Double-Blind Comparison of Combined General-Spinal Anesthesia to General Anesthesia for Coronary Artery Surgery
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00242697|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : October 20, 2005
Last Update Posted : October 20, 2005
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Coronary Artery Disease Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery||Procedure: spinal analgesia and anesthesia for coronary artery surgery||Phase 3|
Use of neuraxial agents in anesthesia for cardiac surgery is expanding. We have used combined general-spinal anesthesia for cardiac surgery for 12 years. We performed a trial in order to determine if our clinical impressions of the techniques would be confirmed. We hypothesized that compared to general anesthesia, the combined techniques would provide comparable intraoperative hemodynamics and improved postoperative analgesia. This study subjected these techniques to a double-blind randomized trial.
After IRB approval, 63 consenting patients undergoing non-emergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) entered a randomized, double-blind trial. Patients received lorazepam 0.03 mg/kg preoperatively, and midazolam 0.03 mg/kg during line insertion and induction. Spinal procedures, performed by an unblinded study anesthesiologist, preceded general anesthesia, which was induced with propofol and rocuronium, and maintained with isoflurane through CPB, and propofol thereafter. All caregivers were blinded to group assignment. Opioid and spinal management defined 3 groups:
GA: Sufentanil IV: 3 μg/kg induction, 1 μg/kg x 2 prn; mock spinal SO: Sufentanil IV: 0.2 μg/kg induction, 0.1 μg/kg x 2 prn; Spinal: sufentanil 50 μg, morphine 0.5 mg, hyperbaric SL: Sufentanil IV: 0.2 μg/kg induction, 0.1 μg/kg x 2 prn; Spinal: sufentanil 25 μg, morphine 0.5 mg, bupivacaine 9.75 mg, hyperbaric
When patients were stable in ICU, propofol was stopped and an extubation protocol begun. Patients received scheduled NSAID and prn opioid, IV or PO. The chi-square test and ANOVA using the Scheffe method for multiple comparisons were applied appropriately.
The primary end points of the study were analgesic requirements, visual analogue pain scores, and duration of endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit. Secondary endpoints were intraoperative hemodynamic variables, blood catecholamine and lactate levels, anesthetic supplementation, and vasoactive drug support.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Enrollment :||63 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Official Title:||A Randomized Double-Blind Comparison of Combined General-Spinal Anesthesia to General Anesthesia for Coronary Artery Surgery|
|Study Start Date :||April 2002|
|Study Completion Date :||July 2003|
- analgesic requirement in the intensive care unit
- visual analogue pain scores in the intensive care unit
- duration of endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit
- intraoperative hemodynamic variables
- intraoperative blood catecholamine and lactate levels
- intraoperative anesthetic supplementation
- intraoperative vasoactive drug therapy
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00242697
|Foothills Medical Centre|
|Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 2T9|
|Principal Investigator:||Charles L MacAdams, MD FRCPC||Department of Anesthesia, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary|