Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Bupivacaine Hydrochloride Erector Spinae Plane Blocks in Cardiac Surgery: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors:
  • YAYang
    Yang
Preprint
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background Postoperative pain management after cardiac surgery involves a multimodal approach. Recently, the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been incorporated into multimodal pain control protocols. These measures have been taken to increase patient satisfaction while minimizing opioid usage. Prospective data is lacking to guide decisions regarding optimal regional anaesthetic agents. The current randomized controlled pragmatic trial protocol seeks to determine the benefit of liposomal bupivacaine relative to plain bupivacaine hydrochloride at reducing postoperative opioid consumption and other clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery. Methods The investigators anticipate consenting 150 subjects to obtain 96 evaluable subjects undergoing mini thoracotomy (N = 24 liposomal bupivacaine, N = 24 bupivacaine hydrochloride) or open sternotomy (N = 24 liposomal bupivacaine, N = 24 bupivacaine hydrochloride). The primary outcome will be postoperative opioid consumption, reported in morphine equivalents. Secondary outcomes will include postoperative nonopioid analgesic consumption, inpatient and outpatient postoperative pains core, 30-day mortality and major morbidity rates, postoperative quality of life, and hospitalization cost. Double blinding will be conducted with necessary measures taken to mask electronic medical records and drug preparation. Discussion The trial is currently enrolling subjects at a single academic medical center in the northeastern United States. The current study aims to investigate the postoperative pain reported by patients undergoing cardiac surgery when receiving Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) block with liposomal bupivacaine (experimental) compared to its hydrocholoride formulation (control). Trial registration: Registered on ClinicalTrails.gov: NCT06077422. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06077422?tab=table

This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit: