A comparison between low-dose ropivacaine and bupivacaine at equianalgesic concentrations for epidural analgesia during the first stage of labor

Epidural ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for labor: a meta-analysis

Numerous studies have compared ropivacaine with bupivacaine for labor analgesia. Early studies suggested that obstetrical and some neonatal outcomes were improved when ropivacaine was used. We systematically reviewed and combined the results of the randomized controlled trials that compared ropivacaine with bupivacaine to determine whether or not there was a difference in these outcomes. We searched electronic databases and journals for randomized controlled trials composed of laboring parturients. The primary outcome was the incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery. We examined other obstetrical, neonatal, and analgesic outcomes. Where possible, these were combined by using metaanalytic techniques and random effects modeling. We found 23 randomized controlled trials composed of 1043 patients receiving ropivacaine and 1031 receiving bupivacaine. There was no significant difference in the incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.41; P = 0.12) or any of the other outcomes. Although more studies reported a more frequent incidence of motor block with bupivacaine, the results were heterogeneous and therefore not combined. We conclude that there is no statistically significant difference between the two drugs in the incidence of any obstetrical or neonatal outcome. Further studies using clinically appropriate concentrations of drugs are required to determine whether or not there is a difference in the incidence of motor block.

IMPLICATIONS

This metaanalysis of 23 randomized controlled trials shows that both ropivacaine and bupivacaine provide excellent labor analgesia. There was no significant difference between the two drugs in mode of delivery, maternal satisfaction, or neonatal outcomes. Whether or not there is a difference in motor block at clinically relevant doses is unresolved.

Ropivacaine 2 mg/mL vs. bupivacaine 1.25 mg/mL with sufentanil using patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND

In recent studies, minimum local analgesic concentrations have been defined as 0.93 mg/mL for bupivacaine and 1.56 mg/mL for ropivacaine for epidural analgesia for the first stage of labour, resulting in an analgesic potency ratio of 1 : 0.6. In the current study we compared ropivacaine and bupivacaine in a PCEA system (combined with sufentanil) taking this potency ratio into account but administering drug doses providing sufficient analgesia for all stages of labour.

METHODS

In a prospective, double-blinded study 114 parturients were randomised to receive either ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL or bupivacaine 1.25 mg/with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL. After epidural catheter placement, PCEA was available with boluses of 4 mL, a lock-out time of 20 min and no basal infusion rate. We evaluated pain intensity during contractions, sensory and motor function, duration of labour, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Consumption of local anaesthetic and opioid drugs and PCEA system variables were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean total consumption as well as mean hourly drug consumption was significantly increased in the ropivacaine-sufentanil group. No differences in analgesic quality, sensory or motor blocking potencies or neonatal outcome variables between groups were detected. Frequency of instrumental deliveries was significantly increased in the ropivacaine-sufentanil group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the findings of previously published studies postulating ropivacaine to be 40-50% less potent for labour epidural analgesia compared to bupivacaine. However, we observed an increased frequency of instrumental deliveries with ropivacaine. To evaluate the clinical relevance of these findings, further investigations are warranted.

Ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl: a double blind comparison for analgesia during labour

We have performed a randomized, double-blind comparison of two epidural drug regimens for analgesia in labour. In the bupivacaine group (BUPIV), 101 healthy parturients received 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg ml(-1). In the ropivacaine group (ROPIV), 102 women received 0.2% ropivacaine. Both groups received an initial loading dose of 15 ml, a continuous infusion of 8 ml h(-1), and top-ups of 10 ml. Breakthrough pain not responding to a routine top-up was treated with an 'escape' top-up of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine. The two groups were compared for complete analgesia at 30 min, routine and 'escape' top-up requirements, midwife assessment of analgesic efficacy, delivery mode, patient visual analogue scores (VAS) for first and second stage analgesia, overall satisfaction, and patient assessment of motor blockade. Patients receiving ropivacaine received fewer routine top-ups (median 1.0 vs. 2.0, P=0.001) and fewer escape top-ups (9.8% vs. 21.8%, P=0.02). The ropivacaine group was more likely to be pain free in the first stage (51% vs. 33.7%, P=0.01). There were no significant differences in patients' assessment of motor block or mode of delivery between the groups. Pain relief and satisfaction scores from midwives and patients were consistently better in the ropivacaine group, but did not reach statistical significance.

Ropivacaine: an update of its use in regional anaesthesia

Ropivacaine is a long-acting, enantiomerically pure (S-enantiomer) amide local anaesthetic with a high pKa and low lipid solubility which blocks nerve fibres involved in pain transmission (Adelta and C fibres) to a greater degree than those controlling motor function (Abeta fibres). The drug was less cardiotoxic than equal concentrations of racemic bupivacaine but more so than lidocaine (lignocaine) in vitro and had a significantly higher threshold for CNS toxicity than racemic bupivacaine in healthy volunteers (mean maximum tolerated unbound arterial plasma concentrations were 0.56 and 0.3 mg/L, respectively). Extensive clinical data have shown that epidural ropivacaine 0.2% is effective for the initiation and maintenance of labour analgesia, and provides pain relief after abdominal or orthopaedic surgery especially when given in conjunction with opioids (coadministration with opioids may also allow for lower concentrations of ropivacaine to be used). The drug had efficacy generally similar to that of the same dose of bupivacaine with regard to pain relief but caused less motor blockade at low concentrations. Lumbar epidural administration of 20 to 30ml ropivacaine 0.5% provided anaesthesia of a similar quality to that achieved with bupivacaine 0.5% in women undergoing caesarean section, but the duration of motor blockade was shorter with ropivacaine. For lumbar epidural anaesthesia for lower limb or genitourinary surgery, comparative data suggest that higher concentrations of ropivacaine (0.75 or 1.0%) may be needed to provide the same sensory and motor blockade as bupivacaine 0.5 and 0.75%. In patients about to undergo upper limb surgery, 30 to 40ml ropivacaine 0.5% produced brachial plexus anaesthesia broadly similar to that achieved with equivalent volumes of bupivacaine 0.5%, although the time to onset of sensory block tended to be faster and the duration of motor block shorter with ropivacaine. Ropivacaine had an adverse event profile similar to that of bupivacaine in clinical trials. Several cases of CNS toxicity have been reported after inadvertent intravascular administration of ropivacaine, but only 1 case of cardiovascular toxicity has been reported to date. The outcome of these inadvertent intravascular administrations was favourable.

CONCLUSION

Ropivacaine is a well tolerated regional anaesthetic with an efficacy broadly similar to that of bupivacaine. However, it may be a preferred option because of its reduced CNS and cardiotoxic potential and its lower propensity for motor block.