Real-time ultrasound guidance versus fluoroscopic guidance in thoracic epidural catheter placement: a single-center, non-inferiority, randomized, active-controlled trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultDifference −1.5% 95% CI −14.9% to 11.9%Authors' conclusion
Real-time US guidance provided a non-inferior success rate and shorter time spent on preparation and procedure compared with fluoroscopic guidance in TECP.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing thoracic epidural catheter placement
- Participants
- 132 patients
- Comparison
- Ultrasound (US) vs Fluoroscopy
- Primary endpoint
- First-pass success rate of thoracic epidural catheter placement (TECP)
Methodological detailssingle-center, non-inferiority, active-controlled
- Single-center
- Non-inferiority
- Active-controlled
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Difference
−1.5%
95% CI −14.9% to 11.9%
By group
US vs Fluoroscopy
difference −1.5% (95% CI −14.9% to 11.9%)
Non-inferiority margin 15 as printed, not drawn
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | US | Fluoroscopy | Difference (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Final success rateExact CI | 98.5% | 100.0% | −1.5% (−4.0% to 1.0%) | |
| −6−4−202Difference (linear scale) |
Time to identifying epidural space · significantly shorter in US group · spread kind not named in abstract
P = 0.004
Procedure time · significantly shorter in US group · spread kind not named in abstract
P < 0.001
Original publication
Real-time ultrasound guidance versus fluoroscopic guidance in thoracic epidural catheter placement: a single-center, non-inferiority, randomized, active-controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Published 23 June 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →