Ketamine Versus Magnesium Sulfate in the Time and Awakening Quality of General Anesthesia.
![]() |
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. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details. |
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04360473 |
Recruitment Status :
Recruiting
First Posted : April 24, 2020
Last Update Posted : March 29, 2022
|
Tracking Information | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
First Submitted Date ICMJE | April 18, 2020 | ||||
First Posted Date ICMJE | April 24, 2020 | ||||
Last Update Posted Date | March 29, 2022 | ||||
Actual Study Start Date ICMJE | March 14, 2022 | ||||
Estimated Primary Completion Date | December 2022 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) | ||||
Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE |
|
||||
Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE | Same as current | ||||
Change History | |||||
Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE |
|
||||
Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE | Same as current | ||||
Current Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures | Not Provided | ||||
Original Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures | Not Provided | ||||
Descriptive Information | |||||
Brief Title ICMJE | Ketamine Versus Magnesium Sulfate in the Time and Awakening Quality of General Anesthesia. | ||||
Official Title ICMJE | Ketamine Versus Magnesium Sulfate in the Time and Awakening Quality of General Anesthesia. Randomized Clinical Study. | ||||
Brief Summary | The introduction of the laparoscopic technique for cholecystectomy significantly reduced the incidence and intensity of postoperative pain, with improvement in other markers, such as patient satisfaction, and reduction in hospital stay. However, pain in the postoperative period of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still a concern that challenges modern anesthesiology. Ketamine and magnesium sulfate are two blockers of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors with the ability to reduce postoperative pain and postoperative opioid consumption. A frequent concern among anesthesiologists is the quality and time of awakening in patients receiving these medications The main objective of this trial is to compare the quality and time of awakening in patients receiving magnesium sulfate or ketamine. The secondary objective is to compare postoperative analgesia during the postoperative hospital stay. Hypothesis: Our hypothesis is that patients have a faster awakening when they receive magnesium sulfate as an analgesic adjunct, when compared to patients who receive ketamine . Design: this is a prospective, controlled, covered and randomly distributed trial. |
||||
Detailed Description | Intervention: the sample of participants will be distributed in 4 groups. The placebo (PG) group will receive 100 ml of saline solution 15 min before anesthetic induction. The ketamine group (KG) will receive 0.3 mg / kg of ketamine in saline (total volume of 100 ml) 15 min before anesthetic induction. The magnesium sulfate group (SG) will receive 40 mg / kg of magnesium sulfate in saline solution (total volume of 100 ml) 15 min before anesthetic induction. The mixed group (MG) will receive 0.15 mg / kg of ketamine + 20 mg / kg of magnesium sulfate in saline solution (total volume of 100 ml) 15 min before anesthetic induction. All participants will be submitted to balanced anesthesia. Anesthetic induction will be started after 5 min of pre-oxygenation, with lidocaine 1.5 mg / kg, fentanyl 3 µg / kg, propofol until clinical hypnosis, cisatracurium 0.1 mg / kg and intubation after adequate neuromuscular relaxation. Maintenance will be with sevoflurane in concentration under clinical demand, repeating boluses of fentanyl 1 µg / kg and cisatracurium 0.03 mg / kg, as needed. Primary Outcomes: time between the end of anesthetic administration and bispectral index (BIS) > 60, and a battery of neuropsychological tests to assess postoperative cognitive dysfunction tested in the Brazilian population 3 h after the end of anesthetic administration. Secondary Outcomes: response to the brief pain inventory questionnaire and opioid consumption in the first 2 postoperative days. Recruitment and timeline : patients will be recruited in the pre-anesthetic evaluation and assessments will be made of covertly in the immediate postoperative period and during the two days after surgery, being registered the pain scores and the consumption of opioids. Sample calculation: the sample of 120 participants was calculated with a 95% confidence index and 80% statistical power. To compensate for losses, 140 individuals will be recruited. |
