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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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