An interventional study of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Block and Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block in Celiac Plexus Block, sponsored by Assiut University. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Egypt. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-08.
Sponsored by Assiut University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care
Upper abdominal pain is a common and often debilitating symptom in patients with pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis, and is frequently under-treated by standard opioid therapy despite dose escalation and associated side effects [1]. In chronic pancreatitis, abdominal pain is present in the great majority of patients and is often the dominant factor driving impaired quality of life, with celiac plexus block considered an interventional option for temporary relief [2]. Pain arising from both malignant and benign upper abdominal pathology is transmitted through the celiac plexus, an autonomic plexus located in the retroperitoneum at the root of the celiac trunk, making it a rational target for pain-relieving intervention in either disease process [3]. Two image-guided approaches have been developed to interrupt this pathway: the percutaneous route, performed under fluoroscopic or CT guidance [5], and the endoscopic ultrasound-guided route, performed transgastrically at the time of upper endoscopy, which allows direct visualization of the celiac plexus and may reduce the risk of injury to adjacent structures compared with the percutaneous approach [3,9]. Neurolytic celiac plexus block has been shown to improve pain relief in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer [6], while EUS-guided celiac plexus block has similarly demonstrated efficacy in relieving pain associated with chronic pancreatitis [7]. Direct comparisons between the two approaches, however, remain limited: existing trials and meta-analyses in both chronic pancreatitis [2,8] and pancreatic cancer [4,9] show inconsistent superiority of one technique over the other, and the choice between them in practice has historically relied more on institutional expertise than on robust head-to-head evidence
Primary objective To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided versus percutaneous (ultrasound-guided) celiac plexus block in controlling pain in patients with upper gastrointestinal malignancies (pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma) and chronic pancreatitis.
Secondary Objectives
Assiut University is the lead sponsor of 4,916 studies on the registry; 2,113 are open to participants now.
Of its 13 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
1. Age: \< 18 years 2. Coagulopathy: INR > 1.5 or platelet count \< 50,000/μL, or use of anticoagulants that cannot be safely withheld per procedure guidelines 3. Allergy: Known allergy to local anesthetics or corticosteroids 4. Pregnancy: Intrauterine pregnancy or breastfeeding 5. Altered Anatomy: Anatomical variation, prior surgery, or interposed structures precluding safe performance of either procedure.
-
Participants receive celiac plexus block under endoscopic ultrasound guidance.
Procedure: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Block
Participants receive celiac plexus block via percutaneous approach.
Procedure: Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block
Celiac plexus block via endoscopic ultrasound
Celiac plexus block via percutaneous route image guided
Change in Pain Intensity from Baseline as Assessed by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)
Pain intensity assessed using the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Higher scores indicate worse pain. Comparison based on mean change from baseline between the EUS-guided and percutaneous groups.
Time frame: Time Frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-procedure
Change in Pain Intensity from Baseline as Assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Pain intensity assessed using a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst pain imaginable). Higher scores indicate worse pain. Comparison based on mean change from baseline between groups.
Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-procedure
Incidence of Procedure-Related Adverse Events
Number and percentage of participants experiencing procedure-related adverse events (e.g., bleeding, infection, hypotension, diarrhea, retroperitoneal hematoma), graded according to CTCAE v5.0 and compared between the EUS-guided and percutaneous groups
Time frame: Through 12 weeks post-procedure
Duration of Pain Relief
Time from procedure to loss of at least 50% reduction in pain score (NRS/VAS) from baseline, reported in weeks.
Time frame: Up to 12 weeks post-procedure
Patient Satisfaction with Treatment
Assessed using a 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.
Time frame: 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-procedure
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
Assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse).
Time frame: 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-procedure
Functional Disability as Assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Functional disability assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index, scored as a percentage from 0% to 100%. Higher scores indicate greater disability.
Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks
Change in Quality of Life as Assessed by the EQ-5D-5L
Health-related quality of life assessed using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression; 5 severity levels each), together with the EQ Visual Analog Scale (0-100, higher = better self-rated health).
Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks
Plan to share: Undecided
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Assiut University