Anesthesia, LocalNCT04452656
Analgesic Efficacy of Ultrasound Guided Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block in Pediatric.
A study testing bilateral erector spinae block in people with Anesthesia, Local and Analgesia, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
This randomized, double-blinded, study aims to compare the efficacy of analgesia and any side effects of U/S guided bilateral Erector SpinaePlane block versus non-block t paediatric patients undergoing corrective cardiac surgeries. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 6 months to 7 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Anesthesia, Local, Analgesia
- What is being tested?
- bilateral erector spinae block
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 98 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 20 Jul 2020to 15 Aug 2021
- 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 6 months to 7 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Age:6 months-7 years.
- ASA, American Society of Anesthesiology, II and III .
- Patients undergoing cardiac surgeries with midline sternotomy incision.
Who cannot join
- Patients whose parents or legal guardians refusing to participate.
- Preoperative mechanical ventilation.
- Preoperative inotropic drug infusion.
- Known or suspected coagulopathy.
- Any congenital anomalies of the sacrum/the vertebral column or any infection at the site of injection.
- Known or suspected allergy to any of the studied drugs.
- Elevated liver enzymes more than the normal values.
- Renal function impairment (Creatinine value more than 1.2 mg/dl or BUN more than 20mg/dl).
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Analgesic Efficacy of Ultrasound Guided Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Fentanyl Infusion in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgeries. a Randomized Controlled Study.
This randomized, double-blinded, study aims to compare the efficacy of analgesia and any side effects of U/S guided bilateral Erector SpinaePlane block versus non-block t paediatric patients undergoing corrective cardiac surgeries.
Read the detailed description
Our study will be designed to estimate and compare the analgesic effect of single shotbilatral erector spinae plane block in pediatric patients undergoing corrective cardiac surgeries versus non-block as the control group. Our primary outcome will be the total dose of intraoperative fentanyl boluses.
Randomization will be achieved by using an online random number generator. Patient codes will be placed into sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes by a research assistant who is not involved in the study. A medical personnel not involved in patient management will be responsible for opening the envelope and give the instructions contained within each envelope to the anesthesiologist who is expert in doing the ESP block in patients included within the block group. The anesthesia team who managed the patients intraoperatively did not share in recording data for the research. However, another physcian will be responsible for recording the intraoperative data.
- Conditions
- Anesthesia, Local, Analgesia
- Being tested
- bilateral erector spinae block
- Keywords
- Erector spinae plane block, Pediatric, sternotomy
- Medical subject headings
- Agnosia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
bilateral erector spinae blockProcedure or surgery
An ultrasound transducer will be placed in a longitudinal orientation 3 cm lateral to the T3 spinous process corresponding to the T2 transverse process.
Three muscles; trapezius , rhomboids major , and erector spinae will be identified superior to the hyperechoic transverse process.
Using in-plane approach a 25 G needle will be inserted in caudal-cephalad direction, until the tip is deep to erector spinae muscle.
Correct needle tip location will be confirmed by injecting 3 mL of saline and visualizing the linear LA spread in the fascial plane between the erector spinae muscle and the transverse process..
0.4 ml/kg (1:1 solution of bupivacaine 0.25% and lidocaine 1%) will be injected and visualizing the linear LA spread in the fascial plane between the erector spinae muscle andthe transverse process12.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| bilateral erector spinae plane block | Active comparator | The patient WILL receive bilateral erector spinae plane block. Receives: Procedure: bilateral erector spinae block |
| NO BLOCK | No intervention | The patient will not receive Erector spinae plane block |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The total dose of intraoperative fentanyl boluses in microgram.
The total dose of intraoperative fentanyl boluses in microgram
Measured: 3 months
Secondary outcomes (3)
Pain assessment at postoperatively by FLACC score
Pain assessment postoperatively by FLACC score
Measured: 3 months
Total consumption of morphine during the first 24 hours postoperatively.
Total consumption of morphine during the first 24 hours postoperatively
Measured: 3 monts
extubation time
time from finishing skin incision suturing and cessation of anesthesia to successful removal of endotracheal tube.
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Jun 2020
- Study start20 Jul 2020
- Primary completion5 Aug 2021
- Study completion15 Aug 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Anesthesia, LocalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Cairo UniversityThe 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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 98 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, AHMED ALI GADO, Cairo University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04452656
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- N159-2020
- Status last verified
- Dec 2021
- First submitted
- 25 Jun 2020
- Last updated
- 21 Dec 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: The patients data are confidential
Publications
Anand VG, Kannan M, Thavamani A, Bridgit MJ. Effects of dexmedetomidine added to caudal ropivacaine in paediatric lower abdominal surgeries. Indian J Anaesth. 2011 Jul;55(4):340-6. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.84835.
PubMed 22013248Anand KJ, Hickey PR. Halothane-morphine compared with high-dose sufentanil for anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in neonatal cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jan 2;326(1):1-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199201023260101.
