Anesthesia, SpinalNCT03142880
Spinal Marginally Hyperbaric Ropivacaine for Cesarean Delivery
A study testing hyperbaric ropivacaine in people with Anesthesia, Spinal, run by Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao).
Trial summary
BACKGROUND: One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 42 years, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Anesthesia, Spinal
- What is being tested?
- hyperbaric ropivacaine
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 120 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- May 2017to Nov 2017
- 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 20 to 42 years
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Pregnant women who were scheduled for elective caesarean section and met the criteria for the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classes 1 to 2 were enrolled in this study. Inclusion criteria were age between 20 and 42 years, height between 160 and 180 cm.
Who cannot join
- They had dysfunctional coagulation; had pregnancy-induced hypertension; or had infection around the anesthesia puncture site; or multiple pregnancies, suspected fetal abnormality, and if the gestational age of the infant was less than 36 weeks.
About this study
Official title: Spinal Ropivacaine for Cesarean Delivery: A Comparison of Commonly Hyperbaric and Marginally Hyperbaric Solutions
BACKGROUND: One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and commonly hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have a higher incidence of side reaction. It is unclear what the efficacy of spinal marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.We hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.
OBJECTIVE In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, Investigator will compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effect of spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric and marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.
Main outcome measures: The maximum cephalad sensory block level; the change of continuous cerebral oxygen desaturation (ScO2) over time; the incidence of hypotension and nausea and vomiting; the change of invasive arterial pressure; the consumption of ephedrine; the incidence of shivering; the onset time to T8 dermatome; the quality of anesthesia (efficacy of motor block and sensory block)
Read the detailed description
INTRODUCTION:
One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and commonly hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have a higher incidence of side reaction such as hypotension. It is unclear what the efficacy of spinal marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.The investigator of this study hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine would get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, Investigator will compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effect of spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric and marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.
Ethical approval for this clinical trial (Ethical Committee No.) was provided by the Ethics Committee of Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao), Qingdao, China on 1 February 2016. Informed written consent will be obtained from all patients. Investigator expected to recruit 120 Pregnant women who will scheduled for elective cesarean section and meet the inclusion criteria.
A computer-generated random number sequence will be used for group allocation. To ensure the study will be double blinded, the anesthesiologist who will administer the anesthesia will take no other part in the study, whilst another anesthesiologist blind to the allocation will collected intraoperative and postoperative data. The patients would be unaware of the treatment allocation. Women will be randomised into two groups: the commonly hyperbaric group (CH) will receive ropivacaine solution with 8.3% glucose; group marginally hyperbaric group (MH) will receive ropivacaine solution with 0.83% glucose; Density will be determined by using a digital density meter (DMA4500M; Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria) at 37°C.Fifteen minutes prior to administration of anesthesia, the ropivacaine solution will be prepared by one nurse who is blind to the patient allocation.Commomly hyperbaric ropivacaine solutions will be made of 0.75% ropivacaine + 50% glucose + isotonic saline and Marginally hyperbaric solutions will be made of 0.75% ropivacaine +5% glucose + isotonic saline. The doses of ropivacaine and the volume of spinal solution will be same and only the density of the solution will be different.
When the patient arrived at the operating room, an IV cannula will be inserted in one forearm. Standard monitoring with electrocardiography and pulse oximetry and cerebral oxygen saturation(ScO2) and invasive blood pressure (IBP) will be attached.
During the operation, the room temperature will be kept at 24°C. The body temperature of each patient will be maintained by an electric warming blanket and infusion heating device.
The data of systolic pressure and ScO2 wil be recorded at 5-6 second intervals on the device's accessory disk drive for later analysis. To establish a baseline for blood pressure and ScO2. No prehydration will be given. Lactated Ringers' solution at 0.4 ml kg-1 min-1 will be infused after anesthesia. Supplemental oxygen is planned to be administered in case SpO2 values would be below 91%.
The combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) would be performed in the lateral position at the intervertebral space between L3 and L4. Then, spinal solution will be injected intrathecalley after CSF releas. The epidural catheter will be inserted. The patient will be immediately placed in a supine position with 15° left tilt. Completion of the spinal injection would be considered as time zero. The sensory block will be determined by pinprick along both sides of the midclavicular line at 2 min intervals post injection. The sensory block had not reached T8 before surgery, or there was moderate pain during the skin incision, spinal anesthesia would be considered to have failed.
The efficacy of anesthesia would be evaluated using three criteria: lower limb motor block, muscle relaxation and pain during skin incision and abdominal exploration.
To treat intraoperative hypotension, 6mg ephedrine will be injected followed by 3 mg every 2 min until the blood pressure was restored to normal. Instances of nausea, vomiting, shivering and pruritus will be also recorded.
After delivery, Apgar scores will be assessed at 1 and 5 min by the attending pediatrician.
On the basis of the results of a pilot study, 40 patients in each group were needed to compare a two-segment difference in the upper sensory level and 30 % difference in the incidence of hypotension at a significance level of P less than 0.05 with 80% power. However, We expect to enroll 120 patients to get a more precise result.
For IBP and ScO2 the median value of the sliding averages of the 30-second period before spinal induction will be used as the baseline value for the figures and statistical analyses. Time 0 for hemodynamic analyses will be defined as the end of spinal injection. This two variables analyses will be run for the first 15 minutes, which almost equaled to the interval from induction of spinal anesthesia to delivery.
SPSS 16.0 will be used for data analysis. T-test would be used to assess the difference in sensory block level amongst the groups, The linear mixed model to analyze the continuous changes in systolic pressure and ScO2 over time. X2 test for trends would be used to test the association between adverse effects of anesthesia and the groups. In all cases, a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
- Conditions
- Anesthesia, Spinal
- Being tested
- hyperbaric ropivacaine
- Keywords
- marginally hyperbaric, ropivacaine, cesarean
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
hyperbaric ropivacaineCombination product
Also called commonly or marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine
We change the density of ropivacaine solution to make it into an marginally hyperbaric state or into an commonly hyperbaric state.and we hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| commonly hyperbaric ropivacaine group | Active comparator | This group will receive spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric ropivacaine solution,which was made by adding 50% glucose to the plain ropivacaine commercially availablethe to make it's density is close to commonly hyperbaric bupivacaine. Receives: Combination Product: hyperbaric ropivacaine |
| marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine group | Experimental | This group will receive spinal anesthesia with marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine,which was made by adding 5% glucose to the plain ropivacaine commercially availablethe to make it's density is slightly denser than cerebrospinal fluid but much less denser than commonly hyperbaric bupivacaine/ropivacaine. Receives: Combination Product: hyperbaric ropivacaine |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The maximum cephalad sensory block level
The highest cephalad sensory block level is determined by pinprick along both sides of the midclavicular line.
Measured: During 50 min post spinal injection
Secondary outcomes (2)
The incidence of hypotension
The systolic pressure <80% of baseline value or<90 mm Hg
Measured: During 50 min post spinal injection
The change rate of invasive arterial pressure
The invasive arterial pressure decline rate over time after spinal anesthesia
Measured: During 15 min post spinal injection
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 May 2017
- Study startMay 2017 (estimated)
- Primary completionSep 2017 (estimated)
- Study completionNov 2017 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Anesthesia, SpinalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao)
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03142880
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ZX01
- Status last verified
- May 2017
- First submitted
- 3 May 2017
- Last updated
- 9 May 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Tang WX, Li JJ, Bu HM, Fu ZJ. Spinal anaesthesia with low-dose bupivacaine in marginally hyperbaric solutions for caesarean section: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 Jul;32(7):493-8. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000112.
PubMed 25032943Khaw KS, Ngan Kee WD, Wong M, Ng F, Lee A. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions. Anesth Analg. 2002 Mar;94(3):680-5; table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200203000-00037.
PubMed 11867397
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 May 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Spinal Ropivacaine for Cesarean Delivery: A Comparison of Commonly Hyperbaric and Marginally Hyperbaric Solutions
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03142880
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ZX01
- Conditions
- Anesthesia, Spinal
- Keywords
- marginally hyperbaric, ropivacaine, cesarean
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao)University, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2017 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Sep 2017 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Nov 2017 (estimated)
- First posted
- 8 May 2017 (actual)
- 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.
BACKGROUND: One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and commonly hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have a higher incidence of side reaction. It is unclear what the efficacy of spinal marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.We hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.
OBJECTIVE In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, Investigator will compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effect of spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric and marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.
Main outcome measures: The maximum cephalad sensory block level; the change of continuous cerebral oxygen desaturation (ScO2) over time; the incidence of hypotension and nausea and vomiting; the change of invasive arterial pressure; the consumption of ephedrine; the incidence of shivering; the onset time to T8 dermatome; the quality of anesthesia (efficacy of motor block and sensory block)
Detailed description
INTRODUCTION:
One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and commonly hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have a higher incidence of side reaction such as hypotension. It is unclear what the efficacy of spinal marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.The investigator of this study hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine would get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, Investigator will compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effect of spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric and marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.
Ethical approval for this clinical trial (Ethical Committee No.) was provided by the Ethics Committee of Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao), Qingdao, China on 1 February 2016. Informed written consent will be obtained from all patients. Investigator expected to recruit 120 Pregnant women who will scheduled for elective cesarean section and meet the inclusion criteria.
A computer-generated random number sequence will be used for group allocation. To ensure the study will be double blinded, the anesthesiologist who will administer the anesthesia will take no other part in the study, whilst another anesthesiologist blind to the allocation will collected intraoperative and postoperative data. The patients would be unaware of the treatment allocation. Women will be randomised into two groups: the commonly hyperbaric group (CH) will receive ropivacaine solution with 8.3% glucose; group marginally hyperbaric group (MH) will receive ropivacaine solution with 0.83% glucose; Density will be determined by using a digital density meter (DMA4500M; Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria) at 37°C.Fifteen minutes prior to administration of anesthesia, the ropivacaine solution will be prepared by one nurse who is blind to the patient allocation.Commomly hyperbaric ropivacaine solutions will be made of 0.75% ropivacaine + 50% glucose + isotonic saline and Marginally hyperbaric solutions will be made of 0.75% ropivacaine +5% glucose + isotonic saline. The doses of ropivacaine and the volume of spinal solution will be same and only the density of the solution will be different.
When the patient arrived at the operating room, an IV cannula will be inserted in one forearm. Standard monitoring with electrocardiography and pulse oximetry and cerebral oxygen saturation(ScO2) and invasive blood pressure (IBP) will be attached.
During the operation, the room temperature will be kept at 24°C. The body temperature of each patient will be maintained by an electric warming blanket and infusion heating device.
The data of systolic pressure and ScO2 wil be recorded at 5-6 second intervals on the device's accessory disk drive for later analysis. To establish a baseline for blood pressure and ScO2. No prehydration will be given. Lactated Ringers' solution at 0.4 ml kg-1 min-1 will be infused after anesthesia. Supplemental oxygen is planned to be administered in case SpO2 values would be below 91%.
The combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) would be performed in the lateral position at the intervertebral space between L3 and L4. Then, spinal solution will be injected intrathecalley after CSF releas. The epidural catheter will be inserted. The patient will be immediately placed in a supine position with 15° left tilt. Completion of the spinal injection would be considered as time zero. The sensory block will be determined by pinprick along both sides of the midclavicular line at 2 min intervals post injection. The sensory block had not reached T8 before surgery, or there was moderate pain during the skin incision, spinal anesthesia would be considered to have failed.
The efficacy of anesthesia would be evaluated using three criteria: lower limb motor block, muscle relaxation and pain during skin incision and abdominal exploration.
To treat intraoperative hypotension, 6mg ephedrine will be injected followed by 3 mg every 2 min until the blood pressure was restored to normal. Instances of nausea, vomiting, shivering and pruritus will be also recorded.
After delivery, Apgar scores will be assessed at 1 and 5 min by the attending pediatrician.
On the basis of the results of a pilot study, 40 patients in each group were needed to compare a two-segment difference in the upper sensory level and 30 % difference in the incidence of hypotension at a significance level of P less than 0.05 with 80% power. However, We expect to enroll 120 patients to get a more precise result.
For IBP and ScO2 the median value of the sliding averages of the 30-second period before spinal induction will be used as the baseline value for the figures and statistical analyses. Time 0 for hemodynamic analyses will be defined as the end of spinal injection. This two variables analyses will be run for the first 15 minutes, which almost equaled to the interval from induction of spinal anesthesia to delivery.
SPSS 16.0 will be used for data analysis. T-test would be used to assess the difference in sensory block level amongst the groups, The linear mixed model to analyze the continuous changes in systolic pressure and ScO2 over time. X2 test for trends would be used to test the association between adverse effects of anesthesia and the groups. In all cases, a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| commonly hyperbaric ropivacaine group | Active comparator | Combination Product: hyperbaric ropivacaineThis group will receive spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric ropivacaine solution,which was made by adding 50% glucose to the plain ropivacaine commercially availablethe to make it's density is close to commonly hyperbaric bupivacaine. |
| marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine group | Experimental | Combination Product: hyperbaric ropivacaineThis group will receive spinal anesthesia with marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine,which was made by adding 5% glucose to the plain ropivacaine commercially availablethe to make it's density is slightly denser than cerebrospinal fluid but much less denser than commonly hyperbaric bupivacaine/ropivacaine. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 42 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Pregnant women who were scheduled for elective caesarean section and met the criteria for the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classes 1 to 2 were enrolled in this study. Inclusion criteria were age between 20 and 42 years, height between 160 and 180 cm.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- They had dysfunctional coagulation; had pregnancy-induced hypertension; or had infection around the anesthesia puncture site; or multiple pregnancies, suspected fetal abnormality, and if the gestational age of the infant was less than 36 weeks.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| hyperbaric ropivacaineAlso: commonly or marginally hyperbaric ropivacaineWe change the density of ropivacaine solution to make it into an marginally hyperbaric state or into an commonly hyperbaric state.and we hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status. | Combination product | commonly hyperbaric ropivacaine group, marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine group |
Primary outcome
The maximum cephalad sensory block level
Time frame: During 50 min post spinal injection
The highest cephalad sensory block level is determined by pinprick along both sides of the midclavicular line.
2 secondary outcomes
The incidence of hypotension
Time frame: During 50 min post spinal injection
The change rate of invasive arterial pressure
Time frame: During 15 min post spinal injection
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 May 2017.
- Background: PubMed 25032943Tang WX, Li JJ, Bu HM, Fu ZJ. Spinal anaesthesia with low-dose bupivacaine in marginally hyperbaric solutions for caesarean section: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 Jul;32(7):493-8. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000112.
- Background: PubMed 11867397Khaw KS, Ngan Kee WD, Wong M, Ng F, Lee A. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions. Anesth Analg. 2002 Mar;94(3):680-5; table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200203000-00037.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Anesthesia, Spinal
RecruitingObservational study
Comparison of Hemodynamic Responses During Anesthesia Induction Using Eleveld and Schnider
Spinal (Fusion) Surgery, Total Intravenous Anesthesia
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Pain in Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section at Assuit University Hospital
Cesarean Section
Recruiting
Comparison of Spinal Anesthesia With Intrathecal Morphine Versus PENG Block With or Without Dexamethasone in Hip Arthroplasty
Arthropathy of Hip, Hip Osteoarthritis
Active, not recruitingObservational study
The Effect of Magnesium on Post-spinal Headaches
Post-spinal Headache
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Effect of Ondansetron on the Incidence of Spinal Anaesthesia-Induced Hypotension in Elderly Patients Undergoing Fracture Hip Surgery
Spinal Anaesthesia Induced Hypotension
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing hyperbaric ropivacaine in people with Anesthesia, Spinal, run by Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao).
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 1 inclusion and 1 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 May 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
Results are not available in the source record.
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?
The maximum cephalad sensory block level (time frame: During 50 min post spinal injection). 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 NCT03142880, which also lists 2 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 9 May 2017.