Juan P Cata1,2, Keith Fournier3, German Corrales4,5, Pascal Owusu-Agyemang4,5, Joseph Soliz4, Mauro Bravo4,6, Jonathan Wilks4, Antoinette Van Meter4, Mike Hernandez7, Vijay Gottumukkala4,5. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 409, Houston, TX, 77005, USA. JCata@mdanderson.org. 2. Anesthesiology and Surgical Oncology Research Group, Houston, TX, USA. JCata@mdanderson.org. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 409, Houston, TX, 77005, USA. 5. Anesthesiology and Surgical Oncology Research Group, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recovery after CRS-HIPEC influenced by several factors, including pain and opioid consumption. We hypothesized that 4Q-TAP blocks provide not inferior quality of recovery compared with TEA after CRS-HIPEC. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to determine whether 4-quadrant transversus abdominis plane (4Q-TAP) block analgesia was noninferior to thoracic epidural (TEA) among patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS HIPEC). METHODS:Patients 18 years or older who underwent a CRS-HIPEC surgery were randomly assigned to have either TEA or 4Q-TAP blocks. The primary outcome of this study was the change in quality of recovery 2 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included quality of recovery on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 30 postoperatively, opioid consumption, pain intensity, length of stay, and postoperative complications. Analyses were performed on a per-protocol basis. RESULTS:Sixty-eight patients were included in the analysis. The difference between 4Q-TAP and TEA in the mean QoR-15 change from surgery at postoperative Days 1, 2, and 3 was 0.80 (P = 0.004), -4.5 (P = 0.134), and 3.4 (P = 0.003), respectively. All differences through postoperative day 30 were significantly within the noninferiority boundary of -10 except at postoperative Day 2 (P = 0.134). Length of stay, opioid-related adverse events, and frequency and grade of complications were not significantly different between TEA and 4Q-TAP patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significantly higher use of opioids after CRS-HIPEC in patients with 4Q-TAP blocks, their short-term quality of recovery was not inferior to those treated with TEA. Patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC can be effectively managed with 4Q-TAP blocks.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Recovery after CRS-HIPEC influenced by several factors, including pain and opioid consumption. We hypothesized that 4Q-TAP blocks provide not inferior quality of recovery compared with TEA after CRS-HIPEC. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to determine whether 4-quadrant transversus abdominis plane (4Q-TAP) block analgesia was noninferior to thoracic epidural (TEA) among patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS HIPEC). METHODS:Patients 18 years or older who underwent a CRS-HIPEC surgery were randomly assigned to have either TEA or 4Q-TAP blocks. The primary outcome of this study was the change in quality of recovery 2 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included quality of recovery on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 30 postoperatively, opioid consumption, pain intensity, length of stay, and postoperative complications. Analyses were performed on a per-protocol basis. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were included in the analysis. The difference between 4Q-TAP and TEA in the mean QoR-15 change from surgery at postoperative Days 1, 2, and 3 was 0.80 (P = 0.004), -4.5 (P = 0.134), and 3.4 (P = 0.003), respectively. All differences through postoperative day 30 were significantly within the noninferiority boundary of -10 except at postoperative Day 2 (P = 0.134). Length of stay, opioid-related adverse events, and frequency and grade of complications were not significantly different between TEA and 4Q-TAPpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significantly higher use of opioids after CRS-HIPEC in patients with 4Q-TAP blocks, their short-term quality of recovery was not inferior to those treated with TEA. Patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC can be effectively managed with 4Q-TAP blocks.