Labor PainNCT07708909
Two Different Sized Spinal Needles DPE vs Conventional Epidural Technique
A study testing Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 27G, Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 25G and Conventional epidural in people with Labor Pain and Dural Puncture Epidural Technique, run by Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS.
Trial summary
DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is an alternative to the conventional epidural analgesia and technically a Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) with omission of intrathecal drugs administration. To date, literature has proved several advantages of the DPEA techniquecompared to conventional epidural. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 10 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Labor Pain, Dural Puncture Epidural Technique
- What is being tested?
- Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 27G, Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 25G and Conventional epidural
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 240 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2026to 31 Dec 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 10 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- nulliparous women
- between the 36th and 42nd gestational week
- active labor and with a cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm
Who cannot join
- age < 18 years
- ASA status > 2
- patient's refusal
- known fetal pathologies
- contraindications to neuraxial techniques
- uterine anomalies or previous uterine surgery
- BMI ≥ 35
- twinning and fetal malpresentation (non cephalic).
About this study
Official title: Dural Pubcture Epidural Performed With Two Different Sized Spinal Needles vs Conventional Epidural Technique: a Triple Randomized Comparison to Evaluate Quality of Labor Analgesia
DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is an alternative to the conventional epidural analgesia and technically a Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) with omission of intrathecal drugs administration.
To date, literature has proved several advantages of the DPEA techniquecompared to conventional epidural.
Read more
However, these advantages are supposed to be limited to the use of 25 Gauge spinal needles.
The aim of this project is to compare the quality of analgesia achieved after a DPEA technique performed with a 25 Gauge spinal needle versus a 27 Gauge spinal needle versus a conventional epidural, with a PIEB pump installed for analgesia maintenance.
The Primary outcome will be the quality of analgesia, defined as the area under the curve (AUC) of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS 100-0) ≤ 30 measured throughout labor and divided by labor duration (TWA-NPRS).
240 nulliparous women between the 36th and 42nd gestational week in active labor and with a cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm will be randomized according to a computer-generated random number sequence to receive a DPEA with a 25 Gauge spinal needle, a DPEA with a 27 Gauge spinal needle, or a conventional epidural.
Read the detailed description
DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is an alternative to the conventional epidural analgesia and technically a Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) with omission of intrathecal drugs administration.
Analgesia is achieved through the effect of epidural agents and their partial translocation into the intrathecal space.
To date, literature has proved several advantages of the DPEA technique, such as confirmation of epidural needle placement and lower rates of malfunctioning epidural catheters with reduced need for their manipulation or resiting. Overall, DPEA seems to mitigate some limitations of the conventional epidural technique while reducing the side effects associated with the CSE technique (fetal bradycardia, uterine hypertonus and pruritus).
However, these advantages are supposed to be limited to the use of atraumatic 25 Gauge spinal needles, and evidence mostly come from studies that compared the DPEA performed with 25 Gauge or 27 Gauge spinal needles with the conventional epidural or with the CSE.
The only direct comparison between two spinal needles of different sizes as part of a DPEA technique (25 vs 27 Gauge) was published by Contreras et al in 2019, who evaluated the onset time of the analgesic effect.
The aim of this project is to compare the quality of analgesia achieved after a DPEA technique performed with a 25 Gauge spinal needle versus a 27 Gauge spinal needle versus a conventional epidural, with a PIEB pump installed for analgesia maintenance.
The Primary outcome will be the quality of analgesia, defined as the area under the curve (AUC) of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS 100-0) ≤ 30 measured throughout labor and divided by labor duration (TWA-NPRS).
Secondary outcomes will be a composite outcome of patient satisfaction (consisting of 5 points - comfort in the first 30 minutes, comfort throughout labor, presence of asymmetric block, manipulation/resiting of the epidural catheter, total anesthetic volume, analgesia onset time, NPRS and level of sensory block.
Exploratory oytcomes will be the number of episodes of breakthrough pain, the nincidence of motor block, the incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery and cesarean section, the maternal hemodynamic changes, the incidence of uterine hypertonicity and fetal cardiotocographic abnormalities, the presence of nausea/vomiting and pruritus, the incidence of dural puncture headache, the fetal well-being.
The hypothesys is that the quality of analgesia is superior with the DPEA technique performed with a 25 Gauge spinal needle.
Recently published RCTs proved several benefits of the DPEA technique performed with both 25 and 27 Gauge spinal needles, such as no significant differences in the quality of labor analgesia following initiation of a CSE compared with a 25 Gauge DPEA, faster onset of labor analgesia with good sacral coverage of a double 25 Gauge DPEA compared with the conventional epidural and faster sacral blockade of a 27 Gauge DPEA compared with the conventional epidural. Moreover a 35% reduction in the bupivacaine dose to achieve initial ED90 analgesia has been found in a group of parturients randomized to receive a 25 Gauge DPEA compared to those who receive a conventional epidural.
All these findings indicate that the flow rate of anesthetic through the dura and the consequent analgesic effect resulting from a 25 Gauge DPEA is effective, but direct comparisons of 25 and 27 Gauge spinal needles as part of a DPEA technique are scarce as the only evidence reported to date is that labor analgesia onset time is 1,6 minutes shorter after a 25 Gauge DPEA compared with a 27 Gauge DPEA, which may not be clinically relevant.
After obtaining informed consent, nulliparous women between the 36th and 42nd gestational week in active labor and with a cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm will be randomized according to a computer-generated random number sequence to receive a DPEA with a 25 Gauge spinal needle, a DPEA with a 27 Gauge spinal needle, or a conventional epidural.
Exclusion criteria will be: age < 18 years, ASA status > 2, patient's refusal, known fetal pathologies, contraindications to neuraxial techniques, uterine anomalies or previous uterine surgery, BMI ≥ 35, twinning and fetal malpresentation (non cephalic). With the patient in the sitting position, the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle with a loss-of-resistance to saline technique, as per standard clinical practice.
Patients in the DPEA groups will also receive an intentional dural puncture with a 25 Gauge or 27 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, depending on randomization, using the needle-through-needle technique.
In all patients, a 20 Gauge multi-port epidural catheter will be inserted 5 cm into the epidural space and adequately secured as per standard clinical practice. After a negative aspiration test for blood and cerebrospinal fluid, all patients will receive a mixture of 15 ml of 0,1% ropivacaine plus 0,5 mcg/ml sufentanil in the epidural catheter. Analgesia will be maintained in all groups with a PIEB pump (CADD®-Solis 2110 Infusion System, Smith Medical, USA) providing boluses of 10 ml of ropivacaine 0,1% + sufentanil 0,5 mcg/ml hourly at a flow rate of 250 mL/h . In case of breakthrough pain (NPRS ≥ 30), a manual top up of ropivacaine 0,13% 10 ml will be administered. A dose of ropivacaine 0,15% 10 ml will instead be used to treat breakthrough pain at full cervical dilation. In case of unilateral block (difference of > 2 dermatomal levels between the two sides), the patient will be positioned in the lateral decubitus on the side with discomfort and a rescue dose will be provided. If the block persists after 10 minutes, the epidural catheter will be withdrawn 1 cm and a further rescue dose will be administered. If this fails, the epidural catheter will be repositioned.
Pain will be reported in a data collection form using the NPRS scale (from 100 to 0 mm) starting from the end of the administration of the first epidural dose at the following intervals: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 60 minutes and then every hour.
A further pain assessment will be performed 15 minutes after each rescue dose. Data that constitute secondary outcomes will be collected starting from 30 minutes after the first epidural dose administration and every hour thereafter.
At the beginning of the second stage the sensory block level will be checked using a pinprick test.
Fetal well-being (Apgar Score) and maternal satisfaction will be recorded after delivery, while the presence of dural puncture headache will be checked 24 and 48 hours after delivery.
The quality of analgesia will be defined as the weighted average of the NPRS over time, which is equivalent to the area under the curve of the NPRS divided by the duration of labor. Based on a previous study, a 35% reduction in the DPEA 25 Gauge group at 1.5 has been hypothesized. Power analysis comparing the means of three groups with one-way ANOVA (alpha 0.05, power 80%) showed that a minimum of 68 patients per group is required. Considering a possible dropout rate of 15%, this number was increased to 80.
The analysis will be conducted according to an intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. To evaluate the primary outcome and the time-to-event variables, Kaplan-Meier curves and the two-sample log-rank test will be used, according to the Peto method (equivalent to the modification of the Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test) for the primary outcome.
Events occurring at the same time interval will be compared using the Efron method. The assumption of proportionality of risks will be verified graphically and based on the partial residuals of Schoenfeld, while the identification of outliers will be based on the residuals of deviation. The sample will be described with regard to its clinical and demographic characteristics using descriptive statistics techniques. Continuous quantitative variables with a normal distribution will be reported as mean and standard deviation or as median, and non-normal variables will be reported as the 25th or 75th percentile. The Mann-Whitney test will be used to compare the distributions of continuous quantitative variables. Missing data will be presented as absolute values and percentages, n (%). For comparisons between categorical data, results will be reported as RRs, 95% confidence intervals, and P-values based on the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. A P-value <0.05 will be considered significant. All analyses will be performed with the R statistical software (version 3.6.2) (R-project.org/foundation).
- Conditions
- Labor Pain, Dural Puncture Epidural Technique
- Being tested
- Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 27G, Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 25G, Conventional epidural
- Medical subject headings
- Labor Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 27GDevice
Patients will receive an intentional dural puncture with a 27 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, using the needle-through-needle technique.
Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 25GDevice
Patients will receive an intentional dural puncture with a 27 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, using the needle-through-needle technique.
Conventional epiduralDevice
Patients will receive a conventional epidural (the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| DPEA 27G | Experimental | Patients in the DPEA 27G group will receive an intentional dural puncture with a 27 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, using the needle-through-needle technique (the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle). Receives: Device: Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 27G |
| DPEA 25G | Experimental | Patients in the DPEA 25G group will receive an intentional dural puncture with a 25 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, using the needle-through-needle technique (the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle). Receives: Device: Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 25G |
| Epidural | Active comparator | Patients in the Epidural group will receive a conventional epidural (the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle). Receives: Device: Conventional epidural |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Quality of analgesia
Time-Weighted Average Area Under the Curve (TWA-AUC) of Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS 100-0) during labour.
Measured: From the beginning of analgesia to the end of labour
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Jul 2026
- Study start1 Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Aug 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Labor PainStudies 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
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 240 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07708909
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 27774
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 13 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 29 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Gunaydin B, Erel S. How neuraxial labor analgesia differs by approach: dural puncture epidural as a novel option. J Anesth. 2019 Feb;33(1):125-130. doi: 10.1007/s00540-018-2564-y. Epub 2018 Oct 6.
PubMed 30293143Chau A, Bibbo C, Huang CC, Elterman KG, Cappiello EC, Robinson JN, Tsen LC. Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Improves Labor Analgesia Quality With Fewer Side Effects Compared With Epidural and Combined Spinal Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Analg. 2017 Feb;124(2):560-569. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001798.
PubMed 28067707Chau A, Tsen LC. Update on Modalities and Techniques for Labor Epidural Analgesia and Anesthesia. Adv Anesth. 2018 Dec;36(1):139-162. doi: 10.1016/j.aan.2018.07.006. Epub 2018 Sep 27. No abstract available.
PubMed 30414635Cappiello E, O'Rourke N, Segal S, Tsen LC. A randomized trial of dural puncture epidural technique compared with the standard epidural technique for labor analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2008 Nov;107(5):1646-51. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318184ec14.
PubMed 18931227Contreras F, Morales J, Bravo D, Layera S, Jara A, Riano C, Pizarro R, De La Fuente N, Aliste J, Finlayson RJ, Tran DQ. Dural puncture epidural analgesia for labor: a randomized comparison between 25-gauge and 27-gauge pencil point spinal needles. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 May 22:rapm-2019-100608. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100608. Online ahead of print.
