in origin, and appears to be reduced when surgical techniques (e.g. minimally invasive approaches) are used that are associated with less inflammatory responses (as determined from interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels). The observation that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are effective in reducing the duration of ileus supports this hypothesis (but these are often avoided because of concern for bleeding).

Taken together, these findings suggest that epidural analgesia with local anesthetics may shorten the duration of postoperative ileus because of an anti-inflammatory action of the local anesthetic. Modulating effects of local anesthetics on the inflammatory system are well known, and have been described in vitro, in animal studies, and to a lesser extent in clinical trials. In animals, inflammatory-mediated injury in heart is ameliorated by local anesthetics, as is endotoxin- or acid-mediated lung injury. In humans, thrombosis incidence11 and hypercoagulation after surgery (both inflammatory-mediated processes) are decreased by systemic local anesthetics (yet physiologic coagulation is not affected). Important in the current context, the effectiveness of local anesthetics in the setting of inflammatory bowel disease is well established. The compounds have been shown to decrease the release of inflammatory mediators from neutrophils, which may play a role in this beneficial effect. As another example, cognitive deficits after cardiac surgery probably result from a combination of emboli and the inflammatory response that these induce in the brain. Systemic local anesthetics would be expected to interfere with both of these processes, and indeed improve cognitive outcome in this setting.16 The mechanism behind this action is most likely a modulatory effect of local anesthetics on neutrophils. Local anesthetics have been shown to inhibit neutrophil priming (a critical component of neutrophil-mediated tissue injury), but not to interfere with activation (required for wound healing and host defense). Importantly, and in contrast to classic inflammatory suppression, this inflammatory modulation by local anesthetics is therefore not associated with detrimental effects on wound healing and infection rates. We have shown that selective inhibition by local anesthetics of cellular Gq proteins explains this effect. Other effects, including those on mediator release, may also play a role. Since epidural anesthesia leads to significant blood levels of local anesthetics (1 to 5 µM), it is conceivable that the inflammatory modulatory action of systemically absorbed local anesthetic explains the beneficial effects of epidural analgesia on duration of postoperative ileus. An additional beneficial effect on return of bowel function will result from the reduced requirement for opiate analgesics.

If this is the case, then a similar beneficial effect might be obtained using systemic administration of local anesthetics. Both the inflammatory modulatory effects and the analgesic actions (thereby decreasing opiate requirements) are present when these drugs are given intravenously. This approach would have significant advantages over epidural administration. The common use of perioperative anticoagulation for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis has made appropriate timing of epidural placement and removal considerably more difficult. Epidural placement and management costs time and adds expense. Many patients may not desire the placement of an epidural catheter. In addition, the uncommon but real risks of epidural placement (certainly in the thoracic region) would be avoided by systemic administration of the local anesthetic. The major risks are epidural hematoma or abscess, both of which can be devastating.

Several clinical trials indicate that systemic local anesthetics have beneficial actions on the return of bowel function after surgery. In patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, administration of lidocaine (3 mg/min) for the duration of surgery and 1 h postoperatively resulted in a 1 day earlier return of bowel function and an associated earlier discharge from the hospital as compared with placebo. Significantly earlier return of propulsive motility in the colon was also observed in patients undergoing cholecystectomy who received intravenous lidocaine (3 mg/min intraoperatively and continued 24 h post surgery). Similarly, intraoperative instillation of bupivacaine demonstrated beneficial effects on colonic motility.

However, no study has investigated the effect on postoperative bowel function of systemically administered local anesthetic after bowel surgery. It is in this setting that restoration of bowel function is most relevant. We hypothesize that intravenous, intraoperative and postoperative administration of local anesthetic, added to patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for post-operative pain relief, will result in more rapid return of bowel function as compared with PCA alone. This hypothesis will be tested in a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial in patients undergoing open colectomy for tumor.

Being tested
bupivacaine with hydromorphone, lidocaine
Keywords
colectomy

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • bupivacaine with hydromorphoneDrug

    bupivacaine 0.125% with hydromorphone 6 mcg/ml epidurally at 10 ml/h

  • lidocaineDrug

    lidocaine 2 mg/min intravenously (or 3 mg/kg in patients > 70 kg)

Study groups in NCT00600158
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
2Experimentallidocaine intravenously
Receives: Drug: lidocaine
1Active comparatorepidural local anesthetic
Receives: Drug: bupivacaine with hydromorphone

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. time from end of surgery to first sign of bowel function (stool or flatus)

    Measured: follow-up after surgery

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Postoperative pain and opiate consumption

    Measured: post-surgery follow-up

  2. postoperative nausea and antiemetic use

    Measured: post-surgery follow-up

  3. duration of hospital stay

    Measured: post-surgery follow-up

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted24 Jan 2008 (estimated)
  2. Study startApr 2005
  3. Primary completionJul 2006
  4. Study completionJul 2006

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
45 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00600158
Sponsor's protocol ID
MED001
Status last verified
Jan 2008
First submitted
11 Jan 2008
Last updated
24 Jan 2008
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Swenson BR, Gottschalk A, Wells LT, Rowlingson JC, Thompson PW, Barclay M, Sawyer RG, Friel CM, Foley E, Durieux ME. Intravenous lidocaine is as effective as epidural bupivacaine in reducing ileus duration, hospital stay, and pain after open colon resection: a randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Jul-Aug;35(4):370-6. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181e8d5da.

    PubMed 20588151

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing bupivacaine with hydromorphone and lidocaine in people with Postoperative Ileus, run by University of Virginia at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Jan 2008. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

time from end of surgery to first sign of bowel function (stool or flatus) (time frame: follow-up after surgery). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00600158, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Jan 2008.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in