Intrathecal neostigmine with bupivacaine for infants undergoing lower abdominal and urogenital procedures: dose response

A comparison between intrathecal clonidine and neostigmine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine in the subarachnoid block for elective abdominal hysterectomy operations: A prospective, double-blind and randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adjuvant to the local anesthetic agent has proven benefits when used intrathecally. With regards to intrathecal bupivacaine as control, we have compared in this study the effects of clonidine and neostigmine when co-administered intrathecally with hyperbaric (0.5%) bupivacaine for abdominal hysterectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted from May 2009 to June 2011. A total of 150 patients of American Society of Anaesthesiology grades I and II scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated into three groups. A volume of 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine was respectively added 1 ml solution containing 5% dextrose and 75 mcg of neostigmine in Group N, 1 ml containing 5% dextrose and 30 mcg of clonidine in Group C and 1 ml of 5% dextrose in Group D (control). We compared the sensory and motor block, the surgical condition, the duration of spinal analgesia and the side-effect profile.

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

Sensory and motor blocks and duration of spinal analgesia were significantly increased in both Group C and Group N compared to Group D. More incidences of Nausea and vomiting were observed in Group N compared to other groups. The surgical condition was poorer in Group N compared to Group C.

CONCLUSION

Both intrathecal clonidine and neostigmine increase the bupivacaine-induced spinal block. However, clonidine provides better surgical condition and fewer incidences of nausea and vomiting.

The evolution of spinal/epidural neostigmine in clinical application: Thoughts after two decades

Since the first clinical application of analgesia following spinal anticholinesterase by 1940's, several clinical double-blind studies have been conducted to date, where intrathecal doses of neostigmine in humans ranged from 750 to 1 μg, due to side-effects. Conversely, epidural neostigmine has been evaluated in proportionally higher doses and represents an alternative, but still deserves more investigation concerning both acute and chronic pain, as it seems devoid of important side-effects.

Spinal anesthesia in children: A review

Even after a vast safety record, the role of spinal anesthesia (SA) as a primary anesthetic technique in children remains contentious and is mainly limited to specialized pediatric centers. It is usually practiced on moribund former preterm infants (<60 weeks post-conception) to reduce the incidence of post-operative apnea when compared to general anesthesia (GA). However, there is ample literature to suggest its safety and efficacy for suitable procedures in older children as well. SA in children has many advantages as in adults with an added advantage of minimal cardio-respiratory disturbance. Recently, several reports from animal studies have raised serious concerns regarding the harmful effects of GA on young developing brain. This may further increase the utility of SA in children as it provides all components of balanced anesthesia technique. Also, SA can be an economical option for countries with finite resources. Limited duration of surgical anesthesia in children is one of the major deterrents for its widespread use in them. To overcome this, several additives like epinephrine, clonidine, fentanyl, morphine, neostigmine etc. have been used and found to be effective even in neonates. But, the developing spinal cord may also be vulnerable to drug-related toxicity, though this has not been systematically evaluated in children. So, adjuvants and drugs with widest therapeutic index should be preferred in children. Despite its widespread use, incidence of side-effects is low and permanent neurological sequalae have not been reported with SA. Literature yields encouraging results regarding its safety and efficacy. Technical skills and constant vigilance of experienced anesthesia providers is indispensable to achieve good results with this technique.

Neuraxial analgesia in neonates and infants: a review of clinical and preclinical strategies for the development of safety and efficacy data

Neuraxial drugs provide robust pain control, have the potential to improve outcomes, and are an important component of the perioperative care of children. Opioids or clonidine improves analgesia when added to perioperative epidural infusions; analgesia is significantly prolonged by the addition of clonidine, ketamine, neostigmine, or tramadol to single-shot caudal injections of local anesthetic; and neonatal intrathecal anesthesia/analgesia is increasing in some centers. However, it is difficult to determine the relative risk-benefit of different techniques and drugs without detailed and sensitive data related to analgesia requirements, side effects, and follow-up. Current data related to benefits and complications in neonates and infants are summarized, but variability in current neuraxial drug use reflects the relative lack of high-quality evidence. Recent preclinical reports of adverse effects of general anesthetics on the developing brain have increased awareness of the potential benefit of neuraxial anesthesia/analgesia to avoid or reduce general anesthetic dose requirements. However, the developing spinal cord is also vulnerable to drug-related toxicity, and although there are well-established preclinical models and criteria for assessing spinal cord toxicity in adult animals, until recently there had been no systematic evaluation during early life. Therefore, in the second half of this review, we present preclinical data evaluating age-dependent changes in the pharmacodynamic response to different spinal analgesics, and recent studies evaluating spinal toxicity in specific developmental models. Finally, we advocate use of neuraxial drugs with the widest demonstrable safety margin and suggest minimum standards for preclinical evaluation before adoption of new analgesics or preparations into routine clinical practice.

Validation of a preclinical spinal safety model: effects of intrathecal morphine in the neonatal rat

BACKGROUND

Preclinical studies demonstrate increased neuroapoptosis after general anesthesia in early life. Neuraxial techniques may minimize potential risks, but there has been no systematic evaluation of spinal analgesic safety in developmental models. We aimed to validate a preclinical model for evaluating dose-dependent efficacy, spinal cord toxicity, and long-term function after intrathecal morphine in the neonatal rat.

METHODS

Lumbar intrathecal injections were performed in anesthetized rats aged postnatal day (P) 3, 10, and 21. The relationship between injectate volume and segmental spread was assessed postmortem and by in vivo imaging. To determine the antinociceptive dose, mechanical withdrawal thresholds were measured at baseline and 30 min after intrathecal morphine. To evaluate toxicity, doses up to the maximum tolerated were administered, and spinal cord histopathology, apoptosis, and glial response were evaluated 1 and 7 days after P3 or P21 injection. Sensory thresholds and gait analysis were evaluated at P35.

RESULTS

Intrathecal injection can be reliably performed at all postnatal ages and injectate volume influences segmental spread. Intrathecal morphine produced spinally mediated analgesia at all ages with lower dose requirements in younger pups. High-dose intrathecal morphine did not produce signs of spinal cord toxicity or alter long-term function.

CONCLUSIONS

The therapeutic ratio for intrathecal morphine (toxic dose/antinociceptive dose) was at least 300 at P3 and at least 20 at P21 (latter doses limited by side effects). These data provide relative efficacy and safety for comparison with other analgesic preparations and contribute supporting evidence for the validity of this preclinical neonatal safety model.

Intrathecal clonidine decreases propofol sedation requirements during spinal anesthesia in infants

BACKGROUND

Propofol is a popular agent for providing procedural sedation in pediatric population during lumbar puncture and spinal anesthesia. Adjuvants like clonidine and fentanyl are administered intrathecally to prolong the duration of spinal anesthesia and to provide postoperative analgesia. We studied the propofol requirement after intrathecal administration of clonidine or fentanyl in infants undergoing lower abdominal surgeries.

METHODS

Sixty-five ASA I infants undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery under spinal anesthesia were assigned into four groups in this prospective randomized double-blinded study. Group B received bupivacaine based on body weight (<5 kg = 0.5 mg kg(-1); 5-10 kg = 0.4 mg kg(-1)). Group BC received 1 microg kg(-1) of clonidine with bupivacaine, group BF received 1 microg kg(-1) of fentanyl with bupivacaine, and patients in group BCF received 1 microg kg(-1) each of clonidine and fentanyl with bupivacaine. A bolus of 2-3 mg kg(-1) of propofol bolus was administered for lumbar puncture. Sedation was assessed using a six-point sedation score (0-5) and a five-point reactivity score (0-4) which was based on a behavioral score. After achieving a sedation and reactivity score of 3-4, the patients were placed lateral in knee chest position and lumbar puncture performed and test drug administered. Further intraoperative sedation was maintained with an infusion of 25-50 microg kg(-1) min(-1) of propofol infusion.

RESULTS

The mean +/- SD infusion requirement of propofol decreased from 35.5 +/- 4.5 in group B to 33.4 +/- 5.4 microg kg(-1) min(-1) in group BF and further decreased to 16.7 +/- 6.2 microg kg(-1) min(-1) and 14.8 +/- 4.9 microg kg(-1) min(-1) in group BC and BCF, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between BC and BCF groups. The mean sedation and reactivity scores were higher in groups BC and BCF when compared to groups B and BF.

CONCLUSION

Our study show that the requirement of propofol sedation reduces with intrathecal adjuvants. The reduction was significant with the addition of clonidine and clonidine-fentanyl combination as opposed to bupivacaine alone or with fentanyl. There was no significant difference in propofol infusion requirement with the use of bupivacaine alone or with fentanyl.