Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33976374›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

A randomised, non-inferiority study of chloroprocaine 2% and ropivacaine 0.75% in ultrasound-guided axillary block.

Irene Sulyok, Claudio Camponovo, Oliver Zotti, Werner Haslik, Markus Köstenberger, Rudolf Likar, Chiara Leuratti, Elisabetta Donati, Oliver Kimberger

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEquivalence TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02385097 (A Prospective, Randomised, Non-inferiority Study of Chloroprocaine 2% and the Active Control Ropivacaine 0.75%), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02385097 phase3completednot on this map

A Prospective, Randomised, Non-inferiority Study of Chloroprocaine 2% and the Active Control Ropivacaine 0.75% (AstraZeneca) in Ultrasound-guided Axillary Nerve Block for Short-duration Distal Upper Limb Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorSintetica SARan2015 to 2017Enrolled211ConditionsAxillary Nerve BlockArmsChloroprocaine HCl 2%, Ropivacaine 0.75%
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Irene SulyokDepartment of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Claudio CamponovoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Clinica Ars Medica, Genolier Swiss Medical Network, Gravesano, Switzerland.
Oliver ZottiDepartment of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Werner HaslikDepartment of Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Markus KöstenbergerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Klagenfurt, Austria.
Rudolf LikarDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Klagenfurt, Austria.
Chiara LeurattiCROSS Research SA, Mendrisio, Switzerland.
Elisabetta DonatiSintentica SA, Mendrisio, Switzerland.
Oliver KimbergerDepartment of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. oliver.kimberger@meduniwien.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chloroprocaine is a short-acting local anaesthetic with a rapid onset of action and an anaesthesia duration up to 60 min. In this pivotal study success rates, onset and remission of motor and sensory block and safety of chloroprocaine 2% was compared to ropivacaine 0.75% for short-duration distal upper limb surgery with successful block rates as primary outcome. The study was designed as a prospective, randomised, multi-centre, active-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority study, performed in 4 European hospitals with 211 patients scheduled for short duration distal upper limb surgery under axillary plexus block anaesthesia. Patients received either ultrasound guided axillary block with 20 ml chloroprocaine 2%, or with 20 ml ropivacaine 0.75%. Successful block was defined as block without any supplementation in the first 45 min calculated from the time of readiness for surgery. 90.8% patients achieved a successful block with chloroprocaine 2% and 92.9% patients with Ropivacaine 0.75%, thus non-inferiority was demonstrated (10% non inferiority margin; 95% CI - 0.097, 0.039; p = 0.02). Time to onset of block was not significantly different between the groups. Median time to motor and sensory block regression was significantly shorter as was time to home discharge (164 [155-170] min for chloroprocaine versus 380 [209-450] for the ropivacaine group, p < 0.001). For short-duration surgical procedures, the short-acting Chloroprocaine 2% may be used, with success rates non-inferior to ropivacaine and a favourable safety profile.Trial registration: The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov with registration number NCT02385097 (March 11th, 2015) and European Clinical Trial Database with the EudraCT number 2014-002519-40 (July 7th, 2015, Austria-BASG).

Indexed as

Nerve BlockAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnesthetics, LocalAxillaDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProcaineProspective StudiesRopivacaineUltrasonography, InterventionalYoung AdultAnesthetics, LocalchloroprocaineProcaineRopivacaine

Identifiers

PMID33976374
PMCPMC8113228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.