Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Summary

BACKGROUND: One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and commonly hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have a higher incidence of side reaction. It is unclear what the efficacy of spinal marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.We hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine will get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.

OBJECTIVE In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, Investigator will compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effect of spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric and marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.

Main outcome measures: The maximum cephalad sensory block level; the change of continuous cerebral oxygen desaturation (ScO2) over time; the incidence of hypotension and nausea and vomiting; the change of invasive arterial pressure; the consumption of ephedrine; the incidence of shivering; the onset time to T8 dermatome; the quality of anesthesia (efficacy of motor block and sensory block)


Clinical Trial Description

INTRODUCTION:

One previous study has confirmed that the marginally hyperbaric solutions of bupivacaine can maintain good quality of anesthesia and get a more steadily hemodynamic status than commonly hyperbaric solutions, some authors confirmed the plain ropivacaine for cesarean section have a higher failure rate and commonly hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have a higher incidence of side reaction such as hypotension. It is unclear what the efficacy of spinal marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.The investigator of this study hypothesized that the marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine would get a similar efficacy to commonly hyperbaric solutions but a more steadily hemodynamic status.In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, Investigator will compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effect of spinal anesthesia with commonly hyperbaric and marginally hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery.

Ethical approval for this clinical trial (Ethical Committee No.) was provided by the Ethics Committee of Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao), Qingdao, China on 1 February 2016. Informed written consent will be obtained from all patients. Investigator expected to recruit 120 Pregnant women who will scheduled for elective cesarean section and meet the inclusion criteria.

A computer-generated random number sequence will be used for group allocation. To ensure the study will be double blinded, the anesthesiologist who will administer the anesthesia will take no other part in the study, whilst another anesthesiologist blind to the allocation will collected intraoperative and postoperative data. The patients would be unaware of the treatment allocation. Women will be randomised into two groups: the commonly hyperbaric group (CH) will receive ropivacaine solution with 8.3% glucose; group marginally hyperbaric group (MH) will receive ropivacaine solution with 0.83% glucose; Density will be determined by using a digital density meter (DMA4500M; Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria) at 37°C.Fifteen minutes prior to administration of anesthesia, the ropivacaine solution will be prepared by one nurse who is blind to the patient allocation.Commomly hyperbaric ropivacaine solutions will be made of 0.75% ropivacaine + 50% glucose + isotonic saline and Marginally hyperbaric solutions will be made of 0.75% ropivacaine +5% glucose + isotonic saline. The doses of ropivacaine and the volume of spinal solution will be same and only the density of the solution will be different.

When the patient arrived at the operating room, an IV cannula will be inserted in one forearm. Standard monitoring with electrocardiography and pulse oximetry and cerebral oxygen saturation(ScO2) and invasive blood pressure (IBP) will be attached.

During the operation, the room temperature will be kept at 24°C. The body temperature of each patient will be maintained by an electric warming blanket and infusion heating device.

The data of systolic pressure and ScO2 wil be recorded at 5-6 second intervals on the device's accessory disk drive for later analysis. To establish a baseline for blood pressure and ScO2. No prehydration will be given. Lactated Ringers' solution at 0.4 ml kg-1 min-1 will be infused after anesthesia. Supplemental oxygen is planned to be administered in case SpO2 values would be below 91%.

The combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) would be performed in the lateral position at the intervertebral space between L3 and L4. Then, spinal solution will be injected intrathecalley after CSF releas. The epidural catheter will be inserted. The patient will be immediately placed in a supine position with 15° left tilt. Completion of the spinal injection would be considered as time zero. The sensory block will be determined by pinprick along both sides of the midclavicular line at 2 min intervals post injection. The sensory block had not reached T8 before surgery, or there was moderate pain during the skin incision, spinal anesthesia would be considered to have failed.

The efficacy of anesthesia would be evaluated using three criteria: lower limb motor block, muscle relaxation and pain during skin incision and abdominal exploration.

To treat intraoperative hypotension, 6mg ephedrine will be injected followed by 3 mg every 2 min until the blood pressure was restored to normal. Instances of nausea, vomiting, shivering and pruritus will be also recorded.

After delivery, Apgar scores will be assessed at 1 and 5 min by the attending pediatrician.

On the basis of the results of a pilot study, 40 patients in each group were needed to compare a two-segment difference in the upper sensory level and 30 % difference in the incidence of hypotension at a significance level of P less than 0.05 with 80% power. However, We expect to enroll 120 patients to get a more precise result.

For IBP and ScO2 the median value of the sliding averages of the 30-second period before spinal induction will be used as the baseline value for the figures and statistical analyses. Time 0 for hemodynamic analyses will be defined as the end of spinal injection. This two variables analyses will be run for the first 15 minutes, which almost equaled to the interval from induction of spinal anesthesia to delivery.

SPSS 16.0 will be used for data analysis. T-test would be used to assess the difference in sensory block level amongst the groups, The linear mixed model to analyze the continuous changes in systolic pressure and ScO2 over time. X2 test for trends would be used to test the association between adverse effects of anesthesia and the groups. In all cases, a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ;


Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


NCT number NCT03142880
Study type Interventional
Source Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao)
Contact
Status Not yet recruiting
Phase N/A
Start date May 2017
Completion date November 2017

See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT03324984 - 1% Chloroprocaine(PF) vs. Bupivacaine Spinals Phase 2
Recruiting NCT03399019 - Bispectral Index(BIS) on Depth of Sedation With Dexmedetomidine, Propofol and Midazolam During Spinal Anesthesia N/A
Suspended NCT03967288 - Comparison of Clorotekal and Bupivacaine for Short Obstetric Surgery Phase 4
Completed NCT03316352 - Ultrasound-assisted Versus Conventional Landmark-guided Paramedian Spinal Anesthesia in Elderly Patients N/A
Completed NCT04092478 - '' Abdominal Crunch Positions With the Others in Terms of Interspinous Distance in Adult Patients ''
Recruiting NCT04128410 - A Study on Central Transport Characteristics of Flurbiprofen Axetil in Elderly Patients
Completed NCT02961842 - Combined Colloid Preload And Crystalloid Coload Versus Crystalloid Coload During Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery N/A
Completed NCT04050059 - Comparison of Two Analgesic Pretreatment Techniques Before Spinal Needle Insertion for Pain Reduction and Maternal Satisfaction Level Assessment in Women Undergoing LSCS. N/A
Completed NCT02833376 - Alcohol 70% Versus Chlorhexidine 0.5% in the Spinal Anesthesia Skin Antissepsis N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT06427382 - Prediction of Hypotension Using Perfusion Index Following Spinal Anesthesia
Completed NCT03105115 - Effect of Intrathecal Fentanyl on Spinal Anesthesia During Dexmedetomidine Infusion N/A
Terminated NCT04996420 - Goal Directed Fluid Therapy Versus Liberal Fluid Regimen in Primary Elective Hip Artrhoplasty N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT06418308 - Intrathecal Dexmedetomidine vs Epinephrine Phase 4
Completed NCT03929874 - Ultrasound Image Study for Ultrasound-assisted Paramedian Spinal Anesthesia
Completed NCT05379777 - Effective Dose of Remimazolam for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Lower Extremity Surgery Under Spinal Anesthesia Phase 4
Completed NCT03959644 - Failure Rate in Spinal Blocks and Determination of Related Factors
Recruiting NCT03497364 - Combined Spinal-epidural Anesthesia for Cesarean Section Without Prophylactical Prehydration and Vasopressors N/A
Completed NCT03075488 - Ultrasound Prescan vs Conventional Landmark-guided Technique in Spinal Anesthesia in Orthopedic Obese Patients N/A
Completed NCT06375863 - QT Changes in Geriatric Patients: a Comparison of Spinal and General Anesthesia N/A
Completed NCT02737813 - Cardiac Output Changes During Hyperbaric and Isobaric Bupivacaine in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section Phase 4