Breast SurgeryPhase 4NCT03549234
Erector Spinae Versus Paravertebral Nerve Blocks for Breast Surgery
A Phase 4 study testing Erector Spinae (single injection) and Paravertebral (single injection) in people with Breast Surgery, run by University of California, San Diego at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Following painful surgical procedures of the breast, postoperative analgesia is often provided with a paravertebral nerve block (PVB). For intense, but shorter-duration acute pain, a single-injection of local anesthetic is used with a duration of approximately 12 hours. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Breast Surgery
- What is being tested?
- Erector Spinae (single injection) and Paravertebral (single injection)
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 12 Jul 2018to 8 May 2019
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- undergoing unilateral or bilateral breast surgery with at least moderate postoperative pain anticipated
- analgesic plan includes a single-injection peripheral nerve block(s)
- age 18 years or older.
Who cannot join
- morbid obesity as defined by a body mass index > 40 (BMI=weight in kg / [height in meters]2)
- renal insufficiency (preoperative creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL)
- chronic opioid use (daily use within the 2 weeks prior to surgery and duration of use > 4 weeks)
- history of opioid abuse
- any comorbidity which results in moderate or severe functional limitation
- inability to communicate with the investigators or hospital staff
Show all 9Show fewer
- pregnancy
- planned regional analgesic with perineural catheter placement
- incarceration
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
UCSD Medical Center (Hillcrest and Thornton)
San Diego, California, 92103
About this study
Official title: A Randomized, Subject-Masked, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Arm Clinical Trial Comparing Erector Spinae and Paravertebral Nerve Blocks
Following painful surgical procedures of the breast, postoperative analgesia is often provided with a paravertebral nerve block (PVB). For intense, but shorter-duration acute pain, a single-injection of local anesthetic is used with a duration of approximately 12 hours. The PVB has several limitations: it can decrease blood pressure, and very rare-but serious-complications have occurred, including neuraxial injection, neuraxial hematoma, and pleural puncture. An alternative block has been described: the erector spinae plane block. The theoretical benefits include ease of administration since it is a plane superficial to the PVB and therefore easier to identify and target with ultrasound (therefore increasing success rate); and an increased safety margin: there are few anatomic structures in the immediate area which could be injured with the needle; and, the target plane is much further from the intrathecal/epidural space relative to the PVB. Lastly, the plane may be easier to catheterize for continuous peripheral nerve blocks relative to the relatively-small volume PVB.
There are therefore multiple theoretical reasons to prefer the erector spinae plane block. Unfortunately, it remains unknown if the analgesia provided by this new technique is comparable to that provided with the PVB. The investigators therefore propose to compare these two techniques with a randomized, subject-masked, active-controlled, parallel-arm, human subjects clinical trial.
Read the detailed description
This investigation will be a randomized, subject-masked, active-controlled parallel-arm, human subjects clinical trial. Of note, the investigators will be using standard-of-care local anesthetic under an FDA-approved purpose and do not plan to research a possible change of indication or use of these medications as part of this research project. The treatments in both groups are currently used at the study institution and there is true clinical equipoise at this time. The only difference in treatment between subjects who enroll versus those not enrolled in this study will be those who enroll will have the decision between which anatomic block location determined randomly, as opposed to the physician simply choosing him/herself.
Enrollment. Consenting adults undergoing breast surgery with a planned single-injection regional analgesic will be offered enrollment. Patients undergoing breast surgery with a planned perineural catheter regional analgesic will be excluded. Study inclusion will be proposed to eligible patients prior to surgery. If a patient desires study participation, written, informed consent will be obtained using a current University of California San Diego (UCSD) Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved Informed Consent Form (ICF). Selection for inclusion will not be based on gender, race, or socioeconomic status. The study population of interest includes men and women of all races and socioeconomic status. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in another section.
Preoperative Procedures. Following written, informed consent, the investigators will collect baseline anthropomorphic information (e.g., age, sex, height, and weight). All subjects will have a peripheral intravenous (IV) catheter inserted, standard noninvasive monitors applied, supplemental oxygen administered via a nasal cannula or face mask, and placed in the sitting position. Midazolam and fentanyl (IV) will be titrated for patient comfort, while ensuring that patients remain responsive to verbal cues. Both possible block locations will be viewed with ultrasound. If one or both of the locations is unacceptable for block placement in the clinician's opinion, the subject will not be randomized and will not proceed further with the study.
Subjects will then be randomized using a computer-generated list and opaque, sealed envelopes to one of two treatment groups: (blocks of 4, stratified for unilateral vs. bilateral surgery): (1) erector spinae plane or (2) paravertebral block. All blocks will be placed by a regional anesthesia fellow or resident under the direct supervision and guidance of a regional anesthesia attending (or by the attending him/herself).
The area of needle insertion will be cleaned with chlorhexidine gluconate and isopropyl alcohol. All blocks will be placed using standard UCSD ultrasound-guided techniques.
Ropivacaine 0.5% (with epinephrine 1:200,000-400,000) will be administered via the needle into the target plane. For erector spinae plane blocks, this will be at the T3 level for surgery involving the axilla and the T4 level for surgery not involving the axilla (20 mL of local anesthetic for unilateral surgery; 16 mL of local anesthetic each side for bilateral surgery). For PVBs without axillary work, this will be at the T3 and T5 levels. For PVBs with axillary work, this will be at the T2 and T4 levels. For unilateral PVBs, 10 mL of local anesthetic will be injected per level. For bilateral PVBs, 8 mL of local anesthetic will be injected per level.
Single-injection blocks will be considered successful if, within 30 minutes, the subject experiences decreased sensation to cold temperature with an alcohol pad over the approximate level of the ipsilateral 4th thoracic dermatome. Misplaced blocks will be replaced successfully, or the patient excluded from further study participation. For subjects undergoing bilateral surgical procedures, a block using the same protocol will be administered on the contralateral side.
Intraoperatively, all subjects will receive a general anesthetic using inhaled and intravenous anesthetic and oxygen. Intravenous fentanyl will be administered for cardiovascular responsiveness to noxious stimuli at the discretion of the anesthesia provider.
Postop: Subjects will be discharged with a prescription for oxycodone 5 mg tablets for supplementary analgesia and instructed to record the time at which subjects take their first opioid tablet as well as the time at which subjects believe the block starts to wear off.
Outcome measurements (end points). Pain scores will be recorded using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Within the recovery room, pain scores, opioid requirements, and antiemetic administration will be recorded by nursing staff masked to treatment group. The morning following surgery, all subjects will be contacted by phone or in person [if hospitalized] to record lowest, average, highest, and current pain scores; sleep disturbances, and nausea using a 0-10 Likert scale (0 = no nausea; 10 = vomiting). For outpatients, opioid requirements will be recorded while inpatients will have opioid requirements extracted from the electronic medical record. In addition, the investigators will extract antiemetic use from the electronic record. The investigators will collect the times at which subjects felt their block resolve and subjects consumed their first opioid analgesic pills following recovery room discharge.
Hypothesis 1: Following breast surgery, analgesia will be non-inferior in the recovery room with an erector spinae plane block compared with a paravertebral block as measured with the Numeric Rating Scale.
Hypothesis 2: For breast surgery, opioid consumption will be non-inferior in the operating and recovery rooms with an erector spinae plane block compared with a paravertebral block (primary: cumulative intravenous morphine equivalents).
Primary end point: In order to claim that erector spinae plane blocks are non-inferior to paravertebral blocks, both Hypotheses 1 and 2 must be at least non-inferior.
Statistical methods. Descriptive statistics will be provided by arm and in aggregate. Baseline characteristics of arms will be compared using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Fisher's Exact tests. Key characteristics that are significantly different (p<0.05) will be included as covariates in the analysis models.
