Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 22;20(1):142.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6585-1.

Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial)

B F Kingma  1 , W J Eshuis  2 , E M de Groot  3 , M L Feenstra  2 , J P Ruurda  3 , S S Gisbertz  2 , W Ten Hoope  4 , M Marsman  5 , J Hermanides  4 , M W Hollmann  4 , C J Kalkman  5 , M D P Luyer  6 , G A P Nieuwenhuijzen  6 , H J Scholten  7 , M Buise  7 , M J van Det  8 , E A Kouwenhoven  8 , F van der Meer  9 , G W J Frederix  10 , E Cheong  11 , K Al Naimi  12 , M I van Berge Henegouwen  2 , R van Hillegersberg  13
Affiliations

Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial)

B F Kingma et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study primarily aims to compare the postoperative quality of recovery between paravertebral catheter versus thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Methods: This study represents a randomized controlled superiority trial. A total of 192 patients will be randomized in 4 Dutch high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years old, able to provide written informed consent and complete questionnaires in Dutch, scheduled to undergo minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and an intrathoracic anastomosis, and have no contra-indications to either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome is the quality of postoperative recovery, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire on the morning of postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes include the QoR-40 questionnaire score Area Under the Curve on postoperative days 1-3, the integrated pain and systemic opioid score and patient satisfaction and pain experience according to the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the groups will be compared regarding the need for additional rescue medication on postoperative days 0-3, technical failure of the pain treatment, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, total postoperative fluid administration day 0-3, postoperative vasopressor and inotrope use, length of urinary catheter use, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, chronic pain at six months after surgery, and other adverse effects.

Discussion: In this study, it is hypothesized that paravertebral analgesia achieves comparable pain control while causing less side-effects such as hypotension when compared to epidural analgesia, leading to shorter postoperative length of stay on a monitored ward and superior quality of recovery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study can be used to update the relevant guidelines on postoperative pain management for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8037. Registered 19 September 2019.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PEPMEN inclusion flowchart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
PEPMEN timeline of study procedures
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof MCCM, van Hagen P, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BPL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(9):1090–1098. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00040-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, Verhage RJ, van der Horst S, Haverkamp L, Siersema PD, et al. Oncologic long-term results of robot-assisted minimally invasive Thoraco-laparoscopic Esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S1350–S1356. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4544-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Richardson J, Sabanathan S, Mearns AJ, Evans CS, Bembridge J, Fairbrass M. Efficacy of pre-emptive analgesia and continuous extrapleural intercostal nerve block on post-thoracotomy pain and pulmonary mechanics. J Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;35(3):219–228. - PubMed
    1. Flisberg P, Tornebrandt K, Walther B, Lundberg J. Pain relief after esophagectomy: thoracic epidural analgesia is better than parenteral opioids. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2001;15(3):282–287. doi: 10.1053/jcan.2001.23270. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding