JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 2009; 108:641-649
© 2009 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31819237f8
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cuvillon, P.
Right arrow Articles by de La Coussaye, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cuvillon, P.
Right arrow Articles by de La Coussaye, J. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Clinical Pharmacology
Right arrow Regional Anesthesia
Right arrow Pharmacology


ANALGESIA

A Comparison of the Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics of Bupivacaine, Ropivacaine (with Epinephrine) and Their Equal Volume Mixtures with Lidocaine Used for Femoral and Sciatic Nerve Blocks: A Double-Blind Randomized Study

Philippe Cuvillon, MD, MSc*, Emmanuel Nouvellon, MD, MSc*, Jacques Ripart, MD, PhD*, Jean-Christophe Boyer, MD{dagger}, Laurence Dehour, MD*, Aba Mahamat, MD{ddagger}, Joel L’Hermite, MD*, Christophe Boisson, MD*, Nathalie Vialles, MD*, Jean Yves Lefrant, MD, PhD*, and Jean Emmanuel de La Coussaye, MD, PhD*

From the *Division of the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University Groupe Caremeau Hospital, France and University of Montpellier 1, France; {dagger}Laboratoire de Biochimie, University Groupe Caremeau Hospital, Place Professeur Debré, 30029 Nîmes, France; and {ddagger}Laboratoire d’épidémiologie et de Biostatistiques, Institut Universitaire de Recherche Clinique, Montpellier, France and Département Informatique Médicale, CHU Nîmes, France.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Philippe Cuvillon, Département Anesthésie Douleur, Hôpital Caremeau, Place professeur Debré, 30029 Nîmes, France. Address e-mail to philippe.cuvillon{at}wanadoo.fr.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mixtures of lidocaine with a long-acting local anesthetic are commonly used for peripheral nerve block. Few data are available regarding the safety, efficacy, or pharmacokinetics of mixtures of local anesthetics. In the current study, we compared the effects of bupivacaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.75% alone or in a mixed solution of equal volumes of bupivacaine 0.5% and lidocaine 2% or ropivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2% for surgery after femoral-sciatic peripheral nerve block. The primary end point was onset time.

METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized study, 82 adults scheduled for lower limb surgery received a sciatic (20 mL) and femoral (20 mL) peripheral nerve block with 0.5% bupivacaine (200 mg), a mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine 20 mL (100 mg) with 2% lidocaine (400 mg), 0.75% ropivacaine (300 mg) or a mixture of 0.75% ropivacaine 20 mL (150 mg) with 2% lidocaine (400 mg). Each solution contained epinephrine 1:200,000. Times to perform blocks, onset times (end of injection to complete sensory and motor block), duration of sensory and motor block, and morphine consumption via IV patient-controlled analgesia were compared. Venous blood samples of 5 mL were collected for determination of drug concentration at 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 min after placement of the block.

RESULTS: Patient demographics and surgical times were similar for all four groups. Sciatic onset times (sensory and motor block) were reduced by combining lidocaine with the long-acting local anesthetic. The onset of bupivacaine-lidocaine was 16 ± 9 min versus 28 ± 12 min for bupivacaine alone. The onset of ropivacaine-lidocaine was 16 ± 12 min versus 23 ± 12 for ropivacaine alone. Sensory blocks were complete for all patients within 40 min for those receiving bupivacaine–lidocaine versus 60 min for those receiving bupivacaine alone and 30 min for those receiving ropivacaine–lidocaine versus 40 min for those receiving ropivacaine alone (P < 0.05). Duration of sensory and motor block was significantly shorter in mixture groups. There was no difference among groups for visual analog scale pain scores and morphine consumption during the 48 h postoperative period, except for bupivacaine alone (median: 9 mg) versus bupivacaine–lidocaine mixture (15 mg), P < 0.01. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events among groups. Plasma concentrations of bupivacaine and ropivacaine were higher, and remained elevated longer, in patients who received only the long-acting local anesthetic compared to patients who received the mixture of long-acting local anesthetic with lidocaine (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Mixtures of long-acting local anesthetics with lidocaine induced faster onset blocks of decreased duration. Whether there is a safety benefit is unclear, as the benefit of a decreased concentration of long-acting local anesthetic may be offset by the presence of a significant plasma concentration of lidocaine.







Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.