Paravertebral versus EPidural Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Esophageal ResectioN (PEPMEN): A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.

Objective: To compare quality of recovery in patients receiving epidural or paravertebral analgesia for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).
Summary Background Data: Paravertebral analgesia may be a promising alternative to epidural analgesia, avoiding potential side effects and improving postoperative recovery.
Methods: This randomized controlled superiority trial was conducted across four Dutch centers with esophageal cancer patients scheduled for transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic anastomosis, randomizing patients to receive either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery (QoR-40) on the third postoperative day (POD). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, postoperative pain, opioid consumption, inotropic/vasopressor medication use, hospital stay, complications, readmission, and mortality.
Results: From December 2019 to February 2023, 192 patients were included: 94 received epidural and 98 paravertebral analgesia. QoR-40 score on POD3 was not different between groups (mean difference 3.7, 95%CI -2.3 to 9.7; P=0.268). Epidural patients had significant higher QoR-40 scores on POD1 and 2 (mean difference 7.7, 95%CI 2.3-13.1; P=0.018 and mean difference 7.3, 95%CI 1.9-12.7; P=0.020) and lower pain scores (median 1 versus 2; P=<0.001 and median 1 versus 2; P=0.033). More epidural patients required vasopressor medication on POD1 (38.3% versus 13.3%; P<0.001). Urinary catheters were removed earlier in the paravertebral group (median POD3 versus 4; P=<0.001). No significant differences were found in postoperative complications or hospital/Intensive Care Unit stay.
Conclusions: This randomized controlled trial did not demonstrate superiority of paravertebral over epidural analgesia regarding quality of recovery on POD3 after MIE. Both techniques are effective and can be offered in clinical practice.
Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Prof. dr. Ruurda reported serving an advisory or consulting role for Intuitive Surgical and Medtronic. Prof. dr. Luyer reported receiving research grants from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. Nieuwenhuijzen reported serving a consulting or advisory role for Medtronic. Dr. Buise reported serving a consulting or advisory role for Medtronic. Dr. van Det reported serving a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Surgical. Dr. Kouwenhoven reported serving a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Surgical. Prof. dr. Hollmann reported serving roles as Executive Section Editor Pharmacology with Anesthesia & Analgesia, Section Editor Anesthesiology with J Clin Med, Editor with Front Physiol, and research support and honorarium for consultancy by PAION, Medical Developments & IDD Pharma. Prof. dr. van Berge Henegouwen reported serving a consulting or advisory roles for Viatris, Johnson & Johnson, BBraun, Stryker and Medtronic, all fees paid to the institution. Prof. dr. van Hillegersberg reported serving a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic and Olympus. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
(Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)