Cargando…
Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial)
BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study pri...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32087686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-6585-1 |
_version_ | 1783500184589697024 |
---|---|
author | Kingma, B. F. Eshuis, W. J. de Groot, E. M. Feenstra, M. L. Ruurda, J. P. Gisbertz, S. S. ten Hoope, W. Marsman, M. Hermanides, J. Hollmann, M. W. Kalkman, C. J. Luyer, M. D. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P. Scholten, H. J. Buise, M. van Det, M. J. Kouwenhoven, E. A. van der Meer, F. Frederix, G. W. J. Cheong, E. al Naimi, K. van Berge Henegouwen, M. I. van Hillegersberg, R. |
author_facet | Kingma, B. F. Eshuis, W. J. de Groot, E. M. Feenstra, M. L. Ruurda, J. P. Gisbertz, S. S. ten Hoope, W. Marsman, M. Hermanides, J. Hollmann, M. W. Kalkman, C. J. Luyer, M. D. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P. Scholten, H. J. Buise, M. van Det, M. J. Kouwenhoven, E. A. van der Meer, F. Frederix, G. W. J. Cheong, E. al Naimi, K. van Berge Henegouwen, M. I. van Hillegersberg, R. |
author_sort | Kingma, B. F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study primarily aims to compare the postoperative quality of recovery between paravertebral catheter versus thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS: This study represents a randomized controlled superiority trial. A total of 192 patients will be randomized in 4 Dutch high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years old, able to provide written informed consent and complete questionnaires in Dutch, scheduled to undergo minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and an intrathoracic anastomosis, and have no contra-indications to either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome is the quality of postoperative recovery, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire on the morning of postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes include the QoR-40 questionnaire score Area Under the Curve on postoperative days 1–3, the integrated pain and systemic opioid score and patient satisfaction and pain experience according to the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the groups will be compared regarding the need for additional rescue medication on postoperative days 0–3, technical failure of the pain treatment, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, total postoperative fluid administration day 0–3, postoperative vasopressor and inotrope use, length of urinary catheter use, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, chronic pain at six months after surgery, and other adverse effects. DISCUSSION: In this study, it is hypothesized that paravertebral analgesia achieves comparable pain control while causing less side-effects such as hypotension when compared to epidural analgesia, leading to shorter postoperative length of stay on a monitored ward and superior quality of recovery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study can be used to update the relevant guidelines on postoperative pain management for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8037. Registered 19 September 2019. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7036230 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70362302020-03-02 Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial) Kingma, B. F. Eshuis, W. J. de Groot, E. M. Feenstra, M. L. Ruurda, J. P. Gisbertz, S. S. ten Hoope, W. Marsman, M. Hermanides, J. Hollmann, M. W. Kalkman, C. J. Luyer, M. D. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P. Scholten, H. J. Buise, M. van Det, M. J. Kouwenhoven, E. A. van der Meer, F. Frederix, G. W. J. Cheong, E. al Naimi, K. van Berge Henegouwen, M. I. van Hillegersberg, R. BMC Cancer Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study primarily aims to compare the postoperative quality of recovery between paravertebral catheter versus thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS: This study represents a randomized controlled superiority trial. A total of 192 patients will be randomized in 4 Dutch high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years old, able to provide written informed consent and complete questionnaires in Dutch, scheduled to undergo minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and an intrathoracic anastomosis, and have no contra-indications to either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome is the quality of postoperative recovery, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire on the morning of postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes include the QoR-40 questionnaire score Area Under the Curve on postoperative days 1–3, the integrated pain and systemic opioid score and patient satisfaction and pain experience according to the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the groups will be compared regarding the need for additional rescue medication on postoperative days 0–3, technical failure of the pain treatment, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, total postoperative fluid administration day 0–3, postoperative vasopressor and inotrope use, length of urinary catheter use, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, chronic pain at six months after surgery, and other adverse effects. DISCUSSION: In this study, it is hypothesized that paravertebral analgesia achieves comparable pain control while causing less side-effects such as hypotension when compared to epidural analgesia, leading to shorter postoperative length of stay on a monitored ward and superior quality of recovery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study can be used to update the relevant guidelines on postoperative pain management for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8037. Registered 19 September 2019. BioMed Central 2020-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7036230/ /pubmed/32087686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-6585-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Kingma, B. F. Eshuis, W. J. de Groot, E. M. Feenstra, M. L. Ruurda, J. P. Gisbertz, S. S. ten Hoope, W. Marsman, M. Hermanides, J. Hollmann, M. W. Kalkman, C. J. Luyer, M. D. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P. Scholten, H. J. Buise, M. van Det, M. J. Kouwenhoven, E. A. van der Meer, F. Frederix, G. W. J. Cheong, E. al Naimi, K. van Berge Henegouwen, M. I. van Hillegersberg, R. Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial) |
title | Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial) |
title_full | Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial) |
title_fullStr | Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial) |
title_full_unstemmed | Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial) |
title_short | Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial) |
title_sort | paravertebral catheter versus epidural analgesia in minimally invasive esophageal resection: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (pepmen trial) |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32087686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-6585-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kingmabf paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT eshuiswj paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT degrootem paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT feenstraml paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT ruurdajp paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT gisbertzss paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT tenhoopew paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT marsmanm paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT hermanidesj paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT hollmannmw paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT kalkmancj paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT luyermdp paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT nieuwenhuijzengap paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT scholtenhj paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT buisem paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT vandetmj paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT kouwenhovenea paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT vandermeerf paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT frederixgwj paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT cheonge paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT alnaimik paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT vanbergehenegouwenmi paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial AT vanhillegersbergr paravertebralcatheterversusepiduralanalgesiainminimallyinvasiveesophagealresectionarandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrialpepmentrial |