Epidural analgesia with 0.15% ropivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 microgram ml-1 versus 0.10% bupivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 microgram ml-1: a double-blind comparison during labour

Pain management during labor: use of intermittent drug delivery devices for improvement of obstetric and neonatal outcome and reduction of healthcare burden: A large non-inferiority randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Automated continuous epidural administration of local anesthetics provides a more stable analgesic block with decreasing of healthcare staff compared to manual boluses administration (TOP-UP) but is associated to high rate of operative vaginal delivery. We hypothesized that the use of programmed intermittent automated boluses (PIEB) is able to provide a good quality of analgesia and decreasing of anesthesiologic workload without increasing the rate of instrumental vaginal birth in comparison with TOP-UP technique. Laboring nulliparous woman aged between 18 and 46 years were randomized to epidural analgesia with 0.0625% levobupivacaine and sufentanil administered by PIEB or by TOP-UP techniques. Primary outcome was instrumental vaginal delivery rate and secondary outcomes were quality of analgesia, total and time-related drugs doses used, motor block, newborn outcome, and anesthesiologic workload.

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty-nine were randomized, and 628 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The rate of instrumental vaginal delivery was similar in the PIEB and TOP-UP groups (13.2% vs 9.7%, OR 1.4 95% CI 0.8 to 2.5; p 0.21). There was no difference between groups regarding mode of delivery (cesarean section vs vaginal birth), newborn outcome, and motor block. Patients in the PIEB group received more total and time-related drugs doses and a better quality of analgesia. Anesthesiological workload was significantly reduced in the PIEB group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that epidural anesthesia with programmed intermittent epidural boluses by an automated device provides an effective and safe management of labor analgesia with improvement of pain control and sparing of man workload compared to manual top-up protocols.

Efficacy and safety of local anesthetics bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in combination with sufentanil in epidural anesthesia for labor and delivery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In epidural analgesia, synthetic opioids increase the potency of amide local anesthetics by modifying their analgesic properties. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine with ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in combination with sufentanil (BUPI-, ROPI-, and LBUPI-SUF respectively) in epidural analgesia for labor.

METHODS

A literature search was made in multiple electronic databases for original research papers published between 1995 and 2014. Meta-analyses were based on mean differences between the groups as well as odds ratios where appropriate. Both the fixed effects and random effects models were utilized and heterogeneity was tested with the I(2) index.

RESULTS

Analgesia duration was significantly longer in ROPI-SUF and LBUPI-SUF than in BUPI-SUF administered women with a mean difference (95% CI) of 16.12 (2.56, 29.68); P < 0.03 and 18.02 (9.09, 26.96); P < 0.0001 respectively under a random effects model (REM). Effective analgesia achievement was significantly earlier in the BUPI-SUF than in either the ROPI-SUF (2.61 [1.87, 3.36]; P < 0.00001) or the LBUPI-SUF groups (4.53 [3.66, 5.40]; P < 0.00001) under a fixed effects model (FEM) but not under a REM (I(2 )= 85%). Motor blockade incidence was higher in BUPI-SUF anesthetized patients, although the difference was not statistically significant. A higher incidence of instrumental deliveries was evident in the ROPI-SUF (FEM: 1.68 [1.13, 2.50]; P < 0.02/REM: 1.76 [1.00, 3.11]; P = 0.05) and LBUPI-SUF (FEM: 2.03 [1.07, 3.86]; P < 0.04/REM: 2.03 [1.07, 3.86]; P < 0.04) groups than in the BUPI-SUF group of patients. Inconsistencies in the availability of parametric data and use of slightly varying anesthetic dosages in included studies were important limitations.

CONCLUSION

Whereas significantly longer labor analgesia can be achieved with ROPI-SUF and LBUPI-SUF and ropivacaine is associated with comparatively less motor blockade, labor duration after epidural analgesia has been found to be shorter in BUPI-SUF and there is a low incidence of instrumental delivery.

Epidural ropivacaine -- where are the benefits? A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in patients with retropubic prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

In comparison with bupivacaine, ropivacaine exhibits comparable anaesthetic effects but with less motor impairment and systemic toxicity. However, the analgesic potency may differ. For example, ropivacaine during obstetric epidural analgesia provides an approximately 40% lower analgesic potency than bupivacaine. Equal visual analogue pain scores require significantly higher dosages of ropivacaine, and general statements about a favourable benefit-risk profile relative to that of bupivacaine may therefore have limited clinical impact. We addressed this topic in a male pain model by evaluating the analgesic efficacy of epidural ropivacaine 0.2% vs. bupivacaine 0.125% after retropubic prostatectomy.

METHODS

Forty patients scheduled for retropubic prostatectomy were randomly assigned to two groups (20 patients per group). In a double-blind prospective design, patient-controlled lumbar epidural analgesia was provided by ropivacaine 0.2% in the ropivacaine group and by bupivacaine 0.125% in the bupivacaine group. The primary endpoint was the total amount of local anaesthetic consumption. The secondary endpoints were the numeric rating scale scores for rest and dynamic pain and the degree of motor impairment.

RESULTS

Ropivacaine consumption was 60% higher (mean +/- standard deviation, 1372.5 +/- 108.3 mg) than that of bupivacaine (852 +/- 75.2 mg) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the numeric rating scale scores and motor impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

In male patients, lumbar epidural administration of ropivacaine 0.2% after retropubic prostatectomy does not appear to provide benefits over bupivacaine 0.125%. Moreover, in view of the significantly higher drug requirements, general statements focusing on the favourable therapeutic index of ropivacaine may require critical analysis, at least during epidural administration.

Bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine: are they clinically different?

Two new, long-acting local anaesthetics have been developed after the evidence of bupivacaine-related severe toxicity: levobupivacaine and ropivacaine. Both these agents are pure left-isomers and, based on their three-dimensional structure, they have less toxic potential both on the central nervous system and on the heart. Several clinical studies have evaluated their toxicology and clinical profiles: theoretically and experimentally, some differences can be seen, but the reflections of these characteristics into clinical practice have not been evident. Evaluating randomised, controlled trials that have compared these three local anaesthetics, this chapter supports the evidence that both levobupivacaine and ropivacaine have a clinical profile similar to that of racemic bupivacaine, and that the minimal differences observed between the three agents are mainly related to the slightly different anaesthetic potency, with racemic bupivacaine>levobupivacaine>ropivacaine. However, the reduced toxic potential of the two pure left-isomers supports their use in those clinical situations in which the risk of systemic toxicity related to either overdosing or unwanted intravascular injection is high, such as during epidural or peripheral nerve blocks.

Epidural Infusions of Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine for Labor Analgesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Obstetric Outcome

Studies have shown better obstetric outcome when ropivacaine 0.25% was used for labor epidural analgesia compared with bupivacaine 0.25%, but it is controversial whether there is any difference at smaller concentrations. In a prospective, double-blind trial, we randomized 350 ASA physical status I and II parturients with term cephalic singleton pregnancies to receive epidural labor analgesia using ropivacaine or bupivacaine. Analgesia was initiated with a 0.25% solution and maintained with a continuous infusion of a 0.1% solution with fentanyl 0.0002%. Supplementary boluses of 0.25% solution were given when requested. Labor was managed according to institutional standard labor ward protocols. Among patients who delivered vaginally, the duration of the first stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (median, 520 min; interquartile range, 377-745 min) compared with the bupivacaine group (645 min; interquartile range, 460-820 min; P = 0.009), but there was no difference in any other obstetric or neonatal outcomes. The mode of delivery was similar between groups, with operative (instrumental vaginal and cesarean) delivery rates of 61.8% (95% confidence interval, 54.4%-68.8%) in the ropivacaine group and 58.4% (95% confidence interval, 50.9%-65.5%) in the bupivacaine group (P = 0.72).

IMPLICATIONS

In a randomized-controlled study, we found no major outcome advantage of continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 0.0002% over bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 0.0002% for labor analgesia. Although ropivacaine was associated with a shorter first stage of labor, the relative difference is probably of limited clinical importance, and there was no difference in the mode of delivery.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Ropivacaine in the Management of Postoperative Pain

Ropivacaine is a long-acting amide-type local anaesthetic, released for clinical use in 1996. In comparison with bupivacaine, ropivacaine is equally effective for subcutaneous infiltration, epidural and peripheral nerve block for surgery, obstetric procedures and postoperative analgesia. Nevertheless, ropivacaine differs from bupivacaine in several aspects: firstly, it is marketed as a pure S(-)-enantiomer and not as a racemate, and secondly, its lipid solubility is markedly lower. These features have been suggested to significantly improve the safety profile of ropivacaine, and indeed, numerous studies have shown that ropivacaine has less cardiovascular and CNS toxicity than racemic bupivacaine in healthy volunteers. Extensive clinical data have demonstrated that epidural 0.2% ropivacaine is nearly identical to 0.2% bupivacaine with regard to onset, quality and duration of sensory blockade for initiation and maintenance of labour analgesia. Ropivacaine also provides effective pain relief after abdominal or orthopaedic surgery, especially when given in conjunction with opioids or other adjuvants. Nevertheless, epidurally administered ropivacaine causes significantly less motor blockade at low concentrations. Whether the greater degree of blockade of nerve fibres involved in pain transmission (Adelta- and C-fibres) than of those controlling motor function (Aalpha- and Abeta-fibres) is due to a lower relative potency compared with bupivacaine or whether other physicochemical properties or stereoselectivity are involved, is still a matter of intense debate. Recommended epidural doses for postoperative or labour pain are 20-40 mg as bolus with 20-30 mg as top-up dose, with an interval of >or=30 minutes. Alternatively, 0.2% ropivacaine can be given as continuous epidural infusion at a rate of 6-14 mL/h (lumbar route) or 4-10 mL/h (thoracic route). Preoperative or postoperative subcutaneous wound infiltration, during cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair, with ropivacaine 100-175 mg has been shown to be more effective than placebo and as effective as bupivacaine in reducing wound pain, whereby the vasoconstrictive potency of ropivacaine may be involved. Similar results were found in peripheral blockades on upper and lower limbs. Ropivacaine shows an identical efficacy and potency to that of bupivacaine, with similar analgesic duration over hours using single shot or continuous catheter techniques. In summary, ropivacaine, a newer long-acting local anaesthetic, has an efficacy generally similar to that of the same dose of bupivacaine with regard to postoperative pain relief, but causes less motor blockade and stronger vasoconstriction at low concentrations. Despite a significantly better safety profile of the pure S(-)-isomer of ropivacaine, the increased cost of ropivacaine may presently limit its clinical utility in postoperative pain therapy.