AzTrials
AzTrials

Local Anesthetic Systemic ToxicityNCT04562103

Ropivacaine Plasma Concentration With or Without Epinephrine for Posterior Quadratus Lumborum Block

A study testing Epinephrine / Ropivacaine and Ropivacaine in people with Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity and Anesthesia, Local, run by Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS at 1 site in Italy.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Introduction The posterior Quadratus Lumborum Block (pQLB) has been used in postoperative pain management after Cesarean Section (CS). However, there are no data about pQLB safety in pregnants, at increased risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older, women only
What is being tested?
Epinephrine / Ropivacaine and Ropivacaine
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
52 participants
Where
1 siteItaly
Study dates
3 Jul 2020to 3 Sep 2020
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 18 years and older
  • Women only
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • first singleton pregnancy at term
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II;
  • caesarean section under Spinal Anesthesia

Who cannot join

  • patients enable to comprehend or use the verbal rating pain scoring system or patient controlled analgesia (PCA) pump;
  • congenital coagulopathy;
  • anatomical abnormalities;
  • localized infections;
  • use of drugs interfering with ropivacaine metabolism.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Italy1 site
  • IRCCS Policlinico Agostino Gemelli

    Rome, 00168

Other trials in Italy

About this study

Official title: Comparison of Ropivacaine Plasma Concentration With or Without Epinephrine for Posterior Quadratus Lumborum Block in Cesarean Section

Introduction The posterior Quadratus Lumborum Block (pQLB) has been used in postoperative pain management after Cesarean Section (CS). However, there are no data about pQLB safety in pregnants, at increased risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). The purpose of the present study was to explore the efficacy and the safety of adding epinephrine to ropivacaine for bilateral pQLB vs. bilateral pQLB performed with ropivacaine alone in CS.

Methods Fifty-two pregnants were consecutively allocated to one of 2 groups [e-pQLB (0.375% ropivacaine+100 mcg epinephrine) or pQLB (0.375% ropivacaine)] and the investigators evaluated if the adjunct of epinephrine to ropivacaine increases of efficacy (measured as opioid consumption during the first 24 postoperative hours, time for first request of opioid and pain values reported by patients) and the safety (measured as peak and plasmatic concentration of ropivacaine) of pQLB.

Read the detailed description

BACKGROUND The posterior Quadratus Lumborum Block (pQLB) is a posterior abdominal wall block in which local anesthetic (LA), administered posteriorly to Quadratus Lumborum (QL) muscle, spreads underneath intermedium layer of thoracolumbar fascia, into a triangular space named lumbar interfacial triangle. This interfascial plane is in close relation to thoracic paravertebral (PV) space. Local anesthetic spread into this space could explain analgesic efficacy of pQLB1. Compared to lateral QLB, in which LA is administered laterally to QL muscle, pQLB is safer (needle tip is separated from the peritoneum by QL muscle) and easier to perform (injection point is more superficial). Posterior QLB efficacy has been demonstrated in major abdominal surgery. In Cesarean Section (CS) pQLB efficacy vs placebo and superior efficacy vs TAP block was showed. Ropivacaine arterial concentration after QLB, in laparoscopic gynaecological surgery has been studied. To the best of our knowledge no author investigated pQLB safety in obstetric population, at increased risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) because of physiological modifications occurring during pregnancy (increased cardiac output, increased arterial and venous blood tissue flow, decreased concentration of plasma binding protein). Adding epinephrine to local anesthetic, determining a delayed AL systemic reabsorption and a reduced plasmatic concentration, could improve pQLB efficacy and safety, as demonstrated for Transversus Abdominal Plain (TAP) block and sciatic and femoral block.

METHODS Patients were consecutively allocated into one of two groups: e-pQLB (0.375% ropivacaine+ 100 mcg epinephrine) or pQLB (0.375% ropivacaine). Before surgery, under local anesthesia, 2 venous accesses were founded, one for fluids and drugs injection and the second one, contralaterally, for venous samples only. During surgical procedure standard hemodynamic monitoring was provided; fetal wellbeing was registered by cardiotocographic monitoring. Supplemental oxygen has was provided by Venturi mask. SA was administered in sitting position, at L3-4 lumbar interspace, using hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% 9 mg plus sufentanil 5 mcg. Surgical procedure started when T4 level has been reached. Posterior QLB was administered at the end of surgical procedure, with patient in supine position, under monitoring and after cleaning the skin with surgical solution (ChloraPrep, Carefusion, 244 LTD, UK). A Sonosite M-Turbo echograph ( FUJIFILM Sonosite Europe, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and a broadband (5-8 MHz) convex probe covered with a sterile plastic sheath have been used. The probe was placed at the level of the anterior superior iliac spine and moved cranially until the three abdominal wall muscles were identified. The external oblique muscle was followed posterolaterally until its posterior border was found. The probe was tilted down to identify the bright hyperechoic line that corresponds with the intermediate layer of the thoracolumbar fascia. The needle (Ultraplex 360, B.Braun Melsungen, Germany) was inserted in plane from medial (anterior) to lateral (posterior). The optimal point of injection was determined using hydrodissection. In e-pQLB group ropivacaine 0.375%+epinephrine 100 mcg 20 ml for each side was administered; in pQLB group ropivacaine 0.375% 20 ml for each side was administered. After block, venous samples (2 ml each) were performed at 10, 30, 45, 60, 120 minutes. The ropivacaine concentration was set at 2.2 mcg/ml, which represents the venous threshold value of systemic toxicity14. To evaluate LAST patients have been asked for perioral tingling, metallic taste, tinnitus, visual disturbance or slurred speech at the time that each blood sample has been obtained.

Intraoperative ketorolac 30 mg and acetaminophen 1 g were administered. After surgery, in Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), a PCA pump was connected to patients and programmed to deliver 1 mg morphine bolus on demand with a lock out interval of 8 min and no background infusion. All patients received regular intravenous paracetamol 1g 6 hourly and intravenous ketorolac 30 mg 12 hourly.

Experimental procedure Chemicals, reagents and equipment Methanol and acetonitrile were HPLC grade and were purchased from VWR Chemicals (Radnor, PA, USA). Water was purified by Millipore Synergy-UV-System (Bedford, MA, USA). 20 % ammonium hydroxide solution was provided by Carlo Erba Reagents (Milan, Italy), acetic acid 99-100% and phosphoric acid ≥ 85% were provided by Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Ropivacaine and Ropivacaine-d7 hydrochloride (used as internal standard, IS) were purchased by USP (Rockville, MD, USA) and Toronto Research Chemicals (North York, ON, Canada), respectively. Neostigmine methylsulphate was provided by LGC Standards (Luckenwalde, Germany).OASIS HLB SPE cartridges (3 mL, 60 mg) were supplied by Waters (Milford, MA, USA). PTFE disposable filters (0.45 µm) were purchased from Membrane solutions (Plano, TX, USA). Visiprep DL SPE Vacuum Manifold was purchased by Supelco/Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). The heating block "Pierce - Reacti-Therm III" was purchased from ThermoFisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA). Centrifuge 5415D supplied by Eppendorf (Hamburg, Germany).1 mg mL-1 stock solutions of ropivacaine and ropivacaine-d7 were prepared in methanol. Working standard solution dilutions were prepared from these latter solutions and were finally diluted by serial dilution to spike blank plasma samples for the construction of matrix-matched calibration curve in order to have final ropivacaine concentrations in the interval of 0.8 - 13.2 ng mL-1. Working solutions were stored at -20 °C and prepared daily. Stock solutions were analysed regularly up to six month after the preparation to assess their stability in the time and whether there was degradation of the analytes.

Plasma sampling Patients' blood samples (5 mL) were collected in tubes containing ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and were added to 25 µL of 20 mg mL-1 neostigmine methylsulfate solution to block esterase activity in the plasma14. The samples were stored in ice-water bath for 10-15 min and then centrifuged at 1300 × g at 4°C for 5 min to obtain plasma. Collected plasma samples were stored at -20 °C until analyzed.

Sample preparation A modified procedure of Toonoka K was used. A 0.2-mL-aliquot of plasma sample was added to 0.3 mL of purified water and vortex-mixed. The diluted sample was spiked with 25 µL of a methanolic solution of ropivacaine-d7 (IS) (85.0 ng mL-1) and added to 0.5 mL of 4 % phosphoric acid solution. The mixture was vortex-mixed and centrifuged (16110 × g, 2 min). The supernatant is then loaded on the OASIS HLB SPE cartridge which was previously conditioned with 2 mL of methanol and equilibrated with 2 mL of purified water. After the washing steps with 2 mL of 5% methanol solution and 2 mL of 2% ammonium hydroxide in a 10% methanol solution, sample was eluted with 2 mL of methanol/ 2% acetic acid (70/30, v/v) solution. The extract was next evaporated under a stream of nitrogen at 30°C and the dry residue was dissolved in 0.2 mL of the mobile phase and filtrated prior to LC-MS/MS analysis (10 μL injection).

LC-MS/MS analysis Analyses were carried out using a LC system Perkin Elmer Series 200 Micro Pump equipped with a PE Series 200 auto sampler (Perkin Elmer, USA). The chromatographic separations were obtained under gradient conditions at room temperature (25°C) using a reverse phase HPLC column Kinetex 2.6 µm EVO C18 100 Å (100 × 3 mm) (Phenomenex, USA) with C18 guard column (4 mm × 2 mm) (Security Guard, Phenomenex, USA). The mobile phase was composed of ammonium hydroxide 0.53 mM pH 10.3 (mobile phase A) and acetonitrile (mobile phase B) and the flow rate was 0.3 mL min-1. The gradient profile began at 70 % A and held for 1 min, then changed to 25 % in 2 min and held for 3 min. The profile returned to 70 % A in 1 min and held for 1 min (total run: 8 min).

The API 3000 triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (AB Sciex, Canada) was equipped with an Electro Spray Ionization (ESI) source, and was set in positive ionization mode (source temperature: 450 °C; ionspray voltage: 5500 V; ultra-pure nitrogen as curtain and collision gas; ultra-pure air as nebulizer and auxiliary gas). One precursor ion and two product ions (two transitions) for ropivacaine and ropivacaine-d7 were monitored by MRM (Multiple Reaction Monitoring): 275.2 m/z > 126.1 m/z (most abundant ion used for quantification) and 275.2 m/z > 84.2 m/z (Figure 1). Collision energy (CE), declustering potential (DP), entrance potential (EP), and collision cell exit potential (CXP) were adjusted in MRM mode for each transition monitored in order to reach the highest sensitivity for all the analytes.

Plasma samples, used for the construction of five points matrix-matched calibration curves, were previously tested and shown to contain no residues of the compounds of interest. The ropivacaine concentration levels were set as follows: 0.82, 1.64, 3.28, 6.56 and 13.12 ng mL-1. The correlation between concentration and the detector response was determined by using a weighted (1/x) linear regression model (equation y = 0.117x + 0.00409; correlation coefficient r > 0.998; relative accuracy percentage for each point of the curve within the ± 5 % of the expected concentrations). Sample was appropriately further diluted to obtain concentrations of ropivacaine within the calibration ranges.

The main performance characteristics of the method were evaluated. Limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) values were 0.30 and 0.82 ng mL-1 of ropivacaine, respectively. Repeatability expressed as intra-day coefficient of variation (CV %) was in the interval of 1.99 - 11.44 % whereas intermediate precision expressed as inter-day CV % was in the interval 7.61 - 13.60 %. Recovery percentages were 99.03 - 110.7 %.

Statistical analysis Sample size estimation was based on a recent article from Hansen et al, who demonstrated that transmuscular quadratus lumborum block for elective CS significantly reduces postoperative opioid consumption and prolongs time to first opioid request when compared to placebo. In this single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled study, the mean 24 hours postoperative oral morphine equivalents was 65,3 mg vs 94,3 mg in the control group. Our primary hypothesis was that epinephrine added to ropivacaine for pQLB would result in a minimum 30% reduction of opioid consumption in the first 24 postoperative hours. Based on previous studies on opioid consumption, a SD of 40% was estimated. A sample size of at least 35 patients would give 80% power to detect a 30% reduction in opioid consumption, using t-tests with α=0,05. Fifty-two patients, twenty-six per group were included in the study to allow missing data or dropouts. The analysis was performed using Stata IC/15.1 (Stata Corp) and Microsoft Excel. Ordinal data and continuous data were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum test and Student's t-test as appropriate. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of data distribution and the sd-test to verify equality of variances. For non-normally distributed data, a Mann-Whitney test was performed. Differences between categorical data were analyzed using the χ 2 or Fisher's exact test. Variables were presented as means (SD) or median (range). The data were given as ratio of means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).A mixed-effects model for repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the treatment-by time interaction; the p value included Box's conservative F test for the lack of compound symmetry assumption. The investigators applied log-rank tests to compare Kaplan-Meier plots, for duration of time until first analgesic request. Statistical significance level was 0.05%.

Being tested
Epinephrine / Ropivacaine, Ropivacaine
Keywords
Quadratus lomborum block, Ropivacaine, Epinephrine

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Epinephrine / RopivacaineDrug

    In this group quadratus lomborum block was performed with 0.375% ropivacaine+100 mcg epinephrine.

  • RopivacaineDrug

    In this group quadratus lomborum block was performed with plane 0.375% ropivacaine.

Study groups in NCT04562103
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Epinephrine QLBExperimentalIn this group quadratus lomborum block was performed with 0.375% ropivacaine+100 mcg epinephrine.
Receives: Drug: Epinephrine / Ropivacaine
Plane QLBActive comparatorIn this group quadratus lomborum block was performed with plane 0.375% ropivacaine.
Receives: Drug: Ropivacaine

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Postoperative pain

    To evaluate if the adjunct of epinephrine to local anesthetic would results in a reduction in postoperative pain compared to the block performed with ropivacaine alone. Pain at rest and with movement recorded with a visual analogue scale (from 0 to 10).

    Measured: at 6, 12 and 24 hours after the end of surgery

  2. Postoperative analgesic requirement

    To evaluate if the adjunct of epinephrine to local anesthetic would results in a longer sensory block duration compared to the block performed with ropivacaine alone. Time between the block and first opioid analgesic requirement (minutes).

    Measured: First 24 hours after the end of surgery

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Plasmatic concentration of Ropivacaine

    To evaluate if adding epinephrine to local anesthetic reduces reabsorption and consequently the peak and the median venous plasmatic concentration of ropivacaine.

    Ropivacaine plasmatic concentration (mcg/ml) in the two groups.

    Measured: At 10, 30, 45, 60, 120 minutes after the block

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted24 Sep 2020
  2. Study start3 Jul 2020
  3. Primary completion3 Aug 2020
  4. Study completion3 Sep 2020

Resources

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
Non-randomised
Intervention model
Sequential
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
52 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04562103
Sponsor's protocol ID
ID 2979
Status last verified
Jul 2020
First submitted
18 Sep 2020
Last updated
8 Oct 2020
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Epinephrine / Ropivacaine and Ropivacaine in people with Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity and Anesthesia, Local, run by Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS at 1 site in Italy.

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 5 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 8 Oct 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 Italy. 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?

Postoperative pain (time frame: at 6, 12 and 24 hours after the end of surgery). 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?
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 8 Oct 2020.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in