AzTrials
AzTrials

InfertilityNCT01814657

Optimizing Patient Analgesic Experience During IVF

A study testing Lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) 1% solution and Sterile Normal Saline% in people with Infertility, run by University of Alberta at 1 site in Canada.

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

This study is for patients undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). The investigators are studying the best way to control pain during the egg retrieval process. The egg retrieval involves passing a needle under ultrasound guidance through the vagina into the ovaries to remove eggs that are to be later fertilized. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 21 to 43 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Infertility
What is being tested?
Lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) 1% solution and Sterile Normal Saline%
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
308 participants
Where
1 siteCanada
Study dates
Mar 2013to 7 Nov 2015
Phase
Interventional
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 21 to 43 years
  • Women only
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Women undergoing oocyte retrieval who have consented to participation
  • Only the first ART cycle will be included

Who cannot join

  • History of drug sensitivity to local anaesthetic agents
  • Women with any chronic pain syndrome

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Canada1 site
  • Fertility and Womens Endocrine Clinic

    Edmonton, Alberta, T5H 3V9

Other trials in Canada

About this study

This study is for patients undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). The investigators are studying the best way to control pain during the egg retrieval process. The egg retrieval involves passing a needle under ultrasound guidance through the vagina into the ovaries to remove eggs that are to be later fertilized. Patients often report this as very uncomfortable.

Different fertility clinics across the country use different methods of pain control. All clinics will use intravenous medication to control pain, while some may or may not use local anaesthetic (freezing) in the vagina. Our goal is to find the best way to control pain. Since local anaesthetic injection involves multiple needle punctures and may be painful, the investigators are unsure if local anaesthetic is necessary in addition to the intravenous pain medication.

The investigators will conduct a randomized trial where all patients will receive intravenous pain medication, but some will receive local anaesthetic injection and some will receive placebo injection. Patients will be asked to complete a questionnaire on their pain experience after oocyte retrieval. The investigators will then analyze the data and determine whether local anaesthetic actually improves pain when patients are already receiving intravenous pain medications. Through our study, the investigators aim to improve the pain experience of all women undergoing IVF in the future.

Read the detailed description

Background:

A UK telephone survey (Bokhari, 1999) showed that during TUGOR, 48% of UK fertility centers were using conscious sedation, 29% general anaesthesia, 12% conscious sedation with regional anaesthesia (neuraxial block or PCB), and 2% regional anaesthesia alone. A review article (Blahos 2009) details the many different types of anaesthesia used during TUGOR. These may include combinations of the following: general anaesthesia, regional anaesthesia, local anaesthesia, conscious sedation, and alternative methods of anaesthesia (electro-acupuncture, patient controlled sedation). No recent studies were found detailing the frequency of each of the various anaesthetic options in use at fertility centers across North American.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled study (Ng, 1999) showed that paracervical block combined with conscious sedation was superior to conscious sedation alone. This study used a combination of drugs (mepiridine and diazepam) not used at our center. The use of fentanyl and midazolam was first described by Harrison in 1992 for conscious sedation. In 2001 Sephton et al published a cross over audit of patient preferences comparing mepiridine, diazepam and promethazine to fentanyl and midazolam, showing superiority of fentanyl and midazolam. Midazolam has sedative and amnestic properties, whereas diazepam has no amnestic properties. The amnestic properties of midazolam make it a superior medication for overall patient experience during TUGOR, as they are less likely to recall potentially painful parts of their procedure. Midazolam has also been shown to act synergistically with fentanyl, thereby decreasing not only the actual pain recalled, but the actual pain experienced by patients. Since the only randomized control trial demonstrating the benefits of paracervical block was performed using mepiridine and diazepam, we intend to repeat the study using the superior combination of fentanyl and midazolam.