PubMed 31118278Zhang B, Xu M, Pan C, Chen N, Shi L, Zhou Y, Liu T. Effect of dural puncture epidural block technique on fetal heart rate variability during labor analgesia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2024 Dec;37(1):2370398. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2024.2370398. Epub 2024 Jun 27.
PubMed 38937119Yu H, Wang JF, Wang S, Wang Y, Tang G, Sun YE, Zeng YM, Cheng W. Double dural puncture epidural improves quality of labour analgesia without increasing adverse effects in primipara: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2025 Sep 1;42(9):774-782. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002198. Epub 2025 May 21.
PubMed 40400287Frassanito L, Filetici N, Piersanti A, Vassalli F, Van De Velde M, Tsen LC, Zanfini BA, Catarci S, Ciancia M, Scorzoni M, Olivieri C, Draisci G. Sacral sensory blockade from 27-gauge pencil-point dural puncture epidural analgesia or epidural analgesia in laboring nulliparous parturients: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2024 Nov;60:104217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104217. Epub 2024 Jun 14.
PubMed 39024984Maeda A, Villela-Franyutti D, Lumbreras-Marquez MI, Murthy A, Fields KG, Justice S, Tsen LC. Labor Analgesia Initiation With Dural Puncture Epidural Versus Conventional Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Biased-Coin Sequential Allocation Trial to Determine the Effective Dose for 90% of Patients of Bupivacaine. Anesth Analg. 2024 Jun 1;138(6):1205-1214. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006691. Epub 2023 Oct 12.
PubMed 37824436Thangamuthu A, Russell IF, Purva M. Epidural failure rate using a standardised definition. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2013 Nov;22(4):310-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2013.04.013. Epub 2013 Aug 6.
PubMed 23932551
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Dural Pubcture Epidural Performed With Two Different Sized Spinal Needles vs Conventional Epidural Technique: a Triple Randomized Comparison to Evaluate Quality of Labor Analgesia
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07708909
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 27774
- Conditions
- Labor Pain, Dural Puncture Epidural Technique
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 240 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCSUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Aug 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 16 Jul 2026 (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.
DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is an alternative to the conventional epidural analgesia and technically a Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) with omission of intrathecal drugs administration.
To date, literature has proved several advantages of the DPEA techniquecompared to conventional epidural.
However, these advantages are supposed to be limited to the use of 25 Gauge spinal needles.
The aim of this project is to compare the quality of analgesia achieved after a DPEA technique performed with a 25 Gauge spinal needle versus a 27 Gauge spinal needle versus a conventional epidural, with a PIEB pump installed for analgesia maintenance.
The Primary outcome will be the quality of analgesia, defined as the area under the curve (AUC) of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS 100-0) ≤ 30 measured throughout labor and divided by labor duration (TWA-NPRS).
240 nulliparous women between the 36th and 42nd gestational week in active labor and with a cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm will be randomized according to a computer-generated random number sequence to receive a DPEA with a 25 Gauge spinal needle, a DPEA with a 27 Gauge spinal needle, or a conventional epidural.
Detailed description
DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is an alternative to the conventional epidural analgesia and technically a Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) with omission of intrathecal drugs administration.
Analgesia is achieved through the effect of epidural agents and their partial translocation into the intrathecal space.
To date, literature has proved several advantages of the DPEA technique, such as confirmation of epidural needle placement and lower rates of malfunctioning epidural catheters with reduced need for their manipulation or resiting. Overall, DPEA seems to mitigate some limitations of the conventional epidural technique while reducing the side effects associated with the CSE technique (fetal bradycardia, uterine hypertonus and pruritus).
However, these advantages are supposed to be limited to the use of atraumatic 25 Gauge spinal needles, and evidence mostly come from studies that compared the DPEA performed with 25 Gauge or 27 Gauge spinal needles with the conventional epidural or with the CSE.
The only direct comparison between two spinal needles of different sizes as part of a DPEA technique (25 vs 27 Gauge) was published by Contreras et al in 2019, who evaluated the onset time of the analgesic effect.
The aim of this project is to compare the quality of analgesia achieved after a DPEA technique performed with a 25 Gauge spinal needle versus a 27 Gauge spinal needle versus a conventional epidural, with a PIEB pump installed for analgesia maintenance.
The Primary outcome will be the quality of analgesia, defined as the area under the curve (AUC) of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS 100-0) ≤ 30 measured throughout labor and divided by labor duration (TWA-NPRS).
Secondary outcomes will be a composite outcome of patient satisfaction (consisting of 5 points - comfort in the first 30 minutes, comfort throughout labor, presence of asymmetric block, manipulation/resiting of the epidural catheter, total anesthetic volume, analgesia onset time, NPRS and level of sensory block.
Exploratory oytcomes will be the number of episodes of breakthrough pain, the nincidence of motor block, the incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery and cesarean section, the maternal hemodynamic changes, the incidence of uterine hypertonicity and fetal cardiotocographic abnormalities, the presence of nausea/vomiting and pruritus, the incidence of dural puncture headache, the fetal well-being.
The hypothesys is that the quality of analgesia is superior with the DPEA technique performed with a 25 Gauge spinal needle.
Recently published RCTs proved several benefits of the DPEA technique performed with both 25 and 27 Gauge spinal needles, such as no significant differences in the quality of labor analgesia following initiation of a CSE compared with a 25 Gauge DPEA, faster onset of labor analgesia with good sacral coverage of a double 25 Gauge DPEA compared with the conventional epidural and faster sacral blockade of a 27 Gauge DPEA compared with the conventional epidural. Moreover a 35% reduction in the bupivacaine dose to achieve initial ED90 analgesia has been found in a group of parturients randomized to receive a 25 Gauge DPEA compared to those who receive a conventional epidural.
All these findings indicate that the flow rate of anesthetic through the dura and the consequent analgesic effect resulting from a 25 Gauge DPEA is effective, but direct comparisons of 25 and 27 Gauge spinal needles as part of a DPEA technique are scarce as the only evidence reported to date is that labor analgesia onset time is 1,6 minutes shorter after a 25 Gauge DPEA compared with a 27 Gauge DPEA, which may not be clinically relevant.
After obtaining informed consent, nulliparous women between the 36th and 42nd gestational week in active labor and with a cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm will be randomized according to a computer-generated random number sequence to receive a DPEA with a 25 Gauge spinal needle, a DPEA with a 27 Gauge spinal needle, or a conventional epidural.
Exclusion criteria will be: age < 18 years, ASA status > 2, patient's refusal, known fetal pathologies, contraindications to neuraxial techniques, uterine anomalies or previous uterine surgery, BMI ≥ 35, twinning and fetal malpresentation (non cephalic). With the patient in the sitting position, the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle with a loss-of-resistance to saline technique, as per standard clinical practice.
Patients in the DPEA groups will also receive an intentional dural puncture with a 25 Gauge or 27 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, depending on randomization, using the needle-through-needle technique.
In all patients, a 20 Gauge multi-port epidural catheter will be inserted 5 cm into the epidural space and adequately secured as per standard clinical practice. After a negative aspiration test for blood and cerebrospinal fluid, all patients will receive a mixture of 15 ml of 0,1% ropivacaine plus 0,5 mcg/ml sufentanil in the epidural catheter. Analgesia will be maintained in all groups with a PIEB pump (CADD®-Solis 2110 Infusion System, Smith Medical, USA) providing boluses of 10 ml of ropivacaine 0,1% + sufentanil 0,5 mcg/ml hourly at a flow rate of 250 mL/h . In case of breakthrough pain (NPRS ≥ 30), a manual top up of ropivacaine 0,13% 10 ml will be administered. A dose of ropivacaine 0,15% 10 ml will instead be used to treat breakthrough pain at full cervical dilation. In case of unilateral block (difference of > 2 dermatomal levels between the two sides), the patient will be positioned in the lateral decubitus on the side with discomfort and a rescue dose will be provided. If the block persists after 10 minutes, the epidural catheter will be withdrawn 1 cm and a further rescue dose will be administered. If this fails, the epidural catheter will be repositioned.
Pain will be reported in a data collection form using the NPRS scale (from 100 to 0 mm) starting from the end of the administration of the first epidural dose at the following intervals: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 60 minutes and then every hour.
A further pain assessment will be performed 15 minutes after each rescue dose. Data that constitute secondary outcomes will be collected starting from 30 minutes after the first epidural dose administration and every hour thereafter.
At the beginning of the second stage the sensory block level will be checked using a pinprick test.
Fetal well-being (Apgar Score) and maternal satisfaction will be recorded after delivery, while the presence of dural puncture headache will be checked 24 and 48 hours after delivery.
The quality of analgesia will be defined as the weighted average of the NPRS over time, which is equivalent to the area under the curve of the NPRS divided by the duration of labor. Based on a previous study, a 35% reduction in the DPEA 25 Gauge group at 1.5 has been hypothesized. Power analysis comparing the means of three groups with one-way ANOVA (alpha 0.05, power 80%) showed that a minimum of 68 patients per group is required. Considering a possible dropout rate of 15%, this number was increased to 80.
The analysis will be conducted according to an intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. To evaluate the primary outcome and the time-to-event variables, Kaplan-Meier curves and the two-sample log-rank test will be used, according to the Peto method (equivalent to the modification of the Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test) for the primary outcome.
Events occurring at the same time interval will be compared using the Efron method. The assumption of proportionality of risks will be verified graphically and based on the partial residuals of Schoenfeld, while the identification of outliers will be based on the residuals of deviation. The sample will be described with regard to its clinical and demographic characteristics using descriptive statistics techniques. Continuous quantitative variables with a normal distribution will be reported as mean and standard deviation or as median, and non-normal variables will be reported as the 25th or 75th percentile. The Mann-Whitney test will be used to compare the distributions of continuous quantitative variables. Missing data will be presented as absolute values and percentages, n (%). For comparisons between categorical data, results will be reported as RRs, 95% confidence intervals, and P-values based on the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. A P-value <0.05 will be considered significant. All analyses will be performed with the R statistical software (version 3.6.2) (R-project.org/foundation).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| DPEA 27G | Experimental | Device: Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 27GPatients in the DPEA 27G group will receive an intentional dural puncture with a 27 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, using the needle-through-needle technique (the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle). |
| DPEA 25G | Experimental | Device: Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 25GPatients in the DPEA 25G group will receive an intentional dural puncture with a 25 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, using the needle-through-needle technique (the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle). |
| Epidural | Active comparator | Device: Conventional epiduralPatients in the Epidural group will receive a conventional epidural (the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 10 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- nulliparous women
- between the 36th and 42nd gestational week
- active labor and with a cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- age < 18 years
- ASA status > 2
- patient's refusal
- known fetal pathologies
- contraindications to neuraxial techniques
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 27GPatients will receive an intentional dural puncture with a 27 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, using the needle-through-needle technique. | Device | DPEA 27G |
| Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 25GPatients will receive an intentional dural puncture with a 27 Gauge Whitacre spinal needle, using the needle-through-needle technique. | Device | DPEA 25G |
| Conventional epiduralPatients will receive a conventional epidural (the epidural space will be identified using a 18 Gauge Tuohy needle). | Device | Epidural |
Primary outcome
Quality of analgesia
Time frame: From the beginning of analgesia to the end of labour
Time-Weighted Average Area Under the Curve (TWA-AUC) of Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS 100-0) during labour.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Jul 2026.
- Results publication: PubMed 30293143Gunaydin B, Erel S. How neuraxial labor analgesia differs by approach: dural puncture epidural as a novel option. J Anesth. 2019 Feb;33(1):125-130. doi: 10.1007/s00540-018-2564-y. Epub 2018 Oct 6.
- Results publication: PubMed 28067707Chau A, Bibbo C, Huang CC, Elterman KG, Cappiello EC, Robinson JN, Tsen LC. Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Improves Labor Analgesia Quality With Fewer Side Effects Compared With Epidural and Combined Spinal Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Analg. 2017 Feb;124(2):560-569. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001798.
- Results publication: PubMed 30414635Chau A, Tsen LC. Update on Modalities and Techniques for Labor Epidural Analgesia and Anesthesia. Adv Anesth. 2018 Dec;36(1):139-162. doi: 10.1016/j.aan.2018.07.006. Epub 2018 Sep 27. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 18931227Cappiello E, O'Rourke N, Segal S, Tsen LC. A randomized trial of dural puncture epidural technique compared with the standard epidural technique for labor analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2008 Nov;107(5):1646-51. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318184ec14.
- Results publication: PubMed 31118278Contreras F, Morales J, Bravo D, Layera S, Jara A, Riano C, Pizarro R, De La Fuente N, Aliste J, Finlayson RJ, Tran DQ. Dural puncture epidural analgesia for labor: a randomized comparison between 25-gauge and 27-gauge pencil point spinal needles. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 May 22:rapm-2019-100608. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100608. Online ahead of print.
- Results publication: PubMed 38937119Zhang B, Xu M, Pan C, Chen N, Shi L, Zhou Y, Liu T. Effect of dural puncture epidural block technique on fetal heart rate variability during labor analgesia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2024 Dec;37(1):2370398. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2024.2370398. Epub 2024 Jun 27.
- Results publication: PubMed 40400287Yu H, Wang JF, Wang S, Wang Y, Tang G, Sun YE, Zeng YM, Cheng W. Double dural puncture epidural improves quality of labour analgesia without increasing adverse effects in primipara: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2025 Sep 1;42(9):774-782. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002198. Epub 2025 May 21.
- Results publication: PubMed 39024984Frassanito L, Filetici N, Piersanti A, Vassalli F, Van De Velde M, Tsen LC, Zanfini BA, Catarci S, Ciancia M, Scorzoni M, Olivieri C, Draisci G. Sacral sensory blockade from 27-gauge pencil-point dural puncture epidural analgesia or epidural analgesia in laboring nulliparous parturients: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2024 Nov;60:104217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104217. Epub 2024 Jun 14.
- Results publication: PubMed 37824436Maeda A, Villela-Franyutti D, Lumbreras-Marquez MI, Murthy A, Fields KG, Justice S, Tsen LC. Labor Analgesia Initiation With Dural Puncture Epidural Versus Conventional Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Biased-Coin Sequential Allocation Trial to Determine the Effective Dose for 90% of Patients of Bupivacaine. Anesth Analg. 2024 Jun 1;138(6):1205-1214. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006691. Epub 2023 Oct 12.
- Results publication: PubMed 23932551Thangamuthu A, Russell IF, Purva M. Epidural failure rate using a standardised definition. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2013 Nov;22(4):310-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2013.04.013. Epub 2013 Aug 6.
Related trials for Labor Pain
Not yet recruiting
The 90% Effective Initial Volume for Labor Analgesia Under Double Dural Puncture Epidural Technique
Labor Pain
Not yet recruiting
Initiation Ropivacaine Dose for Labor Analgesia Via Double Dural Puncture Epidural Technique
Labor Pain
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Effect of Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia on Oxytocin in Early vs Late Labor
Labor Analgesia, Labor Pain
Not yet recruiting
Elevated Midline Positioning During Diaper Change in Preterm Infants
Infant, Premature, Diseases, Premature Birth of Newborn
Not yet recruiting
THE EFFECT OF LISTENING TO SURAH ABESE (VERSES 19-20) DURING CHILDBIRTH ON VAGINAL BIRTH SELF-EFFICACY, BIRTH BELIEFS, AND PAIN PERCEPTION
Labor Pain and to Reduce Pain, Birth Beliefs
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.
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 Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 27G, Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia 25G and Conventional epidural in people with Labor Pain and Dural Puncture Epidural Technique, run by Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS.
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: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Jul 2026. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
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?
Quality of analgesia (time frame: From the beginning of analgesia to the end of labour). 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 NCT07708909, which also lists 10 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 29 Jul 2026.