Low vs. high concentration of levobupivacaine for post-operative epidural analgesia: influence of mode of delivery

Comparison of Patient-Controlled versus Continuous Epidural Analgesia in Adult Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched, enabling a systematic review of studies comparing PCEA and CEA in adult surgical patients (PROSPERO: CRD42018106644). The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1). Secondary outcomes were 24 or 48 h epidural or intravenous total analgesic dose, systemic analgesics, manual top-ups, side effects, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials with high heterogeneity of study characteristics were identified with a moderate risk of bias. Two studies showed significantly reduced resting pain scores on POD1 in PCEA compared with CEA patients (36-44%, p < 0.05). Four studies found comparable pain scores between these groups. PCEA use reduced epidural medication (28% to 40% reduction, p < 0.01) in four studies. One study found a 23% reduction (p < 0.001) of top-ups in PCEA; intravenous morphine use by PCEA patients was reduced (0.16 vs. 3.45 mg per patient, p < 0.05) in one study. PCEA patients were more satisfied with analgesia (p < 0.001) in two studies. Nausea and vomiting were reduced in PCEA (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding the reduction in pain scores, the effects of PCEA were not significant or clinically not relevant. However, regarding the amount of epidural drug use, the amount of required rescue systemic analgesics, patient satisfaction, and the number of required top-ups, PCEA had advantages over CEA in surgical patients.

The Analgesic Efficiency of Ultrasound-Guided Rectus Sheath Analgesia Compared with Low Thoracic Epidural Analgesia After Elective Abdominal Surgery with a Midline Incision: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound-guided rectus sheath blockade has been described to provide analgesia for midline abdominal incisions. We aimed to compare thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and rectus sheath analgesia (RSA) with respect to safety and efficacy.

METHODS

Sixty patients who underwent elective laparotomies through a midline incision were assigned randomly to receive either continuous TEA (TEA group, n = 31) or intermittent RSA (RSA group, n = 29). The number of patients who required analgesia, the time to first request analgesia, the interval and the cumulative morphine doses consumption during 72 hours postoperatively, and pain intensity using visual analog score (VAS) at rest and upon coughing were reported in addition to any side effects related to both techniques or administered drugs.

RESULTS

While 17 (54.84 %) patients were in the TEA group, 25 (86.21%) patients in the RSA group required analgesia postoperatively, P = 0.008. Cumulative morphine consumed during the early 72 hours postoperatively median (interquartile range) = 33 mg (27 - 39 mg), 95% confidence interval (28.63 - 37.37 mg) for the TEA group. While in the RSA group, it was 51 mg (45 - 57 mg), 95% CI (47.4 - 54.6 mg), P < 0.001. The time for the first request of morphine was 256.77 ± 73.45 minutes in the TEA group versus 208.82 ± 64.65 min in the RSA group, P = 0.031. VAS at rest and cough were comparable in both groups at all time points of assessment, P > 0.05. The time to the ambulation was significantly shorter in the RSA group (38.47 ± 12.34 hours) as compared to the TEA group (45.89 ± 8.72 hours), P = 0.009. Sedation scores were significantly higher in the RSA group, only at 12 hours and 24 hours postoperatively than in TEA group, with P = 0.041 and 0.013, respectively. The incidence of other morphine-related side effects, time to pass flatus, and patients satisfaction scores were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous TEA had better opioid sparing effects markedly during the early 72 hours postoperatively than that of intermittent RSA with catheters inserted under real-time ultrasound guidance, both had comparable safety perspectives, and RSA had the advantage of early ambulation. RSA could be used as an effective alternative when TEA could not be employed in patients undergoing laparotomies with an extended midline incision, especially after the first postoperative day.

Patient-controlled epidural levobupivacaine with or without fentanyl for post-cesarean section pain relief

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic properties of levobupivacaine with or without fentanyl for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after Cesarean section in a randomized, double-blinded study.

METHODS

We enrolled American Society of Anesthesiologists class I/II, full-term pregnant women at National Taiwan University Hospital who received patient-controlled epidural analgesia after Cesarean section between 2009 and 2010. Eighty women were randomly assigned into two groups. In group A, the 40 subjects received drug solutions made of 0.6 mg/ml levobupivacaine plus 2 mcg/ml fentanyl, and in group B the 40 subjects received 1 mg/ml levobupivacaine. Maintenance was self-administered boluses and a continuous background infusion.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the resting and dynamic pain scales and total volume of drug used between the two groups. Patient satisfaction was good in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that pure epidural levobupivacaine can provide comparative analgesic properties to the levobupivacaine-fentanyl combination after Cesarean section. Pure levobupivacaine may serve as an alternative pain control regimen to avoid opioid-related adverse events in parturients.

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia after Caesarean section: levobupivacaine 0.15% versus ropivacaine 0.15% alone or combined with fentanyl 2 µg/ml: a comparative study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of epidural ropivacaine 0.15%, levobupivacaine 0.15% and ropivacaine 0.15% plus fentanyl 2 µg/ml, used with a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) device after Caesarean section.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty women undergoing elective Caesarean section under combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia were enrolled. Postoperatively, patients received PCEA with either ropivacaine or levobupivacaine 0.15% (basal rate 6 ml/h, bolus 5 ml/20 min), or ropivacaine 0.15% plus fentanyl 2 µg/ml (basal rate 6 ml/h, bolus 4 ml/20 min). Sympathetic and sensory level of analgesia, motor ability (Bromage 0-3), and pain scores at rest, movement and cough (VAS 0-10), haemodynamic parameters, oxygenation, side effects and total doses of local anaesthetic were documented every 6 h for 24 h. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a descriptive scale.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in pain scores at all time intervals. A significantly higher sympathetic and sensory blockade occurred with levobupivacaine and ropivacaine 0.15% compared to ropivacaine 0.15% plus fentanyl, with no significant difference in total local analgesic consumption at 24 h (p = 0.08). Rescue analgesic requirements did not differ between the groups (p = 0.8) while patients' satisfaction was significantly higher in the ropivacaine 0.15% plus fentanyl group (p = 0.02). Haemodynamics, oxygenation, nausea, pruritus and numbness did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dilute local anaesthetic solutions provided satisfactory postoperative analgesia after Caesarean section when used with a PCEA device. The combination of ropivacaine 0.15% with fentanyl 2 µg/ml appeared superior, since it provided higher patient satisfaction with statistically equal pain scores and local anaesthetic consumption.

Update on local anesthetics: focus on levobupivacaine

In recent years levobupivacaine, the pure S (−)-enantiomer of bupivacaine, emerged as a safer alternative for regional anesthesia than its racemic parent. It demonstrated less affinity and strength of depressant effects onto myocardial and central nervous vital centers in pharmacodynamic studies, and a superior pharmacokinetic profile. Clinically, levobupivacaine is well tolerated in a variety of regional anesthesia techniques both after bolus administration and continuous postoperative infusion. Reports of toxicity with levobupivacaine are scarce and occasional toxic symptoms are usually reversible with minimal treatment with no fatal outcome. Yet, levobupivacaine has not entirely replaced bupivacaine in clinical practice. In anesthesia and analgesia practice, levobupivacaine and bupivacaine produce comparable surgical sensory block with similar adverse side effects, and equal labor pain control with comparable maternal and fetal outcome. The equipotency of the two drugs has been recently questioned, prompting clinicians to increase the dose of levobupivacaine in an attempt to ensure adequate anesthesia and analgesia and offsetting, therefore, the advantages of less motor block with levobupivacaine. In this review we aim to discuss the pharmacological essentials of the safer profile of levobupivacaine, and analyze the evidence regarding the current clinical indications.

Continuous lumbar epidural infusion of levobupivacaine: effects of small-or large-volume regimen of infusion

BACKGROUND

The question of whether the dose, concentration or volume of a local anesthetic solution is the relevant determinant of the spread and quality of post-operative epidural analgesia is still open. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the effects of a large volume-low concentration with a small-volume-high-concentration lumbar epidural infusion of levobupivacaine.

METHODS

Seventy patients scheduled for total hip replacement were enrolled. After surgery, patients were randomly allocated to receive a continuous epidural infusion of levobupivacaine (10.5 mg/h) using either 0.125% levobupivacaine infused at 8.4 ml/h (low concentration group, n=35) or 0.75% levobupivacaine infused at 1.4 ml/h (high concentration group, n=35). We blindly recorded the degree of pain relief at rest and during movement every 8 h for the first two post-operative days, as well as hip flexion, motor block, rescue analgesic consumption and adverse events.

RESULTS

No difference in pain relief was observed between groups as estimated with the areas under the curve of the verbal Numerical Rating Scale for pain over time, both at rest and during movement. Similarly, there was no difference between groups in hip flexion degree, motor blockade and hemodynamic stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous lumbar epidural infusion of 0.75% levobupivacaine was as effective as continuous lumbar epidural infusion of 0.125% levobupivacaine, when administered at the same hourly dose of 10.5 mg, in achieving adequate analgesia both at rest and during movement, without differences in the incidence of hypotension and motor blockade.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2006

This paper is the 29th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning 30 years of research. It summarizes papers published during 2006 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurological disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).

The optimum initial pediatric epidural bolus: a comparison of four local anesthetic solutions

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the concentration or type of local anesthetic used for initiation of epidural anesthesia. The aim of this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was to compare the clinical effectiveness of epidural administration of both levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in 0.2% and 0.25% concentrations in pediatric patients undergoing abdominal and urological surgery.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-one children scheduled for lower abdominal and urological surgery were randomized to receive 0.4-0.6 ml.kg(-1) epidural, 0.25% bupivacaine, 0.2% bupivacaine, 0.25% levobupivacaine or 0.2% levobupivacaine. Initial epidural volumes, onset times; hemodynamic consequences, postoperative pain scores and degree of residual postoperative motor block were all recorded.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the proportion of children with effective analgesia after incision [0.20% bupivacaine 97%, 0.25% bupivacaine 94%, 0.20% levobupivacaine 91%, 0.25% levobupivacaine 92% (P=0.73)] when a median volume of 0.55 ml.kg(-1) was used. There was no association between the volume used for thoracic, lumbar, or sacral epidural anesthesia and the effectiveness of the agents used. There was a significantly greater incidence of pain on awakening with the 0.2% solutions compared with the 0.25% solutions, but no differences in the incidence of residual motor block between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is no difference in the proportion of effective surgical anesthesia, the lower incidence of pain and distress with the 0.25% solutions suggests that this concentration has clinical advantages over the 0.2% solutions for pediatric epidural anesthesia.

Epidural infusion of levobupivacaine and sufentanil following thoracotomy

A prospective, randomised, double-blind study was conducted to compare the efficacy of two doses of levobupivacaine combined with sufentanil for continuous epidural infusion following thoractomy. A total of 72 patients undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy were enrolled. An epidural catheter was inserted between the levels of T4 and T6 before induction of anaesthesia and a loading dose of levobupivacaine and sufentanil was administered. At the end of surgery an epidural infusion was commenced at 5 mlxh(-1) and continued for 48 h. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either levobupivacaine 0.125% (group A) or 0.0625% (group B) and all patients also received sufentanil (1 microgxml(-1)). Visual analogue pain scores after coughing (VASi) were always higher in group B (p < 0.05); VAS pain scores at rest were higher for the first 4 h and at 16 and 28 h in group B (p < 0.05). Total morphine consumption and requests number was lower in group A (p < 0.05). Better pain relief was achieved using epidural 0.125% levobupivacaine.

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.