RecruitmentPhase 1/2NCT06382220
Low Dose Bupivacaine Versus Prilocaine Regarding Hemodynamic Stability and Safety in Geriatrics
A Phase 1/2 study testing Bupivacain in people with Recruitment, run by Fayoum University Hospital at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
Orthopedic interventions under spinal anesthesia is considered a common practice in elderly patients undergo surgery, and may be associated with lower risks of death, delirium,and major medical complications . Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 to 90 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Recruitment
- What is being tested?
- Bupivacain
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 23 Apr 2024to 15 Aug 2024
- Phase
- Phase 1/2
- 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 60 to 90 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- elderly patients (60 years old or above)
- either gender
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, II, and III who were scheduled for elective knee and below knee orthopedic surgeries expected to the last for 40-60 min under spinal anesthesia.
Who cannot join
- Patients height < 1.55 or > 1.75 m,
- with other neurological diseases, spine abnormalities,
- absolute, and relative contraindications to spinal anesthesia as patients suffering from intracranial hypertension, major bleeding disorder, patients on anticoagulant, local infection, dementia, and allergic reaction to local anesthetics.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Low Dose Bupivacaine Versus Prilocaine Regarding Hemodynamic Stability and Safety in Geriatrics: A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparative Study
Orthopedic interventions under spinal anesthesia is considered a common practice in elderly patients undergo surgery, and may be associated with lower risks of death, delirium,and major medical complications .
Spinal anesthesia can cause disastrous hemodynamical changes in the form of hypotension and bradycardia in elderly patients due to limited physiological reserve and presence of systemic illness . The degree of hypotension is proportional to the extent of sympathetic blockade. thus unilateral Spinal anesthesia described by Tanasichuk et AL. was used aiming to minimize these hymodynamical changes compared to bilateral block by restricting the extent of sympathetic blockade.
Read more
Bupivacaine has been used in spinal anaesthesia in orthodecic surgeries . It provides a short motor block onset time with a long motor block duration . If bupivacaine is used, the main disadvantage is the significant inter-individual variability with clinically significant differences in onset time, dermatomal spread and motor block duration . Prilocaine is a local anaesthetic agent that belongs to the same family as bupivacaine. In the last decade and with the development of day surgery, prilocaine 2% has become more commonly used for orthopaedic surgical procedures . Prilocaine induces a shorter motor block with less urinary retention, which better facilitates enhanced recovery after surgery . Usually, doses administered in spinal anaesthesia vary from 20 to 80 mg . Given the intermediate motor block duration,
The aim of this study
To compare between Unilateral low dose spinal anesthesia using bupivacaine versus prilocaine regarding hemodynamical stability and safety in below knee orthopedic surgeries in elderly people.
Read the detailed description
This study will be performed in the in the FAYOUM University hospital after the local Institutional Ethics Committee and local institutional review board approval. The study design will be double-blind randomized controlled study . A detailed informed consent will be signed by the eligible patients before recruitment and randomization.
Population of Study
- Group 1 : Group (A) Bupivacaine group n = 50 patients who received 7.5 mg (low dose) hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (Marcaine®, AstraZeneca, Sweden) in 2 mL volume (1.5 mL hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% diluted with 0.5 mL sterile distilled water) intrathecal at level lumbar L3-L4 or L4-L5 in lateral decubitus position keeping the operated side dependent and remained in this position for 10 min before turning supine.
- Group 2 : Group (B) Prilocaine group n = 50 patients received 40 mg (low dose) intrathecal hyperbaric prilocaine 2% (Takipril, Sunny Medical group, Egypt under liscense from Sintetica, Switzerland)in 2 mL volume as described in group A. The injection will be in the midline over 30 s by 25 gauge (G) Quincke needle under strict aseptic condition.
Inclusion Criteria :
100 elderly patients (60 years old or above), of either gender, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, II, and III who were scheduled for elective knee and below knee orthopedic surgeries expected to the last for 40-60 min under spinal anesthesia.
Exclusion Criteria :
Patients height < 1.55 or > 1.75 m, with other neurological diseases, spine abnormalities, absolute, and relative contraindications to spinal anesthesia as patients suffering from intracranial hypertension, major bleeding disorder, patients on anticoagulant, local infection, dementia, and allergic reaction to local anesthetics.
Sample Size ( number of participants included ) 100 patients
Methodology in details :
All patients received Ringer's lactate infusion 5 mL/ kg and maintained intraoperatively with a rate of 5 mL/kg/h. before performance of subarachnoid blockade. Baseline heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded. Patients were allocated to either study groups using a randomized central computer generated sequence and a sealed envelope assignment held by an investigator not involved with the clinical management or data collection, and they were randomly allocated into two groups as follows: Group (A) Bupivacaine group n = 50 patients who received 7.5 mg (low dose) hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (Marcaine®, AstraZeneca, Sweden) in 2 mL volume (1.5 mL hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% diluted with 0.5 mL sterile distilled water) intrathecal at level lumbar L3-L4 or L4-L5 in lateral decubitus position keeping the operated side dependent and remained in this position for 10 min before turning supine. Moreover, Group (B) Prilocaine group n = 50 patients received 40 mg (low dose) intrathecal hyperbaric prilocaine 2% (Takipril, Sunny Medical group, Egypt under liscense from Sintetica, Switzerland)in 2 mL volume as described in group A. The injection will be in the midline over 30 s by 25 gauge (G) Quincke needle under strict aseptic condition. The study solution was prepared by another investigator and its content blinded to the anesthetist who administered it, the anesthesiologist who will collect the data will be unaware about any of the experimental groups. If adequate surgical anesthesia was not achieved, general anesthesia was performed, and patient was excluded from our study. HR, SBP, DBP, MAP and SpO2 were recorded every 5-minute interval until the end of the surgery.
- Conditions
- Recruitment
- Being tested
- Bupivacain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
BupivacainDrug
Also called prilocaine
drug injection
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group (A) Bupivacaine group | Active comparator | who received 7.5 mg (low dose) hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% Receives: Drug: Bupivacain |
| Group (B) Prilocaine group | Active comparator | patients received 40 mg (low dose) intrathecal hyperbaric prilocaine Receives: Drug: Bupivacain |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The rate of occurrence of hypotension
mean arterial blood pressure
Measured: intraoperative
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Apr 2024
- Study start23 Apr 2024
- Primary completion25 Jul 2024
- Study completion15 Aug 2024
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 RecruitmentStudies 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 1/2
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Fayoum University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mohamed Ahmed Hamed, Fayoum University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06382220
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R550
- Status last verified
- Mar 2025
- First submitted
- 19 Apr 2024
- Last updated
- 11 Mar 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: NO SHARE
Publications
Neuman MD, Silber JH, Elkassabany NM, Ludwig JM, Fleisher LA. Comparative effectiveness of regional versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. Anesthesiology. 2012 Jul;117(1):72-92. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182545e7c.
PubMed 22713634Neuman MD, Fleisher LA, Even-Shoshan O, Mi L, Silber JH. Nonoperative care for hip fracture in the elderly: the influence of race, income, and comorbidities. Med Care. 2010 Apr;48(4):314-20. doi: 10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181ca4126.
PubMed 20355262
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Mar 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Low Dose Bupivacaine Versus Prilocaine Regarding Hemodynamic Stability and Safety in Geriatrics: A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparative Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06382220
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- R550
- Conditions
- Recruitment
- Phase
- Phase 1/2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Fayoum University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 23 Apr 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 25 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Aug 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Apr 2024 (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.
Orthopedic interventions under spinal anesthesia is considered a common practice in elderly patients undergo surgery, and may be associated with lower risks of death, delirium,and major medical complications .
Spinal anesthesia can cause disastrous hemodynamical changes in the form of hypotension and bradycardia in elderly patients due to limited physiological reserve and presence of systemic illness . The degree of hypotension is proportional to the extent of sympathetic blockade. thus unilateral Spinal anesthesia described by Tanasichuk et AL. was used aiming to minimize these hymodynamical changes compared to bilateral block by restricting the extent of sympathetic blockade.
Bupivacaine has been used in spinal anaesthesia in orthodecic surgeries . It provides a short motor block onset time with a long motor block duration . If bupivacaine is used, the main disadvantage is the significant inter-individual variability with clinically significant differences in onset time, dermatomal spread and motor block duration . Prilocaine is a local anaesthetic agent that belongs to the same family as bupivacaine. In the last decade and with the development of day surgery, prilocaine 2% has become more commonly used for orthopaedic surgical procedures . Prilocaine induces a shorter motor block with less urinary retention, which better facilitates enhanced recovery after surgery . Usually, doses administered in spinal anaesthesia vary from 20 to 80 mg . Given the intermediate motor block duration,
The aim of this study
To compare between Unilateral low dose spinal anesthesia using bupivacaine versus prilocaine regarding hemodynamical stability and safety in below knee orthopedic surgeries in elderly people.
Detailed description
This study will be performed in the in the FAYOUM University hospital after the local Institutional Ethics Committee and local institutional review board approval. The study design will be double-blind randomized controlled study . A detailed informed consent will be signed by the eligible patients before recruitment and randomization.
Population of Study
- Group 1 : Group (A) Bupivacaine group n = 50 patients who received 7.5 mg (low dose) hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (Marcaine®, AstraZeneca, Sweden) in 2 mL volume (1.5 mL hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% diluted with 0.5 mL sterile distilled water) intrathecal at level lumbar L3-L4 or L4-L5 in lateral decubitus position keeping the operated side dependent and remained in this position for 10 min before turning supine.
- Group 2 : Group (B) Prilocaine group n = 50 patients received 40 mg (low dose) intrathecal hyperbaric prilocaine 2% (Takipril, Sunny Medical group, Egypt under liscense from Sintetica, Switzerland)in 2 mL volume as described in group A. The injection will be in the midline over 30 s by 25 gauge (G) Quincke needle under strict aseptic condition.
Inclusion Criteria :
100 elderly patients (60 years old or above), of either gender, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, II, and III who were scheduled for elective knee and below knee orthopedic surgeries expected to the last for 40-60 min under spinal anesthesia.
Exclusion Criteria :
Patients height < 1.55 or > 1.75 m, with other neurological diseases, spine abnormalities, absolute, and relative contraindications to spinal anesthesia as patients suffering from intracranial hypertension, major bleeding disorder, patients on anticoagulant, local infection, dementia, and allergic reaction to local anesthetics.
Sample Size ( number of participants included ) 100 patients
Methodology in details :
All patients received Ringer's lactate infusion 5 mL/ kg and maintained intraoperatively with a rate of 5 mL/kg/h. before performance of subarachnoid blockade. Baseline heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded. Patients were allocated to either study groups using a randomized central computer generated sequence and a sealed envelope assignment held by an investigator not involved with the clinical management or data collection, and they were randomly allocated into two groups as follows: Group (A) Bupivacaine group n = 50 patients who received 7.5 mg (low dose) hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (Marcaine®, AstraZeneca, Sweden) in 2 mL volume (1.5 mL hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% diluted with 0.5 mL sterile distilled water) intrathecal at level lumbar L3-L4 or L4-L5 in lateral decubitus position keeping the operated side dependent and remained in this position for 10 min before turning supine. Moreover, Group (B) Prilocaine group n = 50 patients received 40 mg (low dose) intrathecal hyperbaric prilocaine 2% (Takipril, Sunny Medical group, Egypt under liscense from Sintetica, Switzerland)in 2 mL volume as described in group A. The injection will be in the midline over 30 s by 25 gauge (G) Quincke needle under strict aseptic condition. The study solution was prepared by another investigator and its content blinded to the anesthetist who administered it, the anesthesiologist who will collect the data will be unaware about any of the experimental groups. If adequate surgical anesthesia was not achieved, general anesthesia was performed, and patient was excluded from our study. HR, SBP, DBP, MAP and SpO2 were recorded every 5-minute interval until the end of the surgery.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Group (A) Bupivacaine group | Active comparator | Drug: Bupivacainwho received 7.5 mg (low dose) hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% |
| Group (B) Prilocaine group | Active comparator | Drug: Bupivacainpatients received 40 mg (low dose) intrathecal hyperbaric prilocaine |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 to 90 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- elderly patients (60 years old or above)
- either gender
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, II, and III who were scheduled for elective knee and below knee orthopedic surgeries expected to the last for 40-60 min under spinal anesthesia.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients height < 1.55 or > 1.75 m,
- with other neurological diseases, spine abnormalities,
- absolute, and relative contraindications to spinal anesthesia as patients suffering from intracranial hypertension, major bleeding disorder, patients on anticoagulant, local infection, dementia, and allergic reaction 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 |
|---|---|---|
| BupivacainAlso: prilocainedrug injection | Drug | Group (A) Bupivacaine group, Group (B) Prilocaine group |
Primary outcome
The rate of occurrence of hypotension
Time frame: intraoperative
mean arterial blood pressure
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 11 Mar 2025.
- Background: PubMed 22713634Neuman MD, Silber JH, Elkassabany NM, Ludwig JM, Fleisher LA. Comparative effectiveness of regional versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. Anesthesiology. 2012 Jul;117(1):72-92. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182545e7c.
- Results publication: PubMed 20355262Neuman MD, Fleisher LA, Even-Shoshan O, Mi L, Silber JH. Nonoperative care for hip fracture in the elderly: the influence of race, income, and comorbidities. Med Care. 2010 Apr;48(4):314-20. doi: 10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181ca4126.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. NO SHARE
Related trials for Recruitment
Recruiting
Adaptive Recruitment Curve Analysis Using Bayesian Modeling
Modeling of Recruitment Curves
Active, not recruiting
Developing a Learning COmmunity to Increase eNgagemeNt and Enrollment in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials (CONNECT)
Cardiovascular Diseases, Hypertension
RecruitingPhase 4
Sotatercept in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Pulmonary Artery Hypertension
RecruitingObservational study
A Multilevel Approach to Connecting Underrepresented Populations to Clinical Trials
Cancer
Recruiting
Applying CSNAT in HBPC as an Approach to Elder Mistreatment Risk Reduction
Caregiver Stress, Caregiver Health Related QOL
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 Phase 1/2 study testing Bupivacain in people with Recruitment, run by Fayoum University Hospital 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 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 11 Mar 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 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.
What does this combined phase mean?
Phase 1 studies test a treatment in a small group of people for the first time or in a new way, mainly to check safety and find the right dose.
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
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 rate of occurrence of hypotension (time frame: intraoperative). 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 NCT06382220, 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 11 Mar 2025.