Study Rationale:

The oocyte retrieval may be the most painful part of fertility treatment. Our goal is to minimize patient discomfort and improve overall patient experience during fertility treatments. We do not know if PCB improves pain scores in the era of wider use of fentanyl and midazolam for sedation. Fertility centres may be subjecting their patients to a painful PCB injection without proven benefit. This study aims to assess whether a PCB in addition to conscious sedation can be abandoned without impacting the patient's overall pain experience.

Study Objective:

The objective is to compare whether conscious sedation alone is as effective as paracervical block plus conscious sedation in controlling pain during oocyte retrieval

Study Question:

Is conscious sedation alone as effective as paracervical block plus conscious sedation in controlling pain during oocyte retrieval?

Overview of the Trial Design This study is designed to be a placebo-controlled, randomised, double blind trial to compare whether conscious sedation with a normal saline paracervical block (placebo) is as effective as conscious sedation with a lidocaine paracervical block in controlling pain during oocyte retrieval. A total of 300 women will randomly be assigned in a 1:1 ratio, after consenting to study participation. Short-Form McGill Pain scores will be assessed in study subjects.

Study Population:

Women presenting for oocyte retrieval after a cycle of IVF stimulation at the University of Alberta Regional Fertility Centre

Study Design:

Women consenting to participate in the study will be randomly allocated to one of two groups. The control group will receive conscious sedation with a placebo (normal saline) paracervical block (PCB). The study group will receive conscious sedation with a local anaesthetic (lidocaine 1%) PCB. Computer generated randomisation will be used to determine group allocation. Group allocation will be concealed using opaque envelopes to ensure blinding. An OR nurse will prepare the PCB syringe with either lidocaine or normal saline depending on the patient's allocation. The contents of the PCB will remain blinded from the physician performing the TUGOR and the patient.

The fertility centre's routine for TUGOR is as follows: Initially conscious sedation is administered by OR nursing staff according to the patient's weight (midazolam 1 - 2 mg and fentanyl 50 - 75 ug IV). This is followed by the PCB 5 minutes later. Additional fentanyl is administered throughout the procedure as required to ensure patient comfort. The oocyte retrieval proceeds once the PCB is completed. Following the oocyte retrieval and when the conscious sedation has worn off; the patient will be assessed before discharge. Once the discharge criteria have been met, the validated and standardized Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire will be used to objectively measure the pain experienced during the TUGOR. All study participants will be required to rate the pain experience during the procedure. The attending nurse is required to record all adverse events from the procedure as part of her clinical duties. Embryology information, i.e. fertilization, embryo grading, development and frozen rates will be recorded to assess whether PCB affects this aspect of ART. Additional information will be obtained by reviewing participants' clinic charts nine months post-procedure to determine secondary outcomes, i.e. live birth rates. Animal mouse models in the past have shown local anaesthetic to adversely affect fertilization and embryo development (Schnell, 1992). No adverse effects on human embryos from lidocaine have ever been demonstrated (Wikland 1990), however assessing embryo quality and birth outcomes has been the standard when conducting studies assessing the use of PCB

Setting:

Academic referral fertility centre

Conditions
Infertility
Being tested
Lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) 1% solution, Sterile Normal Saline%
Keywords
Infertility
Medical subject headings
Infertility

What participants receive

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

  • Lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) 1% solutionDrug

    Also called Xylocaine

    Comparison of paracervical block using Lidocaine versus Normal Saline placebo in patients undergoing oocyte retrieval during IVF.

  • Sterile Normal Saline%Drug

    Also called Sterile Normal Saline

    Sterile normal saline used as placebo for lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl)1% solution

Study groups in NCT01814657
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Normal SalinePlacebo comparatorConscious sedation and sterile normal saline (placebo) paracervical block
Receives: Drug: Sterile Normal Saline%
LidocaineActive comparatorConscious sedation and Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% solution paracervical block
Receives: Drug: Lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) 1% solution

What is being measured

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

  1. Pain scores rated on SF-MPQ

    Score rating will be done before the patient is discharged following oocyte retrieval.

    Measured: Data collection is scheduled to proceed until 308 participants have been recruited which is anticipated to take up to 2 years.

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Embryology data

    Recorded as number of embryos obtained. Number of embryos transferred. The decision to transfer Day 3 embryos or Day 5 blastocysts. Number of embryos or blastocysts frozen. Embryological grading of all embryos or blastocysts either transferred or frozen.

    Measured: Assessed within 7 days of oocyte retrieval

Timeline

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

  1. First posted20 Mar 2013 (estimated)
  2. Study startMar 2013
  3. Primary completion7 Nov 2015
  4. Study completion7 Nov 2015

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 N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Quadruple blind
Who is masked
Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
308 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01814657
Sponsor's protocol ID
00029750
Status last verified
Dec 2014
First submitted
8 Mar 2013
Last updated
18 Jul 2022
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Ng EH, Tang OS, Chui DK, Ho PC. A prospective, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of paracervical block in the pain relief during egg collection in IVF. Hum Reprod. 1999 Nov;14(11):2783-7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.11.2783.

    PubMed 10548622
  • Bhattacharya S, MacLennan F, Hamilton MP, Templeton A. How effective is patient-controlled analgesia? A randomized comparison of two protocols for pain relief during oocyte recovery. Hum Reprod. 1997 Jul;12(7):1440-2. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.7.1440.

    PubMed 9262274
  • Elkington NM, Kehoe J, Acharya U. Intravenous sedation in assisted conception units: a UK survey. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2003 May;6(2):74-6. doi: 10.1080/1464770312331369083.

    PubMed 12869788
  • Bokhari A, Pollard BJ. Anaesthesia for assisted conception: a survey of UK practice. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1999 Apr;16(4):225-30. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2346.1999.00461.x.

    PubMed 10234491
  • Vlahos NF, Giannakikou I, Vlachos A, Vitoratos N. Analgesia and anesthesia for assisted reproductive technologies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Jun;105(3):201-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.01.017. Epub 2009 Feb 26.

    PubMed 19249049
  • Sephton VC, Shaw A, Cowan CM, Thomas K, Wood S, Barclay PM, Kingsland CR. Sedation and analgesia for transvaginal oocyte retrieval: an audit resulting in a change of clinical practice. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2001;4(2):94-8. doi: 10.1080/1464727012000199361.

    PubMed 11591263
  • Harrison RF, Barry-Kinsella C, Drudy L, Gordon A, Hannon K, Hennelly B, Keogh I, Kondaveeti U, Nargund G, Verso J. An Irish out-patient based in-vitro fertilisation service. Ir Med J. 1992 Jun;85(2):63-5.

    PubMed 1628945
  • Gohar J, Lunenfeld E, Potashnik G, Glezerman M. The use of sedation only during oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization: patients' pain self-assessments versus doctors' evaluations. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993 Oct;10(7):476-8. doi: 10.1007/BF01212936. No abstract available.

    PubMed 8069089
  • Wikland M, Evers H, Jakobsson AH, Sandqvist U, Sjoblom P. The concentration of lidocaine in follicular fluid when used for paracervical block in a human IVF-ET programme. Hum Reprod. 1990 Nov;5(8):920-3. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137220.

    PubMed 2081803
  • Schnell VL, Sacco AG, Savoy-Moore RT, Ataya KM, Moghissi KS. Effects of oocyte exposure to local anesthetics on in vitro fertilization and embryo development in the mouse. Reprod Toxicol. 1992;6(4):323-7. doi: 10.1016/0890-6238(92)90195-y.

    PubMed 1521005

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) 1% solution and Sterile Normal Saline% in people with Infertility, run by University of Alberta at 1 site in Canada.

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 2 inclusion and 2 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 18 Jul 2022. 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 Canada. 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. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

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?

Pain scores rated on SF-MPQ (time frame: Data collection is scheduled to proceed until 308 participants have been recruited which is anticipated to take up to 2 years.). 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 NCT01814657, which also lists 10 linked publications.

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 18 Jul 2022.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in