Shelley, B. orcid.org/0000-0001-6771-9659, Middleton, L. orcid.org/0000-0003-4621-1922, Goebel, A. orcid.org/0000-0002-3763-8206 et al. (16 more authors) (2026) The clinical and cost-effectiveness of paravertebral blockade versus thoracic epidural blockade in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain: TOPIC2 RCT synopsis. Health Technology Assessment, 30 (16). ISSN: 2046-4924
Abstract
Background
More than a third of patients undergoing thoracotomy suffer from debilitating chronic post-thoracotomy pain lasting months or years postoperatively. Aggressive management of acute pain during the perioperative period may mitigate this risk.
Objective(s)
To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of paravertebral blockade compared to thoracic epidural blockade, by testing the hypothesis that paravertebral blockade reduces the incidence of chronic post-thoracotomy pain.
Design and methods
A parallel, open, multicentre, randomised controlled with integrated health-economic evaluation and an internal pilot that incorporated a qualitative recruitment intervention.
Setting and participants
Adult patients undergoing thoracotomy in 15 United Kingdom centres.
Interventions
Paravertebral blockade compared to thoracic epidural blockade.
Main outcome measures
The primary outcome was the presence of chronic post-thoracotomy pain at 6 months post randomisation defined as ‘worst chest pain over the last week’ of at least moderate intensity, with a visual analogue scale score ≥ 40 mm. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores in the acute (days 1, 2, 3 and discharge) and chronic (3, 6 and 12 months) phases postoperatively; Brief Pain Inventory; Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; patient satisfaction; analgesia use in the acute and chronic phases; complications (analgesic, surgical and pulmonary) and mortality. For the economic evaluation, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version questionnaire was utilised.
Results
Between 8 January 2019 and 29 September 2023, 770 patients underwent randomisation; 33 did not proceed to thoracotomy. At 6 months, 59 (22%) of 272 participants in the paravertebral blockade group and 47 (16%) of 292 in the thoracic epidural blockade group developed chronic pain [adjusted risk ratio = 1.32 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.86); adjusted risk difference = 0.05 (95% confidence interval −0.01 to 0.11); p = 0.12]. During the acute phase, both worst and average pain was higher on day 1 with paravertebral blockade [adjusted mean difference 7.7 mm (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 12.5) and 7.0 mm (95% confidence interval 2.7 to 11.2), respectively] but not different on days 2 and 3. Hypotension was less common in the paravertebral blockade group [adjusted risk ratio = 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.94)], and overall complications were comparable between groups. The health-economic analysis demonstrated that thoracic epidural blockade produced an additional 0.04 quality-adjusted life-years when compared to paravertebral blockade, and was associated with slightly lower costs, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Limitations
The main limitation is the reduced sample size from 1026 to 770, which reduced the associated power from 90% to 80%. The key reasons are related to practice change over time resulting in a downgrade in equipoise and the COVID pandemic. Also, we cannot rule out that lack of blinding may have had some impact on the acute phase outcomes.
Conclusions
In our study, paravertebral blockade and thoracic epidural blockade appear to be equivalent in clinical and cost-effectiveness in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy at 6 months; this may be paving the way for both techniques likely to continue in National Health Service thoracic settings, based on clinician and patient’s choices.
Future work
Using full TOPIC-2 data sets, defined according to the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons data set, to explore the trajectory of the development from acute to chronic post-surgery pain.
Funding
This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/111/111.
Metadata
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Authors/Creators: |
|
| Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © 2026 Shelley et al. This work was produced by Shelley et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited. |
| Dates: |
|
| Institution: | The University of Sheffield |
| Academic Units: | The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health (Sheffield) > School of Medicine and Population Health |
| Date Deposited: | 18 Feb 2026 15:24 |
| Last Modified: | 18 Feb 2026 15:24 |
| Status: | Published |
| Publisher: | National Institute for Health and Care Research |
| Refereed: | Yes |
| Identification Number: | 10.3310/gjfg1715 |
| Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:238170 |
Download
Filename: 3049941.pdf
Licence: CC-BY 4.0

CORE (COnnecting REpositories)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)