Dose-response effects of spinal neostigmine added to bupivacaine spinal anesthesia in volunteers.
BACKGROUND: Intrathecal adjuncts often are used to enhance small-dose spinal bupivacaine for ambulatory anesthesia. Neostigmine is a novel spinal analgesic that could be a useful adjunct, but no data exist to assess the effects of neostigmine on small-dose bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. METHODS: Eighteen volunteers received two bupivacaine spinal anesthetics (7.5 mg) in a randomized, double-blinded, crossover design. Dextrose, 5% (1 ml), was added to one spinal infusion and 6.25, 12.5, or 50 microg neostigmine in dextrose, 5%, was added to the other spinal. Sensory block was assessed with pinprick; by the duration of tolerance to electric stimulation equivalent to surgical incision at the pubis, knee, and ankle; and by the duration of tolerance to thigh tourniquet. Motor block at the quadriceps was assessed with surface electromyography. Side effects (nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and sedation) were noted. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were recorded every 5 min. Dose-response relations were assessed with analysis of variance, paired t tests, or Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: The addition of 50 microg neostigmine significantly increased the duration of sensory and motor block and the time until discharge criteria were achieved. The addition of neostigmine produced dose-dependent nausea (33-67%) and vomiting (17-50%). Neostigmine at these doses had no effect on hemodynamic or respiratory parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 50 microg neostigmine prolonged the duration of sensory and motor block. However, high incidences of side effects and delayed recovery from anesthesia with the addition of 6.25 to 50 microg neostigmine may limit the clinical use of these doses for outpatient spinal anesthesia. (+info)
A double-blind comparison of 0.125% ropivacaine with sufentanil and 0.125% bupivacaine with sufentanil for epidural labor analgesia.
BACKGROUND: This study intends to evaluate the benefits of the administration of intermittent bolus doses of ropivacaine (0.125%) compared with bupivacaine (0.125%) after addition of sufentanil for analgesia during labor. METHODS: One hundred thirty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 or 2 parturients were studied. The 90 initial patients were assigned randomly to receive 10 ml bupivacaine, 0.125%, plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (initial bupivacaine 0.125% group) or ropivacaine, 0.125%, plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (ropivacaine 0.125% group). Forty additional patients were recruited and received 0.125% bupivacaine plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (additional bupivacaine 0.125% group) or 0.100% bupivacaine plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (additional bupivacaine 0.100% group). The duration of analgesia, visual analogue scores for pain, motor blockade (using a six-point modified Bromage scale), patient satisfaction scores, nausea, pruritus, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded. RESULTS: Bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.125% coadministered with sufentanil provided rapid and complete analgesia. Onset of analgesia occurred after +/-15 min and lasted +/-90 min. After the third epidural injection, patients in the ropivacaine group experienced significantly less severe motor blockade than patients in the initial bupivacaine 0.125% group. At this point, 93% of the patients in the ropivacaine group were free from motor impairment versus 66% in the bupivacaine group (P<0.05). Comparable levels of motor blockade were obtained in both additional groups. Patients' evaluation of their analgesia was worst in the bupivacaine 0.100% group. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil affords reliable analgesia with minimal motor blockade. (+info)
Interaction of bupivacaine and tetracaine with the sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ release channel of skeletal and cardiac muscles.
BACKGROUND: Although various local anesthetics can cause histologic damage to skeletal muscle when injected intramuscularly, bupivacaine appears to have an exceptionally high rate of myotoxicity. Research has suggested that an effect of bupivacaine on sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ release is involved in its myotoxicity, but direct evidence is lacking. Furthermore, it is not known whether the toxicity depends on the unique chemical characteristics of bupivacaine and whether the toxicity is found only in skeletal muscle. METHODS: The authors studied the effects of bupivacaine and the similarly lipid-soluble local anesthetic, tetracaine, on the Ca2+ release channel-ryanodine receptor of sarcoplasmic reticulum in swine skeletal and cardiac muscle. [3H]Ryanodine binding was used to measure the activity of the Ca2+ release channel-ryanodine receptors in microsomes of both muscles. RESULTS: Bupivacaine enhanced (by two times at 5 mM) and inhibited (66% inhibition at 10 mM) [3H]ryanodine binding to skeletal muscle microsomes. In contrast, only inhibitory effects were observed with cardiac microsomes (about 3 mM for half-maximal inhibition). Tetracaine, which inhibits [3H]ryanodine binding to skeletal muscle microsomes, also inhibited [3H]ryanodine binding to cardiac muscle microsomes (half-maximal inhibition at 99 microM). CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine's ability to enhance Ca2+ release channel-ryanodine receptor activity of skeletal muscle sarcoplasmic reticulum most likely contributes to the myotoxicity of this local anesthetic. Thus, the pronounced myotoxicity of bupivacaine may be the result of this specific effect on Ca2+ release channel-ryanodine receptor superimposed on a nonspecific action on lipid bilayers to increase the Ca2+ permeability of sarcoplasmic reticulum membranes, an effect shared by all local anesthetics. The specific action of tetracaine to inhibit Ca2+ release channel-ryanodine receptor activity may in part counterbalance the nonspecific action, resulting in moderate myotoxicity. (+info)
Effect of i.v. ketamine in combination with epidural bupivacaine or epidural morphine on postoperative pain and wound tenderness after renal surgery.
We studied 60 patients undergoing operation on the kidney with combined general and epidural anaesthesia, in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study. Patients were allocated to receive a preoperative bolus dose of ketamine 10 mg i.v., followed by an i.v. infusion of ketamine 10 mg h-1 for 48 h after operation, or placebo. During the first 24 h after surgery, all patients received 4 ml h-1 of epidural bupivacaine 2.5 mg ml-1. From 24 to 48 h after operation, patients received epidural morphine 0.2 mg h-1 preceded by a bolus dose of 2 mg. In addition, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with i.v. morphine (2.5 mg, lockout time 15 min) was offered from 0 to 48 h after operation. Patients who received ketamine felt significantly more sedated at 0-24 h, but not at 24-48 h after operation, compared with patients who received placebo (P = 0.002 and P = 0.127, respectively). There were no significant differences in pain (VAS) at rest, during mobilization or cough, PCA morphine consumption, sensory block to pinprick, pressure pain detection threshold assessed with an algometer, touch and pain detection thresholds assessed with von Frey hairs, peak flow or side effects other than sedation. The power of detecting a reduction in VAS scores of 20 mm in our study was 80% at the 5% significance level. We conclude that we were unable to demonstrate an (additive) analgesic or opioid sparing effect of ketamine 10 mg h-1 i.v. combined with epidural bupivacaine at 0-24 h, or epidural morphine at 24-48 h after renal surgery. (+info)
Neonatal outcome and mode of delivery after epidural analgesia for labour with ropivacaine and bupivacaine: a prospective meta-analysis.
In this prospective meta-analysis, we have evaluated the effect of epidural analgesia with ropivacaine for pain in labour on neonatal outcome and mode of delivery compared with bupivacaine. In six randomized, double-blind studies, 403 labouring women, primigravidae and multiparae, received epidural analgesia with ropivacaine or bupivacaine 2.5 mg ml-1. The drugs were administered as intermittent boluses in four studies and by continuous infusion in two. Apgar scores, neurological and adaptive capacity scores (NACS), degree of motor block and mode of delivery were recorded. The studies were designed prospectively to fit meta-analysis of the pooled results. Results showed similar pain relief and consumption of the two drugs. In the vaginally delivered neonates, NACS scores were approximately equal for both groups at 2 h, but at 24 h there were fewer infants with NACS less than 35 in the ropivacaine compared with the bupivacaine group (2.8% vs 7.6%; P < 0.05). Spontaneous vaginal deliveries occurred more frequently overall with ropivacaine than with bupivacaine (58% vs 49%; P < 0.05) and instrumental deliveries (forceps and vacuum extraction) less frequently (27% vs 40%; P < 0.01), while the frequency of Caesarean section was similar between groups. The intensity of motor block was lower with ropivacaine. There were no significant differences in adverse events. (+info)
Incidence of bradycardia during recovery from spinal anaesthesia: influence of patient position.
We administered 0.5% plain bupivacaine 4 ml intrathecally (L2-3 or L3-4) in three groups of 20 patients, according to the position in which they were nursed in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU): supine horizontal, 30 degrees Trendelenburg or hammock position (trunk and legs 30 degrees elevated). Patients were observed until anaesthesia descended to less than S1. The incidence of severe bradycardia (heart rate < 50 beat min-1) in the PACU was significantly higher in patients in the Trendelenburg position (60%) than in the horizontal (20%, P < 0.01) or hammock (10%, P < 0.005) position. After 90 min, following admission to the PACU, only patients in the hammock position did not have severe bradycardia. In this late phase, the incidence of severe bradycardia in the Trendelenburg group was 35% (P < 0.005) and 10% in patients in the supine horizontal position. In four patients, severe bradycardia first occurred later than 90 min after admission to the PACU. The latest occurrence of severe bradycardia was recorded 320 min after admission to the PACU. We conclude that for recovery from spinal anaesthesia, the Trendelenburg position should not be used and the hammock position is preferred. (+info)
Balanced pre-emptive analgesia: does it work? A double-blind, controlled study in bilaterally symmetrical oral surgery.
We studied 32 patients undergoing bilateral symmetrical lower third molar surgery under general anaesthesia to determine if the combined effects of pre-emptive local anaesthetic block using 0.5% bupivacaine, together with i.v. tenoxicam and alfentanil had any benefits over postoperative administration. Patients acted as their own controls and were allocated randomly to have surgery start on one side, the second side always being the pre-emptive side. Difference in pain intensity between the two sides was determined using visual analogue scales completed by each individual at 6 h, and at 1, 3 and 6 days after operation. A long-form McGill pain questionnaire was also used to assess difference in pain intensity between the two sides on the morning after surgery. There was no significant difference in pain intensity at any time after surgery. Our findings indicate that the combined use of pre-emptive analgesia from 0.5% bupivacaine, tenoxicam and alfentanil did not reduce postoperative pain intensity in patients undergoing molar exodontia. (+info)
Relative analgesic potencies of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labor: implications for therapeutic indexes.
BACKGROUND: The minimum local analgesic concentration (MLAC) has been defined as the median effective local analgesic concentration in a 20-ml volume for epidural analgesia in the first stage of labor. The aim of this study was to assess the relative analgesic potencies of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine by determining their respective minimum local analgesic concentrations. METHODS: Seventy-three parturients at < or = 7 cm cervical dilation who requested epidural analgesia were allocated to one of two groups in this double-blinded, randomized, prospective study. After a lumbar epidural catheter was placed, 20 ml of the test solution was given, either ropivacaine (n = 34) or bupivacaine (n = 39). The concentration of local anesthetic was determined by the response of the previous patient in that group to a higher or lower concentration using up-down sequential allocation. Analgesic efficacy was assessed using 100-mm visual analog pain scores with < or = 10 mm within 30 min defined as effective. An effective result directed a 0.01% wt/vol decrement for the next patient. An ineffective result directed a 0.01% wt/vol increment. RESULTS: The minimum local analgesic concentration of ropivacaine was 0.111% wt/vol (95% confidence interval, 0.100-0.122), and the minimum local analgesic concentration of bupivacaine was 0.067% wt/vol (95% confidence interval, 0.052-0.082). Ropivacaine was significantly less potent than bupivacaine, with a potency ratio of 0.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.74). No difference in motor effects was observed. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine was significantly less potent than bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in the first stage of labor. (+info)