Loss-of-Resistance Versus Dynamic Pressure-Sensing Technology for Successful Placement of Thoracic Epidural Catheters: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultDifference in proportions −0.054 95% CI −0.14 to 0.03Authors' conclusion
Our trial did not establish the superiority of the DPS technique over the traditional LOR method for identifying the thoracic epidural space
Study context
- Population
- Patients aged 18 to 75 years scheduled for major thoracic or abdominal surgery at a tertiary care teaching hospital; catheters placed by anesthesiology trainees under faculty supervision117 analysed
- Participants
- 133 patients
- Comparison
- Loss-of-resistance (LOR) vs dynamic pressure-sensing (DPS)
- LORn = 57reference
- DPSn = 60
- Primary endpoint
- Success rate of thoracic epidural catheter placement (loss of cold sensation in thoracic dermatomes 20 minutes after epidural test dose)
Methodological detailspragmatic, patient- and assessor-blinded, superiority, March 2019 to June 2020
- Pragmatic
- Patient- and assessor-blinded
- Superiority
- March 2019 to June 2020
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Difference in proportions
−0.054
95% CI −0.14 to 0.03
P = 0.264
Events by treatment group
LOR vs DPS
difference in proportions −0.054 (95% CI −0.14 to 0.03); P = 0.264
Secondary outcomes
Procedural time · no difference
P = 0.982
Epidural analgesia onset at 10 minutes
P = 0.062
Other secondary or exploratory outcomes
- Not significantly different between the groups
Safety
Events
| Outcome | LOR | DPS |
|---|---|---|
| Unintended dural puncture | 2 | 2 |
Original publication
Loss-of-Resistance Versus Dynamic Pressure-Sensing Technology for Successful Placement of Thoracic Epidural Catheters: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Analg. Published 17 June 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →