Skip to content

Comparison of Continuous Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Versus ESP Block for Rib Fracture Analgesia

Comparison of Continuous Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Versus ESP Block for Rib Fracture Analgesia

Status
Withdrawn
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04707183
Acronym
Rib Fract ESP
Enrollment
0
Registered
2021-01-13
Start date
2025-05-01
Completion date
2026-05-01
Last updated
2026-05-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Rib Fractures

Brief summary

Recently in 2016, a new interfascial plane nerve block was developed for thoracic analgesia known as the erector spinae plane block (ESPB). Since its development for thoracic neuropathic pain, the ESPB has been shown to be effective in pain control in multiple procedures including thoracotomies. However, there have been a few published case reports of using ESPB for analgesia in rib fracture management and only one retrospective study which demonstrated improved NRS pain scores and increased incentive spirometry volumes (ICV) post-ESPB compared to pre-ESPB values. The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness of ESPB as an alternative method to the current standard of care at Stanford Health Care (SHC) for pain management in traumatic rib fractures. At the investigator's institution, the current standard of care is intravenous (IV) and enteral multimodal analgesia that consists primarily of opioids and a continuous IV lidocaine infusion. Although IV lidocaine has shown some benefit in improving post-surgical pain scores, evidence for its use in MRF is lacking. The purpose of this study is to perform a randomized clinical trial comparing outcomes in pain control and incentive spirometry volumes between continuous ESPB catheters and IV lidocaine infusions in adult patients with acute traumatic rib fractures. The investigators want to determine if ESPB can provide improved pain control in patients admitted for traumatic rib fractures compared to IV Lidocaine. The aim is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of ESPB on OME consumption, pain scores, incentive spirometry volumes, cough strength, respiratory complications, inflammatory biomarkers and hospital LOS. Findings from this study can help improve analgesia, quality of care, and patient satisfaction at Stanford Healthcare and for other acute pain and trauma surgery providers. The aim of this study involves pain management for patients with acute traumatic rib fractures and therefore must involve human subjects.

Interventions

DRUGLidocaine IV Infusion

Lidocaine will infused through erector spinae plane block catheter in patients with traumatic rib fracture.

DRUG2% Lidocaine via ESPB

10 ml of 2% lidocaine will be infused through ESPB in treatment group

Sponsors

Stanford University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

\- All adult patients admitted to Stanford Health Care with two or more acute traumatic rib fractures.

Exclusion criteria

* Hemodynamically instability, * Mechanical ventilation, * Polytrauma (defined as bone or organ injury outside the thorax), * Pregnancy, * Incarceration * Local anesthetic allergy or contraindications to lidocaine (Stokes-Adams syndrome, Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, or severe degrees of sinoatrial, atrioventricular, or intraventricular block) * Chronic opioid use.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
OME consumption at 24 hours of treatment.Up to 24 hours of treatmentOral morphine equivalent consumption at 24 hours of treatment

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
OME at 48 hrsUp to 48 hours of treatmentOral morphine equivalent consumption at 48 hours of treatment
Pain ScoreEvery 4 hours general pain scores, and baseline, 24 hours, 48 hour, 72 hours for pain scores with cough and inspiration.Pain scores at rest and with cough and deep inspiration. Will use Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) of 0-10, where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst imaginable
Incentive spirometry volumes (volume of 0 - 5000 mL)Time 0, 24 hours, 48 hour, and 72 hoursAn incentive spirometer is a device that measures how deeply you can inhale. Higher volumes indicate greater ability to inhale.
PIC scoreTime 0, 24 hours, 48 hour, and 72 hours.PIC score is a composite score comprising pain level, ISV, and cough strength. PIC scores range from 1-10 with one being severe pain, inability to perform incentive spirometry, and absent cough and 10 being controlled pain, an incentive spirometry volume above goal volume(set by respiratory therapist), and strong cough
Length of hospital stayUp to 10 daysWe will record the number of days stayed at the hospital from the day of operation till the day of discharge (from 0-10, or 10+)
Inflammatory biomarkersTime 0, 24 hours, and 48 hourWill be looking at proinflammatory markers (IL6, IL8, IL-1β, TNF-α) and f anti-inflammatory markers (IL10)
Rates of pulmonary complicationsWill be assessed up to 72 hoursWe will look at the occurrence of complications such as ARDS, pneumonia, aspiration, empyema, including need for positive pressure ventilation, pneumonia, aspiration, supplemental oxygen

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 6, 2026