PainNCT02911168
Comparison of US-Guided Paravertebral and Proximal Intercostal Nerve Blocks
A study testing Proximal Intercostal Block and Paravertebral Block in people with Pain, run by Brigham and Women's Hospital at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the proximal intercostal block to the more medial (classic) ultrasound-guided paravertebral block. The investigators hypothesize that the proximal intercostal block will allow for improved needle visualization, shorter block time, and improved safety profile compared to the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 85 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Pain
- What is being tested?
- Proximal Intercostal Block and Paravertebral Block
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 9 Sep 2016to 7 Jan 2020
- 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 18 to 85 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Females age 18-85 years old
- ASA 1-3
- Patient scheduled for unilateral or bilateral mastectomy with or without reconstruction
Who cannot join
- Coagulopathy
- Patient refusal
- Allergy to local anesthetics
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, 02115
About this study
Official title: A Prospective, Randomized Comparison Between the Ultrasound Guided Paravertebral Block and the Ultrasound Guided Proximal Intercostal Nerve Block
The purpose of this study is to compare the proximal intercostal block to the more medial (classic) ultrasound-guided paravertebral block. The investigators hypothesize that the proximal intercostal block will allow for improved needle visualization, shorter block time, and improved safety profile compared to the classic paravertebral bock.
Read the detailed description
Although previous studies have made advances towards applying ultrasound guidance to the performance of paravertebral blocks (PVB), a technique combining both safety and technical ease remains elusive. The ideal technique (1) permits continuous visualization of the entire needle shaft and tip, (2) avoids aiming the needle tip and injectate directly toward the neuraxis or lung, and (3) is easy to perform. Visualization of all structures by ultrasound is essential to minimize the risk of vascular puncture, nerve root or spinal cord injury, and pneumothorax. Failure to consistently and quickly identify the transverse process and pleura, as occurs when using older techniques, results in several needle redirections, causing pain and discomfort to patients, and increases the potential risk of pneumothorax. The technical difficulty of applying previously-described US-guided techniques takes an inordinate amount of time and is clinically less practical within a busy surgical practice.
In the current study, the investigators describe a novel, modified approach to real-time ultrasound-guided single shot paravertebral blockade, the proximal intercostal block (PICB), which utilizes a sagittal paramedian US probe placement to identify the intercostal space and PVS. In this method, instead of placing the probe at a fixed traditional distance of 2.5 cm from the spinous processes, the probe is moved laterally to obtain a comprehensive image, with a clear view of the ribs, internal intercostal membrane, and the parietal pleura.
The investigators propose that moving the probe laterally towards the proximal intercostal space allows clearer simultaneous visualization of both pleura and needle as it advances towards the PVS, while achieving comparable injectate spread and, ultimately, similar or better clinical results. Such improved visualization will reduce the number of needle passes, increase confidence in the user, decrease block placement time, and improve overall block success. This technique combines the advantages of more lateral approaches (better visualization of structures, in particular the pleura) with the advantage of the more medial approaches (in-plane, closer, and not directed at the neuraxis).
- Conditions
- Pain
- Being tested
- Proximal Intercostal Block, Paravertebral Block
- Keywords
- NERVE BLOCK, ANESTHESIA RECOVERY PERIOD, PAIN MANAGEMENT
- Medical subject headings
- Pain, Agnosia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Proximal Intercostal BlockProcedure or surgery
Also called PICB
After identifying the correct intercostal space, the ultrasound probe will be moved medially to identify the transverse processes, then again laterally from the transverse processes to rest over the ribs so as to obtain the best view of ribs and pleura. A 10cm, 21G needle will be inserted in-plane at the caudal border of the probe. An attempt will be made to keep the needle tip and the target injection position (just under the internal intercostal membrane (IIM)) in view. Correct needle tip placement will be demonstrated by depression of the pleura/endothoracic fascia upon local anesthetic injection and by lack of retrograde spread of LA over the muscles or the ribs. The LA will be injected in 4 cc aliquots after negative aspiration of air, CSF and blood.
Paravertebral BlockProcedure or surgery
Also called PVB
After identifying the correct intercostal space, the ultrasound probe will be placed between the adjacent transverse processes in a longitudinal/parasagittal plane measuring 2.5cm from the midline. The best possible view of the transverse processes, the superior costotransverse ligament and pleura will be obtained. An attempt will be made to keep the needle tip and the target injection position (immediately beneath the costotransverse ligament) in view. Correct placement of the needle tip will be demonstrated by depression of the pleura upon injection of local anesthetic and by lack of retrograde spread of LA over the muscles or transverse processes. The LA will be injected in 4 cc aliquots after confirming negative aspiration of air, CSF and blood.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Proximal Intercostal Block | Active comparator | See Intervention Section Receives: Procedure: Proximal Intercostal Block |
| Paravertebral Block | Active comparator | See Intervention Section Receives: Procedure: Paravertebral Block |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Ultrasound Image Quality Score
The following will be assessed for each image and video, and saved during each block performed:
- Best possible image of block anatomy (including the pleura, transverse process/rib, costotransverse ligament/internal intercostal membrane, as appropriate) as well as needle location.
- Video of the space during injection, reflecting the injectate spread. The images will be rated by a separate regional anesthesiologist not involved in study, but proficient with both types of blocks and ultrasound imaging.
- The following score 3 point scale will be used to rate visibility: 0=not visible, 1=hardly visible, 2=well visible, 3=very well visible. Maximum score possible=18 including both pieces of media.
Measured: Evaluated at time of block
Secondary outcomes (10)
Block Performance Time
Defined as the sum of imaging and needling times
Measured: Evaluated at time of block
Imaging Time
Defined as the time interval between contact of the ultrasound probe with the patient, and the acquisition of a satisfactory image (which will be saved and analyzed later by a regional anesthesiologist blinded to the particular aims of the study).
Measured: Established during block performance
Needling Time
Defined as the time interval between the start of the skin wheal and the end of local anesthetic injection through the block needle.
Measured: Established during block performance
Number of Needle Passes
Initial needle insertion will be counted as "first pass". Any subsequent needle advancement, preceded by a retraction of more than 2 cm, will be counted as an additional pass.
Measured: Established during block performance
Distance of Injection Sites from Midline
Measured and recorded (one of our clinical aims)
Measured: Established during block performance
Presence of Perioperative Block-Related Complications
The presence of the following complications will be recorded:
- Horner's syndrome
- Pneumothorax
- Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST)
- Pain on injection
- Evidence of contralateral block (for unilateral procedures)
Measured: Within 24 hours of block placement
Effectiveness of the Block
Patients will be asked to provide a verbal rating score of pain (0-10) at two time points: one hour following extubation, and 24h following block placement. At the 1 hour following extubation time point, we will be checking the coverage of the block in terms of dermatomal spread (see below).
Measured: One hour following extubation, and at 24 hours following block placement
Dermatomal spread
Number of dermatomal block levels, determined by loss of sensation to cold (ice) or to loss of pinprick sensation in the PACU one hour after extubation.
Measured: One hour following extubation
Opioid requirement
Opioid requirement, including intraoperative, PACU, and during the entire hospital admission, normalized to morphine equivalents.
Measured: Evaluated at 1 hour after extubation, and then at 24 hours following the block
Prolonged postoperative pain
Postoperative contact via secure e-mail at will assess for the incidence of chronic pain.
Measured: 6 and 12 months after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Sep 2016 (estimated)
- Study start9 Sep 2016
- Primary completion13 Jul 2017
- Study completion7 Jan 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (18)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Brigham and Women's HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Brigham and Women's Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kamen Vlassakov, Brigham and Women's Hospital
- Investigators
- Kamen Vlassakov, MD, Principal investigator, Brigham and Women's Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02911168
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2016P000174/MGH
- Status last verified
- Nov 2025
- First submitted
- 12 Aug 2016
- Last updated
- 25 Nov 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Kranke P, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Zahn PK. Efficacy and safety of paravertebral blocks in breast surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Dec;105(6):842-52. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq265. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
PubMed 20947592Fleischmann K. Ultrasound-guided thoracic parvertebral blocks: anatomy , approaches and techniques. Asra. 2012.
Luyet C, Herrmann G, Ross S, Vogt A, Greif R, Moriggl B, Eichenberger U. Ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral puncture and placement of catheters in human cadavers: where do catheters go? Br J Anaesth. 2011 Feb;106(2):246-54. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq309. Epub 2010 Nov 25.
PubMed 21112880Eason MJ, Wyatt R. Paravertebral thoracic block-a reappraisal. Anaesthesia. 1979 Jul-Aug;34(7):638-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1979.tb06363.x.
PubMed 517716Naja Z, Lonnqvist PA. Somatic paravertebral nerve blockade. Incidence of failed block and complications. Anaesthesia. 2001 Dec;56(12):1184-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.02084-2.x.
PubMed 11736777Lonnqvist PA, MacKenzie J, Soni AK, Conacher ID. Paravertebral blockade. Failure rate and complications. Anaesthesia. 1995 Sep;50(9):813-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb06148.x.
PubMed 7573876Naja MZ, Ziade MF, Lonnqvist PA. Nerve-stimulator guided paravertebral blockade vs. general anaesthesia for breast surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003 Nov;20(11):897-903. doi: 10.1017/s0265021503001443.
PubMed 14649342Mehta Y, Arora D, Sharma KK, Mishra Y, Wasir H, Trehan N. Comparison of continuous thoracic epidural and paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Card Anaesth. 2008 Jul-Dec;11(2):91-6. doi: 10.4103/0971-9784.41576.
PubMed 18603748Richardson J, Cheema SP, Hawkins J, Sabanathan S. Thoracic paravertebral space location. A new method using pressure measurement. Anaesthesia. 1996 Feb;51(2):137-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1996.tb07700.x.
PubMed 8779368Pusch F, Wildling E, Klimscha W, Weinstabl C. Sonographic measurement of needle insertion depth in paravertebral blocks in women. Br J Anaesth. 2000 Dec;85(6):841-3. doi: 10.1093/bja/85.6.841.
PubMed 11732516O Riain SC, Donnell BO, Cuffe T, Harmon DC, Fraher JP, Shorten G. Thoracic paravertebral block using real-time ultrasound guidance. Anesth Analg. 2010 Jan 1;110(1):248-51. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c35906. Epub 2009 Nov 21.
PubMed 19933536Ben-Ari A, Moreno M, Chelly JE, Bigeleisen PE. Ultrasound-guided paravertebral block using an intercostal approach. Anesth Analg. 2009 Nov;109(5):1691-4. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b72d50.
PubMed 19843811Burns DA, Ben-David B, Chelly JE, Greensmith JE. Intercostally placed paravertebral catheterization: an alternative approach to continuous paravertebral blockade. Anesth Analg. 2008 Jul;107(1):339-41. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318174df1d.
PubMed 18635506Renes SH, Bruhn J, Gielen MJ, Scheffer GJ, van Geffen GJ. In-plane ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral block: a preliminary report of 36 cases with radiologic confirmation of catheter position. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;35(2):212-6. doi: 10.1097/aap.0b013e3181c75a8b.
PubMed 20301827Marhofer P, Kettner SC, Hajbok L, Dubsky P, Fleischmann E. Lateral ultrasound-guided paravertebral blockade: an anatomical-based description of a new technique. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Oct;105(4):526-32. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq206. Epub 2010 Aug 3.
PubMed 20685684
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Nov 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Prospective, Randomized Comparison Between the Ultrasound Guided Paravertebral Block and the Ultrasound Guided Proximal Intercostal Nerve Block
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02911168
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2016P000174/MGH
- Conditions
- Pain
- Keywords
- NERVE BLOCK, ANESTHESIA RECOVERY PERIOD, PAIN MANAGEMENT
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Brigham and Women's HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 9 Sep 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 13 Jul 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 7 Jan 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Sep 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to compare the proximal intercostal block to the more medial (classic) ultrasound-guided paravertebral block. The investigators hypothesize that the proximal intercostal block will allow for improved needle visualization, shorter block time, and improved safety profile compared to the classic paravertebral bock.
Detailed description
Although previous studies have made advances towards applying ultrasound guidance to the performance of paravertebral blocks (PVB), a technique combining both safety and technical ease remains elusive. The ideal technique (1) permits continuous visualization of the entire needle shaft and tip, (2) avoids aiming the needle tip and injectate directly toward the neuraxis or lung, and (3) is easy to perform. Visualization of all structures by ultrasound is essential to minimize the risk of vascular puncture, nerve root or spinal cord injury, and pneumothorax. Failure to consistently and quickly identify the transverse process and pleura, as occurs when using older techniques, results in several needle redirections, causing pain and discomfort to patients, and increases the potential risk of pneumothorax. The technical difficulty of applying previously-described US-guided techniques takes an inordinate amount of time and is clinically less practical within a busy surgical practice.
In the current study, the investigators describe a novel, modified approach to real-time ultrasound-guided single shot paravertebral blockade, the proximal intercostal block (PICB), which utilizes a sagittal paramedian US probe placement to identify the intercostal space and PVS. In this method, instead of placing the probe at a fixed traditional distance of 2.5 cm from the spinous processes, the probe is moved laterally to obtain a comprehensive image, with a clear view of the ribs, internal intercostal membrane, and the parietal pleura.
The investigators propose that moving the probe laterally towards the proximal intercostal space allows clearer simultaneous visualization of both pleura and needle as it advances towards the PVS, while achieving comparable injectate spread and, ultimately, similar or better clinical results. Such improved visualization will reduce the number of needle passes, increase confidence in the user, decrease block placement time, and improve overall block success. This technique combines the advantages of more lateral approaches (better visualization of structures, in particular the pleura) with the advantage of the more medial approaches (in-plane, closer, and not directed at the neuraxis).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Proximal Intercostal Block | Active comparator | Procedure: Proximal Intercostal BlockSee Intervention Section |
| Paravertebral Block | Active comparator | Procedure: Paravertebral BlockSee Intervention Section |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 85 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Females age 18-85 years old
- ASA 1-3
- Patient scheduled for unilateral or bilateral mastectomy with or without reconstruction
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Coagulopathy
- Patient refusal
- Allergy to local anesthetics
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Proximal Intercostal BlockAlso: PICBAfter identifying the correct intercostal space, the ultrasound probe will be moved medially to identify the transverse processes, then again laterally from the transverse processes to rest over the ribs so as to obtain the best view of ribs and pleura. A 10cm, 21G needle will be inserted in-plane at the caudal border of the probe. An attempt will be made to keep the needle tip and the target injection position (just under the internal intercostal membrane (IIM)) in view. Correct needle tip placement will be demonstrated by depression of the pleura/endothoracic fascia upon local anesthetic injection and by lack of retrograde spread of LA over the muscles or the ribs. The LA will be injected in 4 cc aliquots after negative aspiration of air, CSF and blood. | Procedure or surgery | Proximal Intercostal Block |
| Paravertebral BlockAlso: PVBAfter identifying the correct intercostal space, the ultrasound probe will be placed between the adjacent transverse processes in a longitudinal/parasagittal plane measuring 2.5cm from the midline. The best possible view of the transverse processes, the superior costotransverse ligament and pleura will be obtained. An attempt will be made to keep the needle tip and the target injection position (immediately beneath the costotransverse ligament) in view. Correct placement of the needle tip will be demonstrated by depression of the pleura upon injection of local anesthetic and by lack of retrograde spread of LA over the muscles or transverse processes. The LA will be injected in 4 cc aliquots after confirming negative aspiration of air, CSF and blood. | Procedure or surgery | Paravertebral Block |
Primary outcome
Ultrasound Image Quality Score
Time frame: Evaluated at time of block
The following will be assessed for each image and video, and saved during each block performed: 1. Best possible image of block anatomy (including the pleura, transverse process/rib, costotransverse ligament/internal intercostal membrane, as appropriate) as well as needle location. 2. Video of the space during injection, reflecting the injectate spread. The images will be rated by a separate regional anesthesiologist not involved in study, but proficient with both types of blocks and ultrasound imaging. 3. The following score 3 point scale will be used to rate visibility: 0=not visible, 1=hardly visible, 2=well visible, 3=very well visible. Maximum score possible=18 including both pieces of media.
10 secondary outcomes
Block Performance Time
Time frame: Evaluated at time of block
Imaging Time
Time frame: Established during block performance
Needling Time
Time frame: Established during block performance
Number of Needle Passes
Time frame: Established during block performance
Distance of Injection Sites from Midline
Time frame: Established during block performance
Presence of Perioperative Block-Related Complications
Time frame: Within 24 hours of block placement
Effectiveness of the Block
Time frame: One hour following extubation, and at 24 hours following block placement
Dermatomal spread
Time frame: One hour following extubation
Opioid requirement
Time frame: Evaluated at 1 hour after extubation, and then at 24 hours following the block
Prolonged postoperative pain
Time frame: 6 and 12 months after surgery
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Nov 2025.
- Background: PubMed 20947592Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Kranke P, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Zahn PK. Efficacy and safety of paravertebral blocks in breast surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Dec;105(6):842-52. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq265. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
- BackgroundFleischmann K. Ultrasound-guided thoracic parvertebral blocks: anatomy , approaches and techniques. Asra. 2012.
- Background: PubMed 21112880Luyet C, Herrmann G, Ross S, Vogt A, Greif R, Moriggl B, Eichenberger U. Ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral puncture and placement of catheters in human cadavers: where do catheters go? Br J Anaesth. 2011 Feb;106(2):246-54. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq309. Epub 2010 Nov 25.
- Background: PubMed 517716Eason MJ, Wyatt R. Paravertebral thoracic block-a reappraisal. Anaesthesia. 1979 Jul-Aug;34(7):638-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1979.tb06363.x.
- Background: PubMed 11736777Naja Z, Lonnqvist PA. Somatic paravertebral nerve blockade. Incidence of failed block and complications. Anaesthesia. 2001 Dec;56(12):1184-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.02084-2.x.
- Background: PubMed 7573876Lonnqvist PA, MacKenzie J, Soni AK, Conacher ID. Paravertebral blockade. Failure rate and complications. Anaesthesia. 1995 Sep;50(9):813-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb06148.x.
- Background: PubMed 14649342Naja MZ, Ziade MF, Lonnqvist PA. Nerve-stimulator guided paravertebral blockade vs. general anaesthesia for breast surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003 Nov;20(11):897-903. doi: 10.1017/s0265021503001443.
- Background: PubMed 18603748Mehta Y, Arora D, Sharma KK, Mishra Y, Wasir H, Trehan N. Comparison of continuous thoracic epidural and paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Card Anaesth. 2008 Jul-Dec;11(2):91-6. doi: 10.4103/0971-9784.41576.
- Background: PubMed 8779368Richardson J, Cheema SP, Hawkins J, Sabanathan S. Thoracic paravertebral space location. A new method using pressure measurement. Anaesthesia. 1996 Feb;51(2):137-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1996.tb07700.x.
- Background: PubMed 11732516Pusch F, Wildling E, Klimscha W, Weinstabl C. Sonographic measurement of needle insertion depth in paravertebral blocks in women. Br J Anaesth. 2000 Dec;85(6):841-3. doi: 10.1093/bja/85.6.841.
- Background: PubMed 19933536O Riain SC, Donnell BO, Cuffe T, Harmon DC, Fraher JP, Shorten G. Thoracic paravertebral block using real-time ultrasound guidance. Anesth Analg. 2010 Jan 1;110(1):248-51. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c35906. Epub 2009 Nov 21.
- Background: PubMed 19843811Ben-Ari A, Moreno M, Chelly JE, Bigeleisen PE. Ultrasound-guided paravertebral block using an intercostal approach. Anesth Analg. 2009 Nov;109(5):1691-4. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b72d50.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Stress Ball Use During Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal After Coronary Angiography
Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal, Stress Ball
Recruiting
Empowered Relief® for Cancer Survivors With Chronic Pain
Chronic Pain Due to Cancer, Pain Catastrophizing
RecruitingPhase 4
ESP Blocks for Posterior Spinal Fusion
Postoperative Pain
RecruitingObservational study
Pain Phenotypes in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis
Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Hip Hinge Exercises on Pain, Range of Motion and Functional Disability in Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Low Back Pain
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Kamen Vlassakov, MD principal investigator
Brigham and Women's Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Proximal Intercostal Block and Paravertebral Block in people with Pain, run by Brigham and Women's Hospital 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 3 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 25 Nov 2025. 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.
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?
Ultrasound Image Quality Score (time frame: Evaluated at time of block). 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 NCT02911168, which also lists 18 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 25 Nov 2025.