Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37684697›Full record

ArticleTrials2023

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) with vs without bupivacaine.

Eslam Esmail, Sarto C Paquin, Anand V Sahai

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04951804 (A Randomized Controlled Trial of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Celiac Plexus Neurolysis), 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, top 74% of its field
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.

NCT04951804 narecruitingnot on this map

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Celiac Plexus Neurolysis (EUS-CPN) With and Without Bupivacaine

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)Ran2021 to 2029Enrolled180ConditionsPancreatic CancerArmsEUS-CPN without bupivacaine, EUS-CPN with bupivacaine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Eslam EsmailCHUM, Montreal, Canada.
Sarto C PaquinCHUM, Montreal, Canada.
Anand V SahaiCHUM, Montreal, Canada. anand.sahai@sympatico.ca.
Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with less than 5% 5-year survival. Inoperable patients often present with pain. Randomized controlled trial have shown that endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) improves pain control. It is usually performed by injecting bupivacaine followed by absolute alcohol around the celiac axis. STUDY

designSingle center, randomized, double blind controlled trial of EUS-CPN with and without bupivacaine in patients with inoperable malignancy (pancreatic or other) involving the celiac plexus. The study was approved by research ethics board with approval number of 2022-9969, 21.151 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04951804). DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that bupivacaine is superfluous and may actually reduce pain control by diluting the neurolytic effect of alcohol. Bupivacaine is also potentially dangerous in that it may produce serious adverse events such as arrythmias and cardiac arrest if inadvertently injected intravascularly.

conclusionThis randomized trial is designed to assess whether bupivacaine is of any value during EUS-CPN.

Indexed as

Celiac PlexusNerve BlockBupivacaineEthanolHumansPainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUltrasonography, InterventionalBupivacaineEthanol

Identifiers

PMID37684697
PMCPMC10486028
OpenAlexW4386543708

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.