AzTrials
AzTrials

Peri Operative AnalgesiaESPOKNCT05631834

ESP Versus TEA for Oeasophagus Cancer Surgery

A study testing Thoracic epidurale and Erector spinae block in people with Peri Operative Analgesia, run by Vinmec Healthcare System.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

For esophagectomy, peri-operative continuous thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the standard of care for perioperative pain management. Although effective, TEA is associated with moderate to serious adverse events such as hypotension and neurologic complications. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 70 years
Conditions the study is for
Peri Operative Analgesia
What is being tested?
Thoracic epidurale and Erector spinae block
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
50 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
1 Jan 2024to 31 Mar 2025
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 to 70 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patients who are diagnosed with esophageal cancer and scheduled to for TLE using Akiyama technique,
  • Informed and signed the consent

Who cannot join

  • patient refusal,
  • allergy to local anesthetic (LA),
  • complex congenital malformation,
  • mental deficit,
  • substance abuse (alcohol, opioids, etc.)
  • renal insufficiency

Trial locations and contacts

No sites are listed yet.

About this study

Official title: Bilateral Asymmetrical Erector Spinae Catheters Analgesia Versus Thoracic Epidural Catheter Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Oesophageal Cancer Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial

For esophagectomy, peri-operative continuous thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the standard of care for perioperative pain management. Although effective, TEA is associated with moderate to serious adverse events such as hypotension and neurologic complications. Peri-operative continuous Erector spinae analgesia (ESP) may be a safe alternative. The Investigators hypothesize that TEA and ESP are similar in efficacy for pain treatment in thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy with less side effects.

Methods. This Randomized prospective randomized study will compare TEA (Which is a wellknown technique of regional anaesthesia with numerous publications) with ESP ( Which is a technique of regional anaesthesia described in 2016 and with already 1000 publication) in a consecutive series of 50 thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomies randomized in 2 groups study groups ESP and controled group TEA.

Read more

In this study,

  • The TEA will consist of continuous epidural ropivacaine and sufen- tanil infusion with an induction dose for the surgery and a programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) started at the end of the surgery and ended 72h after the end of the surgery.
  • The ESP; the Bilateral catheters will be inserted under ultrasound guidance after the anaesthesia induction with an induction dose and a PIB started at the end of the surgery and ended 72h after the end of the surgery.

The primary outcome will be the median highest recorded Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) during the 3 days after surgery.

The secondary outcomes will be vaso-pressor consumption, fluid administration, and length of hospital stay.

Read the detailed description

For this single-center Prospective randomized controlled study, with the Approval of Ethical committee of VinMec Healthcare and after Patient's information waived the need for informed consent. The performance and reporting of this study will be in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

Investigators are hypothesizing that intra-operative and post operative Thoracic Epidural analgesia (TEA) or Erector Spinae Plane analgesia (ESP) are similary effective with regard to quality of analgesia in Thoraco Laparoscopic Akiyama oesophagectomy for cancer.

Patients, listed for this type of surgery,after information and signed consent will be randomized via a random number generator into one of two treatment groups by the person who obtained consent which is prescribed in the nurse preparation file".

  • Group 1 = Control group will have peri-operative analgesia by standard Continuous TEA. The TEA performance and epidural insertion will be performed just before the anesthesia induction as per guidelines in regional anesthesia. the tip of the epidural cathter should be at the level of the thoracic vertebra (T) 7. Puncture point at level T9

Volume of ropivacaine 0.5% Patient height:

140 - 149 cm = 8 mL 150 - 159 cm = 10 mL 160 - 169 cm = 12 mL 170 - 180 cm = 14 mL >180 cm = 16 mL without exceeding 3 mg/kg

  • Group 2 = Treatment group with have perioperative analgesia by continuous Bilateral ESP catheters. As it is interfascia block the guidelines of regional anesthesia allows to perform under general anesthesia (GA) The ESP performance will be just after inducation of GA on a stable patient. The ESP Performance performance will be under Ultrasound guidance. The tip of catheter will be on the left side at T6 and right side at T7.

Volume of ropivacaine 0.5% Patient height without exceeding 3 mg/kg 140 - 149 cm = 8 mL / left side - 6 mL / right side 150 - 159 cm = 10 mL / left side - 8 mL / right side 160 - 169 cm = 120 mL / left side - 10 mL / right side 170 - 179 cm= 14 mL / left side - 12 mL / right side > 180 cm = 16 mL / side - 14 mL / right side

After the surgery the patient will be extubated as soon as possible in the operating room and transferred to the intensive care unit for closed monitoring the post operative analgesia will Combined:

  1. Paracetamol 15 mg/kg/dose every 8 h
  2. Regional analgesia Ropivacaine 0,2% without exceeding 8mg/kg-24h. Group 1 TEA PIB every 4 hours 140 - 149 cm = 8 mL 150 - 159 cm = 10 mL 160 - 169 cm = 12 mL 170 - 180 cm = 14 mL >180 cm = 16 mL Group 2 ESP 140 - 149 cm = 8 mL / left side - 6 mL / right side 150 - 159 cm = 10 mL / left side - 8 mL / right side 160 - 169 cm = 120 mL / left side - 10 mL / right side 170 - 179 cm= 14 mL / left side - 12 mL / right side > 180 cm = 16 mL / side - 14 mL / right side
  3. PCA morphine connected to the patient
  • Concentration Morphine : 50 mg/49 ml + Ketamine 50 mg
  • Loading dose: 1mg
  • PCA dose demand: 1 mL/dose
  • Lockout: 10 min
  • Continuous rate (basal): 0
  • Dose limit (hr): 6mg/hour Regional analgesia will be interrupted 72h after the induction of general anesthesia Analgesia will be
  • Paracetamol 500 mg x 3/day (Maximum 15mg/kg x 3 /day)
  • Arcoxia 60 mg BD
  • If pain = Ultracet maximum 3 per day

Control of plasmatic dosage ropivacaine 24h 48h 72h after induction ESP and 40 minutes after last PIB

Data collection will start just after induction of regional anaesthesia for both group up to 72h after the induction of the general anaesthesia

Statistical analysis The study is a non-inferiority trial. Two groups of patients scheduled for thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and receiving a TEA or ESP regional analgesia regimen were randomized and compared. As a non-inferiority trial, a per protocol analysis is mandatory. We consider that a patient non receiving a regional analgesia technique during the entire 72h postoperative period or non receiving the PCA morphine as a rescue analgesia technique will be dropped out from the study for the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the total consumption of morphine during the first three post-operative days. Secondary end points are daily consumption of morphine, pain values at rest and during movement measured with visual analogue scales, QOL 15 analysis at day 3 and at the end of the hospital stay, and specifically the adverse events related to both regional analgesia techniques.

Sample size Considering the study of Kigma and colleagues (ref), the patients receiving a TEA for scopic oesophagectomy reported a MME consumption at 24h 14 mg for the whole 72h postoperative period. We hypothesize no difference (0 mg) between groups (i.e, standard (TEA) group and experimental (ESP) group). The hypothesis is that the amount of morphine needed in the ESP group is not higher but instead similar or less than that in the TEA group. If there is truly no difference between the standard (TEA) and experimental (ESP) treatment, then 25 patients are required with a 80% power (ß risk) for a lower limit of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (or equivalently a 95% two-sided confidence interval) to be below the non-inferiority limit of +10 (see table of sample size calculations). Assuming loss of follow-up is approximately 10%, a total of 28 patients are needed for both groups The primary end point will be the total consumption of morphine as rescue analgesia at the end of the first 72 postoperative hours. The T-test will be used to test the non-inferiority comparing the difference (µ2- µ1) to a non-zero quantity M. The assumptions of the t-test are: 1. The data are continuous (not discrete). 2. The differences follow a normal probability distribution. 3. The study sample is a simple random sample from its population. Each individual in the population has an equal probability of being selected in the sample. A Man Whitney test will be used if the data are nonparametric.

For the secondary end points, linear mixed effect models will be used taking into account repeated measures in the same patient (group, time and patient effect), such as for plasma concentration of ropivacaine, the daily amount of Ropivacaine, . Fisher test will be used for the comparison of categorical variables such as adverse events) . Mann Whitney test will be used for the endpoints mentionned above.

Switching to superiority hypothesis If the confidence interval for the difference between both groups (µ2- µ1) lies entirely below 0, then it is acceptable to calculate the P-value associated with a test of superiority and to evaluate whether this is sufficiently small to reject convincingly the hypothesis of no difference. There is no multiplicity argument that affects this interpretation because, in statistical terms, it corresponds to a simple closed test procedure. Usually this demonstration of a benefit is sufficient on its own, provided the safety profiles of the new intervention and the comparator are similar.

All statistical tests are 2 sided with significant level of 0.05. All analysis will be done with latest version of R statistical software. For the first 3 postoperative days, data will be recorded during routine patient rounds done by the anesthesia team in the ICU and surgical ward. Another set of data will be recorded after one month, during routine patient follow-up.

The study will be performed in accordance with the ethical principles that originated from the Declaration of Helsinki, ICH GCP, and all applicable regulations.

Participant Information and Consent A written informed consent shall be obtained from each participant before entering the study or performing any unusual or nonroutine procedure that involves risk to the participant.

Before recruitment and enrollment, each prospective participant or his or her legal guardian will be given a full explanation of the study, allowed to read the approved Information consent form (ICF), and allowed to have any questions answered. Once the investigator is assured that the participant/legal guardian understands the implications of participating in the study, the participant/legal guardian will be asked to give consent to participate in the study by signing the ICF. The authorized person obtaining the informed consent will also sign the ICF.

Being tested
Thoracic epidurale, Erector spinae block

What participants receive

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

  • Thoracic epiduraleProcedure or surgery

    Epidurale Perioperative infusion of Ropivacaine

  • Erector spinae blockProcedure or surgery

    erector spinae interfascia Perioperative infusion of Ropivacaine

Study groups in NCT05631834
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Continuous Peri operative Thoracic epidural catheters analgesiaActive comparatorEpidural catheter insertion will be performed at level T9 with catheter tip at level T7 After negative test dose with Lidocaine 2%, loading dose using Ropivacaine 0.5% (see table). Patient height (cm) Volume of LA (mL) 140-149 8 150-159 10 160-169 12 170-180 14 >180 16 Evaluation of sensory block should be at level T4 to T10 by cold test and pinprick. If extension needed, bolus of ropivacaine 0.5% 2 mL may be added. In post operative period▪ analgesia with intermitent automatic bolus UAB of ropivacaine 0.2% will be connected and started at 10 min after arrival in post operative care unit ▪ Pump preparation and settings: Patient 140 - 149 cm = 8 mL Patient 150 - 159 cm = 10 mL Patient 160 - 169 cm = 12 mL Patient 170 - 180 cm = 14 mL Patient >180 cm = 16 mL IAB every 4h reduced to 3h if needed Catheter will be removed 72h after end of surgery
Receives: Procedure: Thoracic epidurale
Continuous Peri operative Bilateral erector spinae catheters analgesiaExperimentalThe ESP will be performed Right side level The tip of the catheter should be on t T7. Left side level The tip of the catheter should be on T8. Induction with ropivacaine 0.5% with loading dose as follows: Patient height (cm) Volume of LA (mL) LEFT RIGHT 140-149 8 6 150-159 10 8 160-169 12 10 170-180 14 12 >180 16 14 For post operative analgesia: * Pumps with intermittent automatic bolus (IAB) of ropivacaine 0.2% started at 10 min after arrival in PACU * Patient 140 - 149 cm = 6 mL / left side - 8 mL / right side * Patient 150 - 159 cm = 8 mL / left side - 10 mL / right side * Patient 160 - 169 cm = 10 mL / left side - 12 mL / right side * Patient 170 - 179 = 12 mL / left side - 14 mL / right side * Patient > 180 kg = 14 mL / side - 16 mL / right side The bolus on the second catheter will be delayed by 1 hour IAB every 6h Catheter will be removed 72h after end of surgery
Receives: Procedure: Erector spinae block

What is being measured

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

  1. Morphine consumption

    mg morphine

    Measured: 72 hours

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Extension of sensory blockade

    number of metamere blockade

    Measured: 72hours

  2. Side effects

    the percentage of patients with at least one of the following adverse events: Hypoblood pressure, Urinary retention, post dural puncture heachache

    Measured: 72hours

  3. quality of recovery

    QOR 15 from 0 minimal value to 150 maximal value

    Measured: 1 week

Timeline

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

  1. First posted30 Nov 2022
  2. Study start1 Jan 2024 (estimated)
  3. Primary completion30 Nov 2024 (estimated)
  4. Study completion31 Mar 2025 (estimated)

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
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
This is a single centered, open label, randomized controlled trial
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Participant
Enrolment
50 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT05631834
Sponsor's protocol ID
ESP Oesophagus K
Acronym
ESPOK
Status last verified
Aug 2023
First submitted
11 Nov 2022
Last updated
16 Aug 2023
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Chan KKW, Saluja R, Delos Santos K, Lien K, Shah K, Cramarossa G, Zhu X, Wong RKS. Neoadjuvant treatments for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer: A network meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 2018 Jul 15;143(2):430-437. doi: 10.1002/ijc.31312. Epub 2018 Mar 8.

    PubMed 29441562
  • Gisbertz SS, Hagens ERC, Ruurda JP, Schneider PM, Tan LJ, Domrachev SA, Hoeppner J, van Berge Henegouwen MI. The evolution of surgical approach for esophageal cancer. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018 Dec;1434(1):149-155. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13957. Epub 2018 Sep 7.

    PubMed 30191569
  • Simonnet G, Rivat C. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia: abnormal or normal pain? Neuroreport. 2003 Jan 20;14(1):1-7. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200301200-00001. No abstract available.

    PubMed 12544821
  • Richebe P, Cahana A, Rivat C. Tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Is a divorce imminent? Pain. 2012 Aug;153(8):1547-1548. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.05.002. Epub 2012 May 17. No abstract available.

    PubMed 22608577
  • Rivat C, Bollag L, Richebe P. Mechanisms of regional anaesthesia protection against hyperalgesia and pain chronicization. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Oct;26(5):621-5. doi: 10.1097/01.aco.0000432511.08070.de.

    PubMed 23995064
  • Richebe P, Rivat C, Liu SS. Perioperative or postoperative nerve block for preventive analgesia: should we care about the timing of our regional anesthesia? Anesth Analg. 2013 May;116(5):969-970. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31828843c9. No abstract available.

    PubMed 23606468
  • Richebe P, Capdevila X, Rivat C. Persistent Postsurgical Pain: Pathophysiology and Preventative Pharmacologic Considerations. Anesthesiology. 2018 Sep;129(3):590-607. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002238.

    PubMed 29738328
  • Richman JM, Liu SS, Courpas G, Wong R, Rowlingson AJ, McGready J, Cohen SR, Wu CL. Does continuous peripheral nerve block provide superior pain control to opioids? A meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2006 Jan;102(1):248-57. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000181289.09675.7D.

    PubMed 16368838
  • Ng A, Swanevelder J. Pain relief after thoracotomy: is epidural analgesia the optimal technique? Br J Anaesth. 2007 Feb;98(2):159-62. doi: 10.1093/bja/ael360. No abstract available.

    PubMed 17251209
  • van Boekel RLM, Warle MC, Nielen RGC, Vissers KCP, van der Sande R, Bronkhorst EM, Lerou JGC, Steegers MAH. Relationship Between Postoperative Pain and Overall 30-Day Complications in a Broad Surgical Population: An Observational Study. Ann Surg. 2019 May;269(5):856-865. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002583.

    PubMed 29135493
  • Humble SR, Dalton AJ, Li L. A systematic review of therapeutic interventions to reduce acute and chronic post-surgical pain after amputation, thoracotomy or mastectomy. Eur J Pain. 2015 Apr;19(4):451-65. doi: 10.1002/ejp.567. Epub 2014 Aug 4.

    PubMed 25088289
  • Rivat C, Ballantyne J. The dark side of opioids in pain management: basic science explains clinical observation. Pain Rep. 2016 Sep 8;1(2):e570. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000570. eCollection 2016 Aug.

    PubMed 29392193
  • Yibulayin W, Abulizi S, Lv H, Sun W. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Dec 8;14(1):304. doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-1062-7.

    PubMed 27927246
  • Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR, Gisbertz SS, Klinkenbijl JH, Hollmann MW, de Lange ES, Bonjer HJ, van der Peet DL, Cuesta MA. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012 May 19;379(9829):1887-92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9. Epub 2012 May 1.

    PubMed 22552194
  • Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Shah R, Wilkinson RC, Camu F, Fischer B, Neugebauer EA, Rawal N, Schug SA, Simanski C, Kehlet H. A systematic review of randomized trials evaluating regional techniques for postthoracotomy analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2008 Sep;107(3):1026-40. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000333274.63501.ff.

    PubMed 18713924

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Thoracic epidurale and Erector spinae block in people with Peri Operative Analgesia, run by Vinmec Healthcare System.

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 2 inclusion and 6 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Aug 2023. 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?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Hien Le (0968081908, v.hienltt31@vinmec.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Morphine consumption (time frame: 72 hours). 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 NCT05631834, which also lists 30 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 16 Aug 2023; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 6 Nov 2026.

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