Dataset Information

Serum levels of bupivacaine after pre-peritoneal bolus vs. epidural bolus injection for analgesia in abdominal surgery: A safety study within a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Continuous wound infiltration (CWI) has become increasingly popular in recent years as an alternative to epidural analgesia. As catheters are not placed until the end of surgery, more intraoperative opioid analgesics might be needed. We, therefore, added a single pre-peritoneal bolus of bupivacaine at the start of laparotomy, similar to the bolus given with epidural analgesia.

Methods

This was a comparative study within a randomized controlled trial (NTR4948). Patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery received either a pre-peritoneal bolus of 30ml bupivacaine 0.25%, or an epidural bolus of 10ml bupivacaine 0.25% at the start of laparotomy. In a subgroup of patients, we sampled blood and determined bupivacaine serum levels 20, 40, 60 and 80 minutes after bolus injection. We assumed toxicity of bupivacaine to be >1000 ng/ml.

Results

A total of 20 patients participated in this sub-study. All plasma levels measured as well as the upper limit of the predicted 99% confidence intervals per time point were well below the toxicity limit. In a mixed linear-effect model both groups did not differ statistically significant (p = 0.131). The intra-operative use of opioids was higher with CWI as compared to epidural (86 (SD 73) ?g sufentanil vs. 50 (SD 32).

Conclusions

In this exploratory study, the pre-peritoneal bolus using bupivacaine resulted in serum bupivacaine concentrations well below the commonly accepted toxic threshold. With CWI more additional analgesics are needed intraoperatively as compared to epidural analgesia, although this is compensated by a reduction in use of vasopressors with CWI.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR4948.

SUBMITTER: Mungroop TH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5470670 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Serum levels of bupivacaine after pre-peritoneal bolus vs. epidural bolus injection for analgesia in abdominal surgery: A safety study within a randomized controlled trial.

Mungroop Timothy H TH van Samkar Ganapathy G Geerts Bart F BF van Dieren Susan S Besselink Marc G MG Veelo Denise P DP Lirk Philipp P

PloS one 20170614 6

<h4>Background</h4>Continuous wound infiltration (CWI) has become increasingly popular in recent years as an alternative to epidural analgesia. As catheters are not placed until the end of surgery, more intraoperative opioid analgesics might be needed. We, therefore, added a single pre-peritoneal bolus of bupivacaine at the start of laparotomy, similar to the bolus given with epidural analgesia.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a comparative study within a randomized controlled trial (NTR4948). Patients ...[more]

PMID: 28614364

Similar Datasets

Project description:Opioid analgesics have been a standard modality for postoperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but are also associated with increased risk of nausea, pruritus, vomiting, respiratory depression, prolonged ileus, and cognitive dysfunction. There is still a need for a method of anesthesia that can deliver effective long-term postoperative pain relief without incurring the high cost and health burden of opioids and nerve blocks.(1) Is liposomal bupivacaine-based periarticular injection (PAI) more effective than morphine-based spinal anesthesia or ropivacaine-based PAI in controlling postoperative pain after TKA? (2) Do patients treated with liposomal bupivacaine-based PAI experience fewer opioid-related adverse events compared with patients treated with morphine-based spinal anesthesia or ropivacaine-based PAI in controlling postoperative pain after TKA?This multicenter, blind trial randomized 119 patients undergoing TKA with spinal anesthesia to receive spinal anesthesia plus periarticular injection with liposomal bupivacaine (40 patients), spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine plus intrathecal morphine (41 patients) but no liposomal bupivacaine injection, or spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine (38 patients) and no liposomal bupivacaine injection. The two groups that did not receive periarticular liposomal bupivacaine did receive periarticular injection with ropivacaine, and all three groups had ketorolac (30 mg) plus epinephrine (1:1000) in the periarticular injections. Patients in all three groups received identical perioperative multimodal analgesic and antiemetic drugs. All patients were analyzed in the group to which they were randomized and no patients were lost to followup. The primary study endpoints were visual analog score (VAS) for pain and narcotic use during postoperative day 1. Secondary endpoints included side effects associated with narcotic administration during the hospital stay.Mean VAS pain in the liposomal bupivacaine PAI group was lower than that for the ropivacaine PAI group at 6 hours (1.8 ± 2.1 versus 3.3 ± 2.3, p = 0.005, mean difference: 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-2.5) and 12 hours (1.5 ± 2.0 versus 3.3 ± 2.4, p < 0.001, mean difference: 1.8, 95% CI, 0.8-2.8) after surgery. The morphine spinal group had lower pain compared with the liposomal bupivacaine PAI group at 6 hours (0.9 ± 1.8 versus 1.8 ± 2.1, p = 0.035, mean difference: 1.0, 95% CI, 0.1-1.8), but there was no difference at 12 hours (0.8 ± 1.5 versus 1.5 ± 2.0, p = 0.086, mean difference: 0.7, 95% CI, -0.1 to 1.5). The magnitude of the differences at 6 and 12 hours are near the lower end of minimal clinically important differences reported in the literature, and thus the improvement shown in this study may only represent a small clinical improvement. Both the liposomal bupivacaine group (13% [five of 40]) and the ropivacaine group (5% [two of 38]) had fewer incidents of itching (pruritus) than the spinal morphine group (38% [15 of 41]) (p = 0.001).This prospective multicenter three-arm blind randomized controlled trial showed potentially improved pain control at 6 and 12 hours in the liposomal bupivacaine and intrathecal morphine groups compared with the ropivacaine group at the cost of much higher incidences of pruritus (itching) in the intrathecal morphine group. Based on these results, we prefer the use of PAI with liposomal bupivacaine as an alternative to spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine as a result of similar postoperative pain control and the potential for reducing adverse events.Level I, therapeutic study.

Project description:BackgroundAdministration of adjuvant drugs epidurally in combination with local anesthetics offers new dimensions in the management of postoperative pain. This study aimed to compare the addition of either nalbuphine or dexmedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.MethodsThis prospective randomized double-blind study included 69 patients scheduled for lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Anesthesia was started with 15 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% intrathecally, and then an epidural bolus dose of 12 ml (10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine with 2 ml normal saline in group C, 2 ml (10 mg) nalbuphine in group N or dexmedetomidine 2 ml (100 µg) in group D was administered when sensory regression to T10. Postoperatively, when visual analogue scale (VAS) was ≥ 3, an epidural top-up dose of 8 ml (6 ml 0.25% bupivacaine plus 2 ml normal saline in group C, 2 ml (2 mg) nalbuphine in group N or 20 µg dexmedetomidine (2 ml) in group D was given. The primary outcome was to evaluate the duration of postoperative analgesia and secondary outcomes were any side effects and patient satisfaction.ResultsThe onset of epidural analgesia was 17.83 ± 2.53 versus 13.39 ± 1.27 versus 12.17 ± 1.27 min in groups C, N and D, respectively (p value < 0.001). The mean duration of analgesia was 241.3 ± 14.24 versus 318.38 ± 22.54 versus 365.87 ± 18.01 min in groups C, N and D, respectively (p value < 0.001). The mean sedation score was less in group C than group N and D (P < 0.001). The patient satisfaction score showed the lowest degree of satisfaction in group C (p value < 0.001). Top-up doses consumed and total analgesic requirements were lower in groups N and D than in group C. There was a statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding VAS over time (p value < 0.001), intraoperative bradycardia (p value 0.029), and shivering (p value 0.029).ConclusionThe addition of either nalbuphine or dexmedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine was effective for postoperative analgesia in terms of onset, duration, and patient satisfaction with the superiority of dexmedetomidine over nalbuphine.Trial registrationApproval from the research ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University was obtained with the reference number (ZU-IRB#:7045-15-8-2021) and it was registered under clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05041270) on registration date 13/09/2021.

Dataset Information

Serum levels of bupivacaine after pre-peritoneal bolus vs. epidural bolus injection for analgesia in abdominal surgery: A safety study within a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Serum levels of bupivacaine after pre-peritoneal bolus vs. epidural bolus injection for analgesia in abdominal surgery: A safety study within a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets