Cargando…

A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement

BACKGROUND: Loss of resistance (LOR) for epidural catheter placement has been utilized for almost a century. LOR is a subjective endpoint associated with a high failure rate. Nerve stimulation (NS) has been described as an objective method for confirming placement of an epidural catheter. We hypothe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dobson, Sean Wayne, Weller, Robert Stephen, Edwards, Christopher, Turner, James David, Jaffe, Jonathan Douglas, Reynolds, Jon Wellington, Henshaw, Daryl Steven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8826655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35139802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01584-x
_version_ 1784647471062843392
author Dobson, Sean Wayne
Weller, Robert Stephen
Edwards, Christopher
Turner, James David
Jaffe, Jonathan Douglas
Reynolds, Jon Wellington
Henshaw, Daryl Steven
author_facet Dobson, Sean Wayne
Weller, Robert Stephen
Edwards, Christopher
Turner, James David
Jaffe, Jonathan Douglas
Reynolds, Jon Wellington
Henshaw, Daryl Steven
author_sort Dobson, Sean Wayne
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Loss of resistance (LOR) for epidural catheter placement has been utilized for almost a century. LOR is a subjective endpoint associated with a high failure rate. Nerve stimulation (NS) has been described as an objective method for confirming placement of an epidural catheter. We hypothesized that the addition of NS to LOR would improve the success of epidural catheter placement. METHODS: One-hundred patients were randomized to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) utilizing LOR-alone or loss of resistance plus nerve stimulation (LOR + NS). The primary endpoint was rate of success, defined as loss of sensation following test dose. Secondary endpoints included performance time. An intention-to-treat analysis was planned, but a per-protocol analysis was performed to investigate the success rate when stimulation was achieved. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis there was no difference in success rates (90% vs 82% [LOR + NS vs LOR-alone]; P = 0.39). The procedural time increased in the LOR + NS group (33.9 ± 12.8 vs 24.0 ± 8.0 min; P < 0.001). The per-protocol analysis found a statistically higher success rate for the LOR + NS group compared to the LOR-alone group (98% vs. 82%; P = 0.017) when only patients in whom stimulation was achieved were included. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of NS technique did not statistically improve the success rate for epidural placement when analyzed in an intention-to-treat format and was associated with a longer procedural time. In a per-protocol analysis a statistically higher success rate for patients in whom stimulation was obtained highlights the potential benefit of adding NS to LOR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03087604 on 3/22/2017; Institutional Review Board Wake Forest School of Medicine IRB00039522, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption: G160273. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01584-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8826655
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88266552022-02-10 A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement Dobson, Sean Wayne Weller, Robert Stephen Edwards, Christopher Turner, James David Jaffe, Jonathan Douglas Reynolds, Jon Wellington Henshaw, Daryl Steven BMC Anesthesiol Research BACKGROUND: Loss of resistance (LOR) for epidural catheter placement has been utilized for almost a century. LOR is a subjective endpoint associated with a high failure rate. Nerve stimulation (NS) has been described as an objective method for confirming placement of an epidural catheter. We hypothesized that the addition of NS to LOR would improve the success of epidural catheter placement. METHODS: One-hundred patients were randomized to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) utilizing LOR-alone or loss of resistance plus nerve stimulation (LOR + NS). The primary endpoint was rate of success, defined as loss of sensation following test dose. Secondary endpoints included performance time. An intention-to-treat analysis was planned, but a per-protocol analysis was performed to investigate the success rate when stimulation was achieved. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis there was no difference in success rates (90% vs 82% [LOR + NS vs LOR-alone]; P = 0.39). The procedural time increased in the LOR + NS group (33.9 ± 12.8 vs 24.0 ± 8.0 min; P < 0.001). The per-protocol analysis found a statistically higher success rate for the LOR + NS group compared to the LOR-alone group (98% vs. 82%; P = 0.017) when only patients in whom stimulation was achieved were included. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of NS technique did not statistically improve the success rate for epidural placement when analyzed in an intention-to-treat format and was associated with a longer procedural time. In a per-protocol analysis a statistically higher success rate for patients in whom stimulation was obtained highlights the potential benefit of adding NS to LOR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03087604 on 3/22/2017; Institutional Review Board Wake Forest School of Medicine IRB00039522, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption: G160273. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01584-x. BioMed Central 2022-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8826655/ /pubmed/35139802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01584-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Dobson, Sean Wayne
Weller, Robert Stephen
Edwards, Christopher
Turner, James David
Jaffe, Jonathan Douglas
Reynolds, Jon Wellington
Henshaw, Daryl Steven
A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement
title A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement
title_full A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement
title_fullStr A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement
title_full_unstemmed A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement
title_short A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement
title_sort randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8826655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35139802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01584-x
work_keys_str_mv AT dobsonseanwayne arandomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT wellerrobertstephen arandomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT edwardschristopher arandomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT turnerjamesdavid arandomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT jaffejonathandouglas arandomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT reynoldsjonwellington arandomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT henshawdarylsteven arandomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT dobsonseanwayne randomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT wellerrobertstephen randomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT edwardschristopher randomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT turnerjamesdavid randomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT jaffejonathandouglas randomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT reynoldsjonwellington randomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement
AT henshawdarylsteven randomizedcomparisonoflossofresistanceversuslossofresistancepluselectricalstimulationeffectonsuccessofthoracicepiduralplacement