Epidural stimulator catheter

A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement

Background

Loss of resistance (LOR) for epidural catheter placement has been utilized for almost a century. LOR is a subjective endpoint associated with a high failure rate. Nerve stimulation (NS) has been described as an objective method for confirming placement of an epidural catheter. We hypothesized that the addition of NS to LOR would improve the success of epidural catheter placement.

Methods

One-hundred patients were randomized to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) utilizing LOR-alone or loss of resistance plus nerve stimulation (LOR + NS). The primary endpoint was rate of success, defined as loss of sensation following test dose. Secondary endpoints included performance time. An intention-to-treat analysis was planned, but a per-protocol analysis was performed to investigate the success rate when stimulation was achieved.

Results

In the intention-to-treat analysis there was no difference in success rates (90% vs 82% [LOR + NS vs LOR-alone]; P = 0.39). The procedural time increased in the LOR + NS group (33.9 ± 12.8 vs 24.0 ± 8.0 min; P < 0.001). The per-protocol analysis found a statistically higher success rate for the LOR + NS group compared to the LOR-alone group (98% vs. 82%; P = 0.017) when only patients in whom stimulation was achieved were included.

Conclusions

Addition of NS technique did not statistically improve the success rate for epidural placement when analyzed in an intention-to-treat format and was associated with a longer procedural time. In a per-protocol analysis a statistically higher success rate for patients in whom stimulation was obtained highlights the potential benefit of adding NS to LOR.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03087604 on 3/22/2017; Institutional Review Board Wake Forest School of Medicine IRB00039522, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption: G160273.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01584-x.

A Prospective Comparative Study of Two Indirect Methods for Confirming the Localization of an Epidural Catheter for Postoperative Analgesia

We prospectively evaluated, in randomized order, 2 indirect methods of confirming the localization of an epidural catheter for postoperative analgesia in 218 surgical patients: epidural stimulation test (EST) and epidural pressure waveform analysis (EPWA). The epidural space was localized by using a loss of resistance technique. All catheters were inserted 5 cm into the epidural space and primed with 5 mL of 0.9% normal saline. There were no differences between the methods: the positive predictive value and specificity were high (100% in both groups), but the sensitivity was moderate (80% for EST and 81% for EPWA) and the negative predictive value was low (16% for EST and 17% for EPWA). Combining both methods yielded better sensitivity (97%) and negative predictive value (57%) (P < 0.001). The sensitivity of EST was increased to 87% (P < 0.05) if sensory response was included as well as motor response for stimulation less than 10 mA. We suggest the inclusion of sensory response in the appropriate dermatome at a current <10 mA as a criterion for adequate epidural catheter localization for EST testing. EPWA sensitivity was significantly better with older patients: 94% for patients older than 80 yr compared with 63% for patients younger than 40, 73% for patients 40 to 60, and 85% for patients aged 60 to 80 yr (P = 0.03). We conclude that the two tests are comparable for confirming catheter placement.

An In Vitro Comparison of the Electrical Conducting Properties of Multiport Versus Single-Port Epidural Catheters for the Epidural Stimulation Test

Effective conduction of electricity through a catheter is essential for the success of the epidural stimulation test. In this in vitro study we examined the electrical conductivity of single and multiport epidural catheters (with and without embedded metal elements) after being primed with normal saline. Seven different types of 19-gauge catheters (n = 5), either single-port or multiport catheters, with or without embedded metal elements, were studied. The proximal end of each epidural catheter was connected to the cathode of a nerve stimulator via an electrode adapter. The catheter, primed with normal saline, was placed at the bottom of a syringe filled with 5 different volumes of saline (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mL) and attached to an electrode adapter. The voltage of the peripheral nerve stimulator was measured using an oscilloscope. The electrical resistance between the proximal and distal end of the catheter was calculated using Ohm's Law. In catheters without metal elements the electrical resistances were too high to be measured. In catheters that had metal elements, the mean electrical resistances of the same catheter design (single-port or multiport) were similar. However, the electrical resistances of the multiport metal reinforced epidural catheters were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than the single-port metal coil reinforced epidural catheters. The volume of saline in the syringe had no impact on the measured electrical resistances. This study suggests that multiport metal reinforced epidural catheters have low electrical resistances and, thus, are a reasonable alternative to single-port catheters for transmitting sufficient current for performing the epidural stimulation test. On the other hand, epidural catheters without metal elements (single-port or multiport) are not suitable for performing the stimulation test.

The threshold current in the intrathecal space to elicit motor response is lower and does not overlap that in the epidural space: a porcine model

PURPOSE

Using electrical epidural stimulation, a current of 1 to 10 mA is required to confirm the presence of the tip of an epidural catheter in the epidural space. The purpose of this study was to examine the hypothesis that the threshold current required to elicit a motor response in the intrathecal space is significantly lower than that in the epidural space in a porcine model.

METHODS

Four 20-kg pigs were used in this experiment. Eighteen gauge, insulated, Tuohy needles were advanced into the epidural space using the loss of resistance technique at five different spinal levels in each pig. When the epidural space was entered, an electrical current was applied to the needle and increased progressively until a motor response was elicited. The needle was then further advanced until cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was observed or until the needle had been advanced a maximum of 1 cm. At this point, the current was reapplied and increased until motor activity was evident.

RESULTS

A total of 20 needles were inserted in four pigs. The current required to produce a motor response in the epidural space was 3.45 +/- 0.73 mA (mean +/- SD). The current required to produce a motor response in the intrathecal space (entry confirmed by the presence of CSF) was 0.38 +/- 0.19 mA (mean +/- SD). Two needles were advanced 1 cm without obtaining CSF but the current thresholds were similar to those obtained when CSF was evident (0.4 mA and 0.3 mA, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The threshold current of an insulated needle required to elicit a motor response in the intrathecal space, was significantly (P < 0.01) lower than that in the epidural space in a porcine model.