PubMed 1530752El Shamaa HA, Ibrahim M. A comparative study of the effect of caudal dexmedetomidine versus morphine added to bupivacaine in pediatric infra-umbilical surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2014 Apr;8(2):155-60. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.130677.
PubMed 24843324Forero 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 27501016Kaushal B, Chauhan S, Magoon R, Krishna NS, Saini K, Bhoi D, Bisoi AK. Efficacy of Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block in Management of Acute Postoperative Surgical Pain After Pediatric Cardiac Surgeries Through a Midline Sternotomy. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Apr;34(4):981-986. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.08.009. Epub 2019 Aug 12.
PubMed 31515190Munoz F, Cubillos J, Bonilla AJ, Chin KJ. Erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in pediatric oncological thoracic surgery. Can J Anaesth. 2017 Aug;64(8):880-882. doi: 10.1007/s12630-017-0894-0. Epub 2017 Apr 26. No abstract available.
PubMed 28447318De la Cuadra-Fontaine JC, Concha M, Vuletin F, Arancibia H. Continuous Erector Spinae Plane block for thoracic surgery in a pediatric patient. Paediatr Anaesth. 2018 Jan;28(1):74-75. doi: 10.1111/pan.13277. No abstract available.
PubMed 29226529Hernandez MA, Palazzi L, Lapalma J, Forero M, Chin KJ. Erector Spinae Plane Block for Surgery of the Posterior Thoracic Wall in a Pediatric Patient. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Feb;43(2):217-219. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000716.
PubMed 29278605Ueshima H, Otake H. RETRACTED: Clinical experiences of erector spinae plane block for children. J Clin Anesth. 2018 Feb;44:41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.10.021. No abstract available.
PubMed 29100022Kaplan I, Jiao Y, AuBuchon JD, Moore RP. Continuous Erector Spinae Plane Catheter for Analgesia After Infant Thoracotomy: A Case Report. A A Pract. 2018 Nov 1;11(9):250-252. doi: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000000799.
PubMed 29794802Hernandez MA, Palazzi L, Lapalma J, Cravero J. Erector spinae plane block for inguinal hernia repair in preterm infants. Paediatr Anaesth. 2018 Mar;28(3):298-299. doi: 10.1111/pan.13325. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
PubMed 29341379Merkel S, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S. Pain assessment in infants and young children: the FLACC scale. Am J Nurs. 2002 Oct;102(10):55-8. doi: 10.1097/00000446-200210000-00024. No abstract available.
PubMed 12394307
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Dec 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Analgesic Efficacy of Ultrasound Guided Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Fentanyl Infusion in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgeries. a Randomized Controlled Study.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04452656
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- N159-2020
- Conditions
- Anesthesia, Local, Analgesia
- Keywords
- Erector spinae plane block, Pediatric, sternotomy
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 98 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 Jul 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 5 Aug 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Aug 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Jun 2020 (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.
This randomized, double-blinded, study aims to compare the efficacy of analgesia and any side effects of U/S guided bilateral Erector SpinaePlane block versus non-block t paediatric patients undergoing corrective cardiac surgeries.
Detailed description
Our study will be designed to estimate and compare the analgesic effect of single shotbilatral erector spinae plane block in pediatric patients undergoing corrective cardiac surgeries versus non-block as the control group. Our primary outcome will be the total dose of intraoperative fentanyl boluses.
Randomization will be achieved by using an online random number generator. Patient codes will be placed into sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes by a research assistant who is not involved in the study. A medical personnel not involved in patient management will be responsible for opening the envelope and give the instructions contained within each envelope to the anesthesiologist who is expert in doing the ESP block in patients included within the block group. The anesthesia team who managed the patients intraoperatively did not share in recording data for the research. However, another physcian will be responsible for recording the intraoperative data.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| bilateral erector spinae plane block | Active comparator | Procedure: bilateral erector spinae blockThe patient WILL receive bilateral erector spinae plane block. |
| NO BLOCK | No intervention | –The patient will not receive Erector spinae plane block |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 6 months to 7 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Age:6 months-7 years.
- ASA, American Society of Anesthesiology, II and III .
- Patients undergoing cardiac surgeries with midline sternotomy incision.
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Patients whose parents or legal guardians refusing to participate.
- Preoperative mechanical ventilation.
- Preoperative inotropic drug infusion.
- Known or suspected coagulopathy.
- Any congenital anomalies of the sacrum/the vertebral column or any infection at the site of injection.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| bilateral erector spinae blockAn ultrasound transducer will be placed in a longitudinal orientation 3 cm lateral to the T3 spinous process corresponding to the T2 transverse process. Three muscles; trapezius , rhomboids major , and erector spinae will be identified superior to the hyperechoic transverse process. Using in-plane approach a 25 G needle will be inserted in caudal-cephalad direction, until the tip is deep to erector spinae muscle. Correct needle tip location will be confirmed by injecting 3 mL of saline and visualizing the linear LA spread in the fascial plane between the erector spinae muscle and the transverse process.. 0.4 ml/kg (1:1 solution of bupivacaine 0.25% and lidocaine 1%) will be injected and visualizing the linear LA spread in the fascial plane between the erector spinae muscle andthe transverse process12. | Procedure or surgery | bilateral erector spinae plane block |
Primary outcome
The total dose of intraoperative fentanyl boluses in microgram.
Time frame: 3 months
The total dose of intraoperative fentanyl boluses in microgram
3 secondary outcomes
Pain assessment at postoperatively by FLACC score
Time frame: 3 months
Total consumption of morphine during the first 24 hours postoperatively.
Time frame: 3 monts
extubation time
Time frame: 3 months
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 21 Dec 2021.
- Background: PubMed 22013248Anand VG, Kannan M, Thavamani A, Bridgit MJ. Effects of dexmedetomidine added to caudal ropivacaine in paediatric lower abdominal surgeries. Indian J Anaesth. 2011 Jul;55(4):340-6. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.84835.
- Background: PubMed 1530752Anand KJ, Hickey PR. Halothane-morphine compared with high-dose sufentanil for anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in neonatal cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jan 2;326(1):1-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199201023260101.
- Background: PubMed 24843324El Shamaa HA, Ibrahim M. A comparative study of the effect of caudal dexmedetomidine versus morphine added to bupivacaine in pediatric infra-umbilical surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2014 Apr;8(2):155-60. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.130677.
- 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 31515190Kaushal B, Chauhan S, Magoon R, Krishna NS, Saini K, Bhoi D, Bisoi AK. Efficacy of Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block in Management of Acute Postoperative Surgical Pain After Pediatric Cardiac Surgeries Through a Midline Sternotomy. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Apr;34(4):981-986. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.08.009. Epub 2019 Aug 12.
- Background: PubMed 28447318Munoz F, Cubillos J, Bonilla AJ, Chin KJ. Erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in pediatric oncological thoracic surgery. Can J Anaesth. 2017 Aug;64(8):880-882. doi: 10.1007/s12630-017-0894-0. Epub 2017 Apr 26. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 29226529De la Cuadra-Fontaine JC, Concha M, Vuletin F, Arancibia H. Continuous Erector Spinae Plane block for thoracic surgery in a pediatric patient. Paediatr Anaesth. 2018 Jan;28(1):74-75. doi: 10.1111/pan.13277. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 29278605Hernandez MA, Palazzi L, Lapalma J, Forero M, Chin KJ. Erector Spinae Plane Block for Surgery of the Posterior Thoracic Wall in a Pediatric Patient. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Feb;43(2):217-219. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000716.
- Background: PubMed 29100022Ueshima H, Otake H. RETRACTED: Clinical experiences of erector spinae plane block for children. J Clin Anesth. 2018 Feb;44:41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.10.021. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 29794802Kaplan I, Jiao Y, AuBuchon JD, Moore RP. Continuous Erector Spinae Plane Catheter for Analgesia After Infant Thoracotomy: A Case Report. A A Pract. 2018 Nov 1;11(9):250-252. doi: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000000799.
- Background: PubMed 29341379Hernandez MA, Palazzi L, Lapalma J, Cravero J. Erector spinae plane block for inguinal hernia repair in preterm infants. Paediatr Anaesth. 2018 Mar;28(3):298-299. doi: 10.1111/pan.13325. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
- Background: PubMed 12394307Merkel S, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S. Pain assessment in infants and young children: the FLACC scale. Am J Nurs. 2002 Oct;102(10):55-8. doi: 10.1097/00000446-200210000-00024. No abstract available.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. The patients data are confidential
Related trials for Anesthesia, Local
RecruitingPhase 4
Lidocaine Infiltration and Neuroimmunomodulation in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery
Head and Neck Cancer (H&N)
Recruiting
Minimum Effective Local Anesthetic Volume for Ultrasound Guided Superior Trunk Block
Musculoskeletal Diseases or Conditions
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of Changes to Prostate Procedures
Prostate Cancer
Not yet recruiting
Magnesium Sulphate as an Adjuvant in Combined Costoclavicular Block and Suprascapular Block Versus Interscalene Block for Ambulatory Shoulder Arthroscopy
Postoperative Pain, Shoulder Arthroscopy
Recruiting
Comparison of Spinal Anesthesia With Intrathecal Morphine Versus PENG Block With or Without Dexamethasone in Hip Arthroplasty
Arthropathy of Hip, Hip Osteoarthritis
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing bilateral erector spinae block in people with Anesthesia, Local and Analgesia, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.
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 8 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 21 Dec 2021. 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 Egypt. 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?
The total dose of intraoperative fentanyl boluses in microgram. (time frame: 3 months). 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 NCT04452656, which also lists 12 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 21 Dec 2021.