Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 6:38 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-01-01 @ 10:02 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT07217457
Status:
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Last Update Posted:
2025-10-16
First Post:
2025-10-12
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Epidural Wave Form Analysis vs Fluoroscopic Guidance for Thoracic Epidural Placement
Sponsor:
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Epidural Wave Form Analysis vs Fluoroscopic Guidance for Thoracic Epidural Placement
Status:
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Status Verified Date:
2025-10
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The primary objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of epidural waveform analysis (EWA) with fluoroscopic guidance for confirmation of successful epidural placement. In this study, participants will undergo both EWA and fluoroscopy. EWA involves measuring the pressure in the epidural space once accessed and determining whether or not a waveform that corresponds with the participant's heart rate is present. The pressure measuring apparatus is the same that is used for direct pressure monitoring elsewhere in the body (i.e. invasive arterial catheters or intracranial pressure monitoring).
Detailed Description:
The primary objective of this study is to assess the accuracy with which epidural waveform analysis (EWA) can confirm epidural access in comparison to the gold standard of fluoroscopic confirmation (FC). Our hypothesis is that FC is superior to EWA. We will determine the Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value of EWA referenced to FC.
If EWA performs reasonably well compared to FC, then EWA could be used in settings where anesthesia providers do not have access to fluoroscopy or the expertise to perform fluoroscopic-guided thoracic epidurals. EWA uses clinically approved pressure transducers, which are used commonly to analyze other physiologic pressures (e.g. invasive hemodynamic monitoring and invasive intracranial pressure monitoring.) and could offer a low budget way to help reassure that placement of a needle is indeed epidural, and not in a different location.
If EWA performs reasonably well compared to FC, then EWA could be used in settings where anesthesia providers do not have access to fluoroscopy or the expertise to perform fluoroscopic-guided thoracic epidurals. EWA uses clinically approved pressure transducers, which are used commonly to analyze other physiologic pressures (e.g. invasive hemodynamic monitoring and invasive intracranial pressure monitoring.) and could offer a low budget way to help reassure that placement of a needle is indeed epidural, and not in a different location.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
True
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
False
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: