Comparison of Epidural Bupivacaine, Levobupivacaine and Dexmedetomidine in Patients Undergoing Vascular Surgery

Accessing the efficacy and peri-operative adverse effects of three different hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% dosages for spinal anesthesia induction in lower limb orthopedic surgeries: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is a conventional method for proper nerve block in abdominopelvic and lower extremity surgeries. Compared to general anesthesia, SA has reduced perioperative complications significantly. The hyperbaric type of bupivacaine hydrochloride (HB) induces spinal anesthesia more efficiently with a lower incidence of life-threatening adverse reactions like Perioperative hemodynamic changes and respiratory depression. More investigations are needed to define the best dosage that provides adequate anesthesia while reducing adverse effects for each surgical procedure.

METHODS

This double-blinded randomized clinical trial compared the consequences of the (12.5mg,15mg,20mg) dosages of HB-bupivacaine in elective lower limb orthopedic surgery. Using block randomization, we allocated 60 participants to three (n = 20) study groups. Utilizing the same protocol of anesthesia induction, outcome variables assumed and measured as the incidence of the adverse effects (Hypotension, Anxiety, Bradycardia, Nausea and Vomiting(N/V), Hypoventilation, and Decreased o2 saturation), and the requirement for intervention to control the unwanted reaction. Addressing that, outcome variables were measured 10 times perioperatively. One-way ANOVA test, the chi2 test, or repeated measures ANOVA test with the Bonferroni adjustment were utilized as appropriate.

RESULTS

We found that the incidence of hypotension (P-value:0.02) and the N/V (P-value < 0.001) are associated with the HB-bupivacaine dosage. Contrary, our findings indicate that the incidence of apnea, bradycardia, and hypoventilation did not exhibit a significant dose-dependent pattern between the groups. Repeated measures analysis revealed significant intergroup differences for Herat rate, systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure (group*time Pvalue < 0.001). The observed differences were more prominent 10-30 min after injection of HB-bupivacaine. The regression model claimed that gender (P-value:0.002) and drug dosage (P-value:0.03) significantly predict the incidence of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Our results, suggest that the administration of the 12.5mg HB-bupivacaine provides adequate anesthesia while minimizing the risk of adverse events for lower limb orthopedic surgeries lasting up to 180 min.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Clinical Trial Registry Center (IRCT20160202026328N7), Registered on 2022.01.10.

Addition of dexmedetomidine to epidural morphine to improve anesthesia and analgesia for cesarean section

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the combination of epidural dexmedetomidine and morphine in providing anesthesia during cesarean surgery and analgesia for post-cesarean pain relief when added to epidural ropivacaine. A total of 80 females at term scheduled for elective cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to two groups (n=40/group): In the morphine group (group M), patients received an epidural injection of 0.75% ropivacaine (12 ml) and morphine (2 mg) for surgical anesthesia, and epidural infusion of morphine (2 mg) in 100 ml 0.2% ropivacaine at 2 ml/h for 48-h post-operative analgesia; and in the morphine combined with dexmedetomidine group (group DM), patients received an epidural injection of 0.75% ropivacaine (12 ml) and morphine (2 mg) combined with dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg) for surgical anesthesia, and epidural infusion of morphine (2 mg) and dexmedetomidine (200 µg) in 100 ml 0.2% ropivacaine at 2 ml/h for 48-h post-operative analgesia. The primary outcomes included blockade and analgesic effects, sedation and adverse reactions associated with the drugs. Neonatal outcome was also assessed by determining the Apgar score and umbilical cord blood analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups in the cephalad levels of sensory blockade at 20 min post-injection, or in muscle relaxation scores or pain intensity scores at rest or upon movement at 4, 12, 24 or 48 h post-injection (P>0.05). The maternal patients in the DM group experienced more complete motor blockade at 20 min post-injection, better sedation during surgery and following delivery, and less visceral pain caused by peritoneal traction during surgery and by uterine contraction after delivery, compared with those in group M (P<0.05). The patients in group M had a lower incidence and severity score of post-operative nausea than those in the DM group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of Apgar score or umbilical cord blood gas values (P>0.05). In conclusion, epidural dexmedetomidine reduces intra-operative and post-operative visceral pain and produces better sedation during surgery and following delivery, without any significant influence on morphine-associated side effects and post-operative analgesia, in females undergoing elective cesarean section under epidural anesthesia with morphine and ropivacaine (registration number ChiCTR1900027942; retrospectively registered with the Chinese Clinical Registry Center on December 6, 2019).

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Morphine as Adjuvants to Bupivacaine for Epidural Anesthesia in Leg Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Epidural block approach and drugs are common options for improving the sensory and motor block duration and postoperative pain management.

Objectives

The study aimed to compare the analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine and morphine as adjuvants to bupivacaine for epidural anesthesia in leg fracture surgery.

Methods

This prospective clinical trial was conducted on patients (n = 80, age range: 18 - 60 years) categorized as ASA class I or II. After a clinical examination, the patients were allocated to receive either lumbar epidural bupivacaine + morphine (BM) (12 mL bupivacaine 0.5% + morphine 2 mg) or bupivacaine + dexmedetomidine (BD) (12 mL bupivacaine 0.5% + dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg). After drug administration, the sensory block level was assessed at 2-min intervals using the Cold Swab method until it reached the T12 level. At the T12 level of sensory block, the surgery began when motor block reached grade 3 of the modified Bromage scale.

Results

The BD group had a significantly shorter time to reach the sensory and motor block than the BM group (P < 0.001). The duration of sensory and motor block was significantly longer in the group BD than in the BM group (P < 0.001). Moreover, the BD group showed lower VAS scores (P < 0.0001) and longer time to first analgesia demand than the BM group.

Conclusions

Combined bupivacaine + dexmedetomidine prolongs the sensory and motor block duration and controls postoperative pain more effectively, indicating that it is an appropriate combination for epidural anesthesia.

Comparison of the Analgesic Efficacy of a Single Dose of Epidural Dexmedetomidine versus Fentanyl as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine in Abdominal Surgery

Background:

Fentanyl as an epidural additive act on spinal opioid receptors, while dexmedetomidine has selective alpha-2 receptor agonist action enhancing analgesic effects.

Aims:

We aimed to compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of single doses of dexmedetomidine against fentanyl as epidural adjuvant to 0.125% bupivacaine.

Settings and Design:

A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial was conducted in a tertiary care teaching institute.

Patients and Methods:

Forty-six patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia with epidural analgesia were allocated into two groups to receive postoperative analgesia with single doses of 10 mL 0.125% bupivacaine with the addition of dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg.kg-1 (Group D) or fentanyl 0.5 μg.kg-1 (Group F). The primary outcome was the duration of postoperative analgesia between the two groups. The secondary outcomes were hemodynamic variations, vasopressor need, and motor blockade.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test for static parameters and Student's t-test or Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables were used for analysis.

Results:

The duration of analgesia was longer in Group D (5.0 ± 2.0 h) versus Group F (2.9 ± 1.4 h), Sixteen patients in Group D versus seven patients in Group F needed vasopressors after the bolus to maintain the blood pressure (BP) within 20% of prebolus value (P = 0.018). Heart rate and mean and systolic BP were lower in Group D at various time points following bolus administration.

Conclusion:

A single dose of dexmedetomidine as an additive to epidural local anesthetic postoperatively prolongs the duration of analgesia in comparison to fentanyl but is associated with changes in hemodynamics, including the need for the administration of vasoactive drugs.

Dexmedetomidine in perioperative acute pain management: a non-opioid adjuvant analgesic

Many nociceptive, inflammatory, and neuropathic pathways contribute to perioperative pain. Although opioids have long been a mainstay for perioperative analgesia, other non-opioid therapies, and dexmedetomidine, in particular, have been increasingly used as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen to provide improved pain control while minimizing opioid-related side effects. This article reviews the evidence supporting the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant, and the efficacy of intravenous, spinal canal, and nerve block analgesia with dexmedetomidine for perioperative acute pain treatment. While there have not been any large-scale clinical trials conducted, the current body of evidence suggests that dexmedetomidine is suitable for use as an adjuvant analgesic at all perioperative stages. However, there are potential adverse effects, such as hypotension and bradycardia, which must be taken into consideration by clinicians.

Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant in Epidural Analgesia and Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several clinical trials have examined and indicated the usefulness of epidural dexmedetomidine therapy. However, there has been no systematic analysis of the findings of these trials to date. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural dexmedetomidine adjunctive therapy in different surgical procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials.gov database to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of epidural dexmedetomidine adjunctive therapy. The article search was conducted without language or date restrictions. The date of the last search was 27 July 2016. The mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) were presented for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using τ ², χ ² and I ² analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in the final analysis. Compared with the control treatment, epidural dexmedetomidine administration prolonged the duration of analgesia (P < 0.0001), reduced the time to sensory block (P = 0.002), decreased the requirement for rescue analgesia (P < 0.00001) and achieved a significantly higher sedation score (P < 0.0001). Although dexmedetomidine adjunctive therapy did not affect mean arterial pressure (P = 0.33), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.32) or diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.28), it significantly lowered heart rate (P = 0.0009). Symptoms indicative of hypotension and bradycardia events were more common in the dexmedetomidine group, but the difference in the overall risk of hypotension and bradycardia was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05) in comparison with that reported for the control therapies. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine effectively reduced post-operative pain (P = 0.03), whilst the occurrence of other side effects, such as pruritus, dizziness, dry mouth, nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly from that reported for the control therapies, except the risk of shivering was significantly higher with control therapies (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant in epidural procedures is generally safe and well tolerated. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine acted synergistically and provided an improved sedation and analgesic profile.