Primary aim. The investigators will test the noninferiority of the erector spinae nerve block compared to the paravertebral nerve block. The 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test will be derived for the group difference (paravertebral minus erector spinae) in median pain scores within the recovery room. If the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -1.25, the investigators will conclude noninferiority. If there are significant differences between the groups in any key characteristics, these characteristics will be included as covariates in a linear model. The same noninferiority margin (-1.25) will be applied to the 95% CI for the covariate adjusted group difference in mean pain derived from the linear model.
The noninferiority of the erector spinae nerve block with regard to total opioid consumption within the operating and recovery rooms will be tested in the same manner as pain, i.e. comparing the limits of a 95% CI associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test to a predefined noninferiority margin (in this case 2 mg). Covariate adjusted linear models will again be applied in the event that key characteristics are significantly different between the groups.
Sample size justification. Power for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney derived noninferiority testing is based on 10,000 simulated trials. The investigators simulated pain scores from a discrete distribution with median (interquartile range) 3 (2-5) [Kairaluoma, 2004]. Between the quartiles, the probability of each score was assumed constant. The distribution for each group was assumed to be the same. The sample size of n=50 per group provides 82% power to detect noninferiority in pain with a margin of 1.25. Similarly, opioid consumption was assumed to follow a truncated normal distribution with mean 2.5 mg and standard deviation 2 mg, and minimum value 0 mg. The sample size of n = 50 per group provides at least 95% power to detect noninferiority with margin 2 mg. Therefore, the investigators will enroll 50 subjects for each of two treatments with a total enrollment of 100 subjects. To allow for dropouts, the investigators will request a maximum enrollment of 120 subjects. Noninferiority in pain is tested first, and if significant, noninferiority in opioid consumption is tested. Under this hierarchical testing framework, no adjustment in alpha is necessary to control Type 1 error [Mascha, et al 2012].
- Conditions
- Breast Surgery
- Being tested
- Erector Spinae (single injection), Paravertebral (single injection)
- Keywords
- Regional anesthesia, Paravertebral, Erector spinae, Nerve block
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Erector Spinae (single injection)Drug
Ropivacaine 0.5% (with epinephrine 1:200,000-400,000) will be administered via the needle into the target plane.
Paravertebral (single injection)Drug
Ropivacaine 0.5% (with epinephrine 1:200,000-400,000) will be administered via the needle into the target plane.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Erector Spinae (single injection) | Experimental | Not described Receives: Drug: Erector Spinae (single injection) |
| Paravertebral (single injection) | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Drug: Paravertebral (single injection) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Numeric Rating Scale Pain Scores
Range scale minimum 0, maximum 10. Lower pain scores are considered a better outcome, higher pain scores are considered a worse outcome.
Measured: 1 day (PACU pain scores)
OR and PACU Opioid Consumption
This outcome measure reflects the total amount of opioid administered in the operating room and recovery room perioperatively. Specific time points are not applicable since operating room and recovery room times differ among subjects.
Measured: up to 1 day, in the OR and PACU
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Jun 2018
- Study start12 Jul 2018
- Primary completion8 May 2019
- Study completion8 May 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Breast SurgeryStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of California, San DiegoThe 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 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of California, San Diego
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Brian M. Ilfeld, MD, MS, University of California, San Diego
- Investigators
- Brian M Ilfeld, MD MS, Principal investigator, Professor in Residence
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03549234
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Erector Spinae vs PVB
- Status last verified
- Jul 2020
- First submitted
- 24 Apr 2018
- Last updated
- 24 Jul 2020
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- Yes
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Naja 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 11736777Forero M, Adhikary SD, Lopez H, Tsui C, Chin KJ. The Erector Spinae Plane Block: A Novel Analgesic Technique in Thoracic Neuropathic Pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):621-7. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000451.
PubMed 27501016Forero M, Rajarathinam M, Adhikary S, Chin KJ. Continuous Erector Spinae Plane Block for Rescue Analgesia in Thoracotomy After Epidural Failure: A Case Report. A A Case Rep. 2017 May 15;8(10):254-256. doi: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000000478.
PubMed 28252539Ilfeld BM, Madison SJ, Suresh PJ, Sandhu NS, Kormylo NJ, Malhotra N, Loland VJ, Wallace MS, Proudfoot JA, Morgan AC, Wen CH, Wallace AM. Treatment of postmastectomy pain with ambulatory continuous paravertebral nerve blocks: a randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):89-96. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000035.
PubMed 24448512Finneran JJ 4th, Gabriel RA, Khatibi B. Erector Spinae Plane Blocks Provide Analgesia for Breast and Axillary Surgery: A Series of 3 Cases. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jan;43(1):101-102. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000695. No abstract available.
PubMed 29261601Kairaluoma PM, Bachmann MS, Korpinen AK, Rosenberg PH, Pere PJ. Single-injection paravertebral block before general anesthesia enhances analgesia after breast cancer surgery with and without associated lymph node biopsy. Anesth Analg. 2004 Dec;99(6):1837-1843. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000136775.15566.87.
PubMed 15562083Mascha EJ, Turan A. Joint hypothesis testing and gatekeeping procedures for studies with multiple endpoints. Anesth Analg. 2012 Jun;114(6):1304-17. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182504435. Epub 2012 May 3.
PubMed 22556210Swisher MW, Wallace AM, Sztain JF, Said ET, Khatibi B, Abanobi M, Finneran Iv JJ, Gabriel RA, Abramson W, Blair SL, Hosseini A, Dobke MK, Donohue MC, Ilfeld BM. Erector spinae plane versus paravertebral nerve blocks for postoperative analgesia after breast surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Apr;45(4):260-266. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-101013. Epub 2020 Jan 21.
PubMed 31969443
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Jul 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomized, Subject-Masked, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Arm Clinical Trial Comparing Erector Spinae and Paravertebral Nerve Blocks
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03549234
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Erector Spinae vs PVB
- Conditions
- Breast Surgery
- Keywords
- Regional anesthesia, Paravertebral, Erector spinae, Nerve block
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of California, San DiegoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 12 Jul 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 8 May 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 8 May 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Jun 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 24 Jul 2020
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Following painful surgical procedures of the breast, postoperative analgesia is often provided with a paravertebral nerve block (PVB). For intense, but shorter-duration acute pain, a single-injection of local anesthetic is used with a duration of approximately 12 hours. The PVB has several limitations: it can decrease blood pressure, and very rare-but serious-complications have occurred, including neuraxial injection, neuraxial hematoma, and pleural puncture. An alternative block has been described: the erector spinae plane block. The theoretical benefits include ease of administration since it is a plane superficial to the PVB and therefore easier to identify and target with ultrasound (therefore increasing success rate); and an increased safety margin: there are few anatomic structures in the immediate area which could be injured with the needle; and, the target plane is much further from the intrathecal/epidural space relative to the PVB. Lastly, the plane may be easier to catheterize for continuous peripheral nerve blocks relative to the relatively-small volume PVB.
There are therefore multiple theoretical reasons to prefer the erector spinae plane block. Unfortunately, it remains unknown if the analgesia provided by this new technique is comparable to that provided with the PVB. The investigators therefore propose to compare these two techniques with a randomized, subject-masked, active-controlled, parallel-arm, human subjects clinical trial.
Detailed description
This investigation will be a randomized, subject-masked, active-controlled parallel-arm, human subjects clinical trial. Of note, the investigators will be using standard-of-care local anesthetic under an FDA-approved purpose and do not plan to research a possible change of indication or use of these medications as part of this research project. The treatments in both groups are currently used at the study institution and there is true clinical equipoise at this time. The only difference in treatment between subjects who enroll versus those not enrolled in this study will be those who enroll will have the decision between which anatomic block location determined randomly, as opposed to the physician simply choosing him/herself.
Enrollment. Consenting adults undergoing breast surgery with a planned single-injection regional analgesic will be offered enrollment. Patients undergoing breast surgery with a planned perineural catheter regional analgesic will be excluded. Study inclusion will be proposed to eligible patients prior to surgery. If a patient desires study participation, written, informed consent will be obtained using a current University of California San Diego (UCSD) Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved Informed Consent Form (ICF). Selection for inclusion will not be based on gender, race, or socioeconomic status. The study population of interest includes men and women of all races and socioeconomic status. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in another section.
Preoperative Procedures. Following written, informed consent, the investigators will collect baseline anthropomorphic information (e.g., age, sex, height, and weight). All subjects will have a peripheral intravenous (IV) catheter inserted, standard noninvasive monitors applied, supplemental oxygen administered via a nasal cannula or face mask, and placed in the sitting position. Midazolam and fentanyl (IV) will be titrated for patient comfort, while ensuring that patients remain responsive to verbal cues. Both possible block locations will be viewed with ultrasound. If one or both of the locations is unacceptable for block placement in the clinician's opinion, the subject will not be randomized and will not proceed further with the study.
Subjects will then be randomized using a computer-generated list and opaque, sealed envelopes to one of two treatment groups: (blocks of 4, stratified for unilateral vs. bilateral surgery): (1) erector spinae plane or (2) paravertebral block. All blocks will be placed by a regional anesthesia fellow or resident under the direct supervision and guidance of a regional anesthesia attending (or by the attending him/herself).
The area of needle insertion will be cleaned with chlorhexidine gluconate and isopropyl alcohol. All blocks will be placed using standard UCSD ultrasound-guided techniques.
Ropivacaine 0.5% (with epinephrine 1:200,000-400,000) will be administered via the needle into the target plane. For erector spinae plane blocks, this will be at the T3 level for surgery involving the axilla and the T4 level for surgery not involving the axilla (20 mL of local anesthetic for unilateral surgery; 16 mL of local anesthetic each side for bilateral surgery). For PVBs without axillary work, this will be at the T3 and T5 levels. For PVBs with axillary work, this will be at the T2 and T4 levels. For unilateral PVBs, 10 mL of local anesthetic will be injected per level. For bilateral PVBs, 8 mL of local anesthetic will be injected per level.
Single-injection blocks will be considered successful if, within 30 minutes, the subject experiences decreased sensation to cold temperature with an alcohol pad over the approximate level of the ipsilateral 4th thoracic dermatome. Misplaced blocks will be replaced successfully, or the patient excluded from further study participation. For subjects undergoing bilateral surgical procedures, a block using the same protocol will be administered on the contralateral side.
Intraoperatively, all subjects will receive a general anesthetic using inhaled and intravenous anesthetic and oxygen. Intravenous fentanyl will be administered for cardiovascular responsiveness to noxious stimuli at the discretion of the anesthesia provider.
Postop: Subjects will be discharged with a prescription for oxycodone 5 mg tablets for supplementary analgesia and instructed to record the time at which subjects take their first opioid tablet as well as the time at which subjects believe the block starts to wear off.
Outcome measurements (end points). Pain scores will be recorded using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Within the recovery room, pain scores, opioid requirements, and antiemetic administration will be recorded by nursing staff masked to treatment group. The morning following surgery, all subjects will be contacted by phone or in person [if hospitalized] to record lowest, average, highest, and current pain scores; sleep disturbances, and nausea using a 0-10 Likert scale (0 = no nausea; 10 = vomiting). For outpatients, opioid requirements will be recorded while inpatients will have opioid requirements extracted from the electronic medical record. In addition, the investigators will extract antiemetic use from the electronic record. The investigators will collect the times at which subjects felt their block resolve and subjects consumed their first opioid analgesic pills following recovery room discharge.
Hypothesis 1: Following breast surgery, analgesia will be non-inferior in the recovery room with an erector spinae plane block compared with a paravertebral block as measured with the Numeric Rating Scale.
Hypothesis 2: For breast surgery, opioid consumption will be non-inferior in the operating and recovery rooms with an erector spinae plane block compared with a paravertebral block (primary: cumulative intravenous morphine equivalents).
Primary end point: In order to claim that erector spinae plane blocks are non-inferior to paravertebral blocks, both Hypotheses 1 and 2 must be at least non-inferior.
Statistical methods. Descriptive statistics will be provided by arm and in aggregate. Baseline characteristics of arms will be compared using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Fisher's Exact tests. Key characteristics that are significantly different (p<0.05) will be included as covariates in the analysis models.
Primary aim. The investigators will test the noninferiority of the erector spinae nerve block compared to the paravertebral nerve block. The 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test will be derived for the group difference (paravertebral minus erector spinae) in median pain scores within the recovery room. If the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -1.25, the investigators will conclude noninferiority. If there are significant differences between the groups in any key characteristics, these characteristics will be included as covariates in a linear model. The same noninferiority margin (-1.25) will be applied to the 95% CI for the covariate adjusted group difference in mean pain derived from the linear model.
The noninferiority of the erector spinae nerve block with regard to total opioid consumption within the operating and recovery rooms will be tested in the same manner as pain, i.e. comparing the limits of a 95% CI associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test to a predefined noninferiority margin (in this case 2 mg). Covariate adjusted linear models will again be applied in the event that key characteristics are significantly different between the groups.
Sample size justification. Power for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney derived noninferiority testing is based on 10,000 simulated trials. The investigators simulated pain scores from a discrete distribution with median (interquartile range) 3 (2-5) [Kairaluoma, 2004]. Between the quartiles, the probability of each score was assumed constant. The distribution for each group was assumed to be the same. The sample size of n=50 per group provides 82% power to detect noninferiority in pain with a margin of 1.25. Similarly, opioid consumption was assumed to follow a truncated normal distribution with mean 2.5 mg and standard deviation 2 mg, and minimum value 0 mg. The sample size of n = 50 per group provides at least 95% power to detect noninferiority with margin 2 mg. Therefore, the investigators will enroll 50 subjects for each of two treatments with a total enrollment of 100 subjects. To allow for dropouts, the investigators will request a maximum enrollment of 120 subjects. Noninferiority in pain is tested first, and if significant, noninferiority in opioid consumption is tested. Under this hierarchical testing framework, no adjustment in alpha is necessary to control Type 1 error [Mascha, et al 2012].
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Erector Spinae (single injection) | Experimental | Drug: Erector Spinae (single injection) |
| Paravertebral (single injection) | Active comparator | Drug: Paravertebral (single injection) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- undergoing unilateral or bilateral breast surgery with at least moderate postoperative pain anticipated
- analgesic plan includes a single-injection peripheral nerve block(s)
- age 18 years or older.
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- morbid obesity as defined by a body mass index > 40 (BMI=weight in kg / [height in meters]2)
- renal insufficiency (preoperative creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL)
- chronic opioid use (daily use within the 2 weeks prior to surgery and duration of use > 4 weeks)
- history of opioid abuse
- any comorbidity which results in moderate or severe functional limitation
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Erector Spinae (single injection)Ropivacaine 0.5% (with epinephrine 1:200,000-400,000) will be administered via the needle into the target plane. | Drug | Erector Spinae (single injection) |
| Paravertebral (single injection)Ropivacaine 0.5% (with epinephrine 1:200,000-400,000) will be administered via the needle into the target plane. | Drug | Paravertebral (single injection) |
Primary outcome
Numeric Rating Scale Pain Scores
Time frame: 1 day (PACU pain scores)
Range scale minimum 0, maximum 10. Lower pain scores are considered a better outcome, higher pain scores are considered a worse outcome.
OR and PACU Opioid Consumption
Time frame: up to 1 day, in the OR and PACU
This outcome measure reflects the total amount of opioid administered in the operating room and recovery room perioperatively. Specific time points are not applicable since operating room and recovery room times differ among subjects.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Jul 2020.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- 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 27501016Forero M, Adhikary SD, Lopez H, Tsui C, Chin KJ. The Erector Spinae Plane Block: A Novel Analgesic Technique in Thoracic Neuropathic Pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):621-7. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000451.
- Background: PubMed 28252539Forero M, Rajarathinam M, Adhikary S, Chin KJ. Continuous Erector Spinae Plane Block for Rescue Analgesia in Thoracotomy After Epidural Failure: A Case Report. A A Case Rep. 2017 May 15;8(10):254-256. doi: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000000478.
- Background: PubMed 24448512Ilfeld BM, Madison SJ, Suresh PJ, Sandhu NS, Kormylo NJ, Malhotra N, Loland VJ, Wallace MS, Proudfoot JA, Morgan AC, Wen CH, Wallace AM. Treatment of postmastectomy pain with ambulatory continuous paravertebral nerve blocks: a randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):89-96. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000035.
- Background: PubMed 29261601Finneran JJ 4th, Gabriel RA, Khatibi B. Erector Spinae Plane Blocks Provide Analgesia for Breast and Axillary Surgery: A Series of 3 Cases. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jan;43(1):101-102. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000695. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 15562083Kairaluoma PM, Bachmann MS, Korpinen AK, Rosenberg PH, Pere PJ. Single-injection paravertebral block before general anesthesia enhances analgesia after breast cancer surgery with and without associated lymph node biopsy. Anesth Analg. 2004 Dec;99(6):1837-1843. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000136775.15566.87.
- Background: PubMed 22556210Mascha EJ, Turan A. Joint hypothesis testing and gatekeeping procedures for studies with multiple endpoints. Anesth Analg. 2012 Jun;114(6):1304-17. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182504435. Epub 2012 May 3.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 31969443Swisher MW, Wallace AM, Sztain JF, Said ET, Khatibi B, Abanobi M, Finneran Iv JJ, Gabriel RA, Abramson W, Blair SL, Hosseini A, Dobke MK, Donohue MC, Ilfeld BM. Erector spinae plane versus paravertebral nerve blocks for postoperative analgesia after breast surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Apr;45(4):260-266. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-101013. Epub 2020 Jan 21.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Breast Surgery
Not yet recruiting
Augmented-Reality ICG Fluorescence Second-Look for Residual Nodal Disease After Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer, Breast Neoplasms
Active, not recruiting
The AIUR Trial: Surgical Gloves to Prevent Peripheral Neuropathy
Chemotherapy-induced Peripheral Neuropathy
RecruitingPhase 2
Study of Patritumab Deruxtecan Plus Pembrolizumab With Other Anticancer Agents in Participants With High-Risk Early-Stage Triple-Negative or Hormone Receptor-Low Positive/HER-2 Negative Breast Cancer (MK-1022-010, HERTHENA-Breast-03)
Breast Neoplasms, Breast Cancer
Recruiting
Comparison of the Safety and Aesthetic Outcomes of a Novel Endoscopic-Assisted Breast-Conserving Surgery (SRRSHzb-EABCS) With Those of Conventional Breast-Conserving Surgery
Breast Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
Sacituzumab Tirumotecan (MK-2870) Plus Pembrolizumab Versus TPC in TNBC Who Did Not Achieve pCR (MK-2870-012)
Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
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.
Brian M Ilfeld, MD MS principal investigator
Professor in Residence
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Erector Spinae (single injection) and Paravertebral (single injection) in people with Breast Surgery, run by University of California, San Diego 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 9 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 Jul 2020. 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 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 24 Jul 2020). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Numeric Rating Scale Pain Scores (time frame: 1 day (PACU pain scores)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT03549234, which also lists 8 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 24 Jul 2020.