ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01735669REMIVERUpdated Feb 18, 2015

Open Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Remifentanil Versus Nitrous Oxide in External Cephalic Version at Term in Singleton Pregnancy in Breech Presentation

A Phase 3 interventional study of Remifentanil and Nitrous Oxide in Non-cephalic Presentation, Inhalation of Nitrous Oxide and Pregnancy Complications, sponsored by Hospital de Cruces. Completed at 1 site in Spain. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 65 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-02-18.

Primary conditionBreech PresentationRegistry: Pregnancy ComplicationsReclassifiedWhy we changed it
Registry
Pregnancy Complications — the first condition term the registry derived for this study.
ClinicalTrials.gg
Breech Presentation
Why
  1. The study's title name Breech Presentation, a narrower term within Pregnancy Complications.
Confidence
High: the new condition is named in the study's own title. Of 46 hand-checked studies reclassified this way, 72% were exactly right and 89% in the right disease family; the registry's first term was right for 4% (measured 2026-10-21). How we classify →
Wrong?
Tell us the study's main condition →

Sponsored by Hospital de Cruces · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
120
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 65 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Objectives: The objective is to demonstrate the superiority of remifentanil versus nitrous oxide as adjuvant analgesic treatment to increase the chances of success of external cephalic version in the management of non-cephalic presentation in women with singleton pregnancy at term. Another objective is to compare their safety, tolerability and acceptability.

Methodology: single-center clinical trial, randomized, open, parallel-group and sequential design, with active comparator. Pragmatic approach. Sequential design of O'Brien-Fleming with two interim analysis. Analysis by intention to treat. Comparison of the rate of successful version, referred to analgesic effect, safety, caesarean rates and acceptability rate of the procedure for pregnant women.

Read the detailed description

External cephalic version is a procedure with clear benefits, but its realization is painful for the patient. Studies have shown that this pain limits external cephalic version efforts and therefore it negatively influences its success rate. In addition, any painful procedure has worse acceptance by patients so that its implementation is slow and not always universal. In this context, measures to reduce this pain could improve the success rate and acceptance of the procedure. All studies that have focused on reducing pain in external cephalic version have been made with regional anaesthetic techniques, epidural or spinal analgesia. Given the heterogeneity and the small number of studies there is still no conclusive data to make recommendations for regional anaesthesia in the external cephalic version. The introduction of regional anaesthesia can bring benefits to the version but it is not without drawbacks. This is an invasive anaesthetic technique that can reduce the security of the procedure and lead to longer hospital stay for the patient by the blockade that produces in the lower extremities. This in turn is associated with increased discomfort and costs of the procedure.

Cruces University Hospital has wide experience in carrying out external cephalic version procedures, being one of Spanish leading hospitals in terms of number of procedures and success rate. Currently external cephalic version procedures include analgesic support using nitrous oxide due to the combination of moderate analgesic activity and substantial ease of use.

The investigators belief is that the use of an opioid with advantageous pharmacokinetic properties and powerful analgesic effect as an adjunctive therapy during the course of external cephalic version procedures may become an efficacious and safe alternative, leading to increased pain relief and improved external cephalic version success rates. Its use requires, however, specific personnel and organizational facilities such as access to anesthetic support that can impede its widespread use. Therefore, the investigators is committed to explore feasibility and practical implementation factors as well as comparative efficacy and safety of this approach in non-cephalic presentation.

The investigators conducted a study to evaluate the effect of nitrous oxide as an adjunctive to external cephalic version and we observed a slight decrease in patient reported pain (visual analogous scale), with no effect on the rate of success. Currently, in the protocol of Cruces University Hospital the administration of nitrous oxide during the manoeuvres of the external cephalic version is routine practice. The investigators consider that the analgesic remifentanil is a better option for the external cephalic version than nitrous oxide by the combination of rapid onset of effect, with analgesic potency similar to regional anaesthesia and rapid metabolism that prevents their accumulation in tissues.

The lack of existing evidence on this issue, hence, prompts the investigators to conduct this pilot clinical trial aimed to assess scientific as well as logistical aspects involved in the performance of external cephalic version in non-cephalic presentation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Non-cephalic Presentation
  • Inhalation of Nitrous Oxide
  • Pregnancy Complications
  • Complications; Cesarean Section
  • Fetus or Neonate Affected by External Version Before Labor

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Remifentanil
  • Breech presentation
  • Nitrous oxide
  • Pregnancy complications
  • Caesarean section
  • Fetal version
03

In context

Breech Presentation Reclassified

41 studies on the registry are indexed under Breech Presentation; 10 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 120 is close to the median of 119 across 31 interventional studies indexed under Breech Presentation.

Browse Breech Presentation studies →

Lead sponsor

Hospital de Cruces is the lead sponsor of 10 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Compared within Breech Presentation, this study's primary condition as ClinicalTrials.gg classifies it; the registry's first condition term is Pregnancy Complications. The counts are of registry records indexed under each term, refreshed daily. How we classify →

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 65 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  1. pregnancy at term (≥ 37 weeks)
  2. singleton foetus in non-cephalic presentation
  3. correct foetal cardiotocographic record
  4. obstetrical ultrasound examination without findings of serious foetal malformations
  5. indication for the performance of ECV
  6. acceptance of ECV
  7. age ≥ 18 years
  8. signature of

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. previous version in the same pregnancy (previous ECV in a different pregnancy allowed)
  2. to ECV: 1-placenta praevia, 2- placental abruption, 3-oligohydramnios (SPD \<2), 4-foetal compromise 5-foetal death, 6-severe malformations, 7-multiple pregnancy, 8- Rh sensitization, 9- uterine abnormalities, 10- clotting disorders;
  3. contraindications to Nitrous Oxide: 1-patients who require pure oxygen ventilation 2- intracranial hypertension 3- disorders of consciousness that impede the cooperation of the patient, 4-pneumothorax; 5-emphysematous bulla, 6-pulmonary embolism; 7-immersion accident, 8-bloating abdominal trauma 9- facial trauma that affects the area of application of the mask,10- patients who received the type gases SF6, C3F8, C2F6 (used in eye surgery), at least in the previous three months.
  4. contraindications for remifentanil: to remifentanil, fentanyl or fentanyl analogs or to any component of its formulation (according to technical requirements by manufacturer).
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

Hypersensitivity

An allergy, or another reaction of the immune system, to a substance. “Hypersensitivity to the study drug” means a known allergic reaction to it — not every side effect a medicine can have.

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
120 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Remifentanil

    External cephalic version at term under Remifentanil perfusion

    Drug: Remifentanil

  • Active comparator
    Nitrous oxide

    External cephalic version at term under Nitrous oxide inhalation

    Drug: Nitrous Oxide

Interventions

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Success rate of ECV in singleton pregnancies in breech presentation at term

    Time frame: 5 minutes

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rate of adverse events and severity

    Metrics (analysis)

    Time frame: 30 days

  2. Pain Scores on the Visual Analog Scale

    Metrics (scale)

    Time frame: 60 min

  3. Rate of non-cephalic presentation in the delivery

    Metrics (analysis)

    Time frame: 30 days

  4. Caesarean rate

    Metrics (analysis)

    Time frame: 30 days

  5. Rate of women who would recommend the procedure

    Metrics (questionnaire)

    Time frame: 60 min

  6. Rate of women who would repeat the procedure

    Metrics (questionnaire)

    Time frame: 60 min

  7. Influence of the analgesia in the rate of women who would repeat the procedure

    Metrics (questionnaire)

    Time frame: 60 min

  8. Influence of the analgesia in the rate of women who would recommend the procedure

    Metrics (questionnaire)

    Time frame: 60 min

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Hospital Universitario Cruces
    Barakaldo, Bizkaia 48903, Spain
08

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 18, 2015, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01735669
Lead sponsor
Hospital de Cruces
Responsible party
Jorge Burgos (PROFESSOR, Hospital de Cruces) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 28, 2012
Start date
Jul 2012
Primary completion
Apr 2013
Completion
Jan 2014
Last update
Feb 18, 2015

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drug tested here: Remifentanil

Start the discussion