||||
Study Type ICMJE | Interventional | ||||
Study Phase ICMJE | Not Applicable | ||||
Study Design ICMJE | Allocation: Randomized Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Intervention Model Description: This is a prospective, controlled, covered and randomly distributed trial Masking: Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)Masking Description: The person responsible for generating the sequence will use the result of the lottery to number the opaque envelopes and place the intervention corresponding to the group to which that lottery number belongs. This professional will not administer anesthesia to the patients in the study and will not participate in the collection or evaluation of the studied variables. The envelopes will be opened by professionals who will prepare the corresponding solution, keeping this information covered for the other members of the team and for the patients. The groups will be covered up for patients and for professionals who carry out the assessments. |
||||
Condition ICMJE | Awakening, Post-Anesthesia Delayed | ||||
Intervention ICMJE |
|
||||
Study Arms ICMJE |
|
||||
Publications * | REFERENCES 1. Hendolin HI, Pääkkönen ME, Alhava EM, Tarvainen R, Kemppinen T, Lahtinen. Laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized trial to compare postoperative pain, pulmonary function, and stress response. Eur J Surg. 2000; 166: 394-9. 2. Attwood SEA, Hill ADK, Mealy K, Stephens RB. A prospective comparison of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy. Annlas of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 1992; 74: 397-400. 3. Keus F, by Jong J, Gooszen HG, Laarhoven CJHM. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD006231. 4. Barazanchi AWH, MacFater WS, Rahiri JL, Tutone S, Hill AG, Joshi GP. Evidence-based management of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a PROSPECT review update. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 121: 787-803. 5. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H. Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain. 2001 ; 90: 261-9. 6. Ye Fan, Wu Y, Zhou C. Effect of intravenous ketamine for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Meta-analysis. Medicine. 2017; 96: 51 7. Launo C, Bassi C, Spagnolo L, Badano S, Ricci C, Lizzi A, et al. Preemptive ketamine during general anesthesia for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Minerva Anestesiol. 2004; 70: 727-38. 8. Hang LH, Shao DH, Gu YP. The ED50 and ED95 of ketamine for prevention of postoperative hyperalgesia after remifentanil-based anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Swiss Med Wkly. 2011; 141: w13195 . 9. Minds O, Harlak A, Yigit T, Balkan A, Balkan M, Cosar A, et al. Effect of intraoperative magnesium sulphate infusion on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008; 52: 1353-9. 10. Chen C, Tao R. The impact of magnesium sulfate on pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan. 2018; 28: 349-53. 11. Valentin LSS, Pietrobon R, Junior WA, et al. Definition and application of a battery of neuropsychological tests to assess postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Einstein. 2015; 13: 20-6. | ||||
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline. |
|||||
Recruitment Information | |||||
Recruitment Status ICMJE | Recruiting | ||||
Estimated Enrollment ICMJE |
140 | ||||
Original Estimated Enrollment ICMJE | Same as current | ||||
Estimated Study Completion Date ICMJE | December 2022 | ||||
Estimated Primary Completion Date | December 2022 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) | ||||
Eligibility Criteria ICMJE | Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
|
||||
Sex/Gender ICMJE |
|
||||
Ages ICMJE | 18 Years to 70 Years (Adult, Older Adult) | ||||
Accepts Healthy Volunteers ICMJE | No | ||||
Contacts ICMJE |
|
||||
Listed Location Countries ICMJE | Brazil | ||||
Removed Location Countries | |||||
Administrative Information | |||||
NCT Number ICMJE | NCT04360473 | ||||
Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE | CAAE 28762619.0.0000.5448 | ||||
Has Data Monitoring Committee | Yes | ||||
U.S. FDA-regulated Product |
|
||||
IPD Sharing Statement ICMJE |
|
||||
Responsible Party | Joaquim Edson Vieira, University of Sao Paulo General Hospital | ||||
Study Sponsor ICMJE | University of Sao Paulo General Hospital | ||||
Collaborators ICMJE | Not Provided | ||||
Investigators ICMJE |
|
||||
PRS Account | University of Sao Paulo General Hospital | ||||
Verification Date | March 2022 | ||||
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP |