Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Standard Local Anesthetic Bupivacaine and Liposomal Bupivacaine for Postoperative Pain Control in Patients Undergoing Truncal Incisions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Liposomal bupivacaine for pain relief is purported to last 3 days compared with 8 hours with standard bupivacaine. However, its effectiveness is unknown in truncal incisions for cardiothoracic or vascular operations.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of single-administration standard bupivacaine vs liposomal bupivacaine in patients undergoing truncal incisions.

Design, setting, and participants

This randomized clinical trial enrolled patients undergoing sternotomy, thoracotomy, minithoracotomy, and laparotomy from a single cardiovascular surgery department in an academic medical center between November 2012 and June 2018. The study was powered to detect a Cohen effect size of 0.35 with a power of greater than 80%. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2018.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to standard bupivacaine or liposomal bupivacaine.

Main outcomes and measures

Pain was assessed over 3 postoperative days by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Adjunctive opioids were converted to morphine equivalents units (MEU). NRS scores were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum (3-day area under the curve) and 2-way nonparametric mixed models (daily scale score) to assess time-by-group interaction. Secondary outcomes included cumulative opioid consumption.

Results

A total of 280 patients were analyzed, with 140 in each group (single-administration standard bupivacaine vs liposomal bupivacaine). Mean (SD) age was 60.2 (14.4) years, and 101 of 280 patients (36%) were women. Irrespective of treatment assignment, pain decreased by a mean of approximately 1 point per day over 3 days (β = -0.87; SE = 0.11; mixed model regression P < .001). Incision type was associated with pain with patients undergoing thoracotomy (including minithoracotomy) reporting highest median (interquartile range [IQR]) pain scores on postoperative days 1 (liposomal vs standard bupivacaine, 6 [4-8] vs 5 [3-7]; P = .049, Wilcoxon rank-sum) and 2 (liposomal vs standard bupivacaine, 5 [4-7] vs 4 [2-6]; P = .003, Wilcoxon rank-sum) but not day 3 (liposomal vs standard bupivacaine, 3 [2-6] vs 3 [1-5]; P = .10, Wilcoxon rank-sum), irrespective of treatment group. Median (IQR) 3-day cumulative NRS was 12.0 (8.0-16.5) for bupivacaine and 13.5 (9.0-17.0) for liposomal bupivacaine (P = .15, Wilcoxon rank-sum) Furthermore, use of opioids was greater following liposomal bupivacaine compared with standard bupivacaine (median [IQR], 41.5 [21.3-73.8] MEU vs 33.0 [17.8-62.5] MEU; P = .03, Wilcoxon rank-sum). On multivariable analysis, no interaction by incision type was observed for mean pain scores or opioid use.

Conclusions and relevance

In this randomized clinical trial involving truncal incisions for cardiovascular procedures, liposomal bupivacaine did not provide improved pain control and did not reduce adjunctive opioid use compared with conventional bupivacaine formulation over 3 postoperative days.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111746.

SUBMITTER: Sandhu HK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7967071 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMore than half of patients who undergo knee replacement surgery report substantial acute postoperative pain.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine for recovery and pain management after knee replacement.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, patient-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial involved 533 participants at 11 institutions within the National Health Service in England. Adults undergoing primary unilateral knee replacement for symptomatic end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled between March 29, 2018, and February 29, 2020, and followed up for 1 year after surgery. Follow-up was completed March 1, 2021. A per-protocol analysis for each coprimary outcome was performed in addition to the main intention-to-treat analysis.InterventionsTwo hundred sixty-six milligrams of liposomal bupivacaine admixed with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride alone (control) administered by periarticular injection at the time of surgery.Main outcome and measuresThe coprimary outcomes were Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72 hours and pain visual analog scale (VAS) score area under the curve (AUC) from 6 to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included QoR-40 and mean pain VAS at days 0 (evening of surgery), 1, 2, and 3; cumulative opioid consumption for 72 hours; functional outcomes and quality of life at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; and cost-effectiveness for 1 year. Adverse events and serious adverse events up to 12 months after randomization were also assessed.ResultsAmong the 533 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.0 (9.7) years; 287 patients were women (53.8%) and 246 were men (46.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. There was no difference between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups in QoR-40 score at 72 hours (adjusted mean difference, 0.54 [97.5% CI, -2.05 to 3.13]; P = .64) or the pain VAS score AUC at 6 to 72 hours (-21.5 [97.5% CI, -46.8 to 3.8]; P = .06). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores demonstrated only 1 statistically significant difference, with the liposomal bupivacaine arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (adjusted difference -0.54 [97.5% CI, -1.07 to -0.02]; P = .02). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption and functional outcomes was detected. Liposomal bupivacaine was not cost-effective compared with the control treatment. No difference in adverse or serious adverse events was found between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found no difference in postoperative recovery or pain associated with the use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in patients who underwent knee replacement surgery.Trial registrationisrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN54191675.

Project description:BackgroundLiposome bupivacaine (LB) is a long-acting anesthetic to enhance postoperative analgesia. Studies evaluating the efficacy of the LB against an active comparator (bupivacaine or placebo) on acute postoperative pain control in hemorrhoidectomy procedures are few and heterogeneous. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LB's analgesic efficacy and side effects to conventional/placebo anesthetic in hemorrhoidectomy patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating the use of LB after haemorrhoidectomy. We searched the literature published from the time of inception of the datasets to August 19, 2022. The electronic databases included English publications in Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus.ResultsA total of 338 patients who underwent a hemorrhoidectomy procedure enrolled in three randomized clinical trials were included. The overall mean age was 45.84 years (SD ± 11.43), and there was a male predominance (53.55% male). In total 194 patients (52.2%) received LB and 144 (47.8%) received either bupivacaine or placebo. Pain scores at 72 h in the LB (199, 266, and 300 mg) were significantly lower than in the bupivacaine HCl group (p = 0.002). Compared to the bupivacaine/placebo group, the time to first use of opioids in the LB group was significantly longer at LB 199 mg (11 h vs. 9 h), LB 266 mg (19 h vs. 9 h), and LB 300 mg (19 h vs. 8 h) (p < 0.05). Moreover, compared to the bupivacaine/epinephrine group, it was significantly lower in the LB 266 mg group (3.7 vs. 10.2 mg) and at LB 300 mg (13 vs. 33 mg) (p < 0.05). Finally, regarding adverse effects, the conventional anesthetic/placebo group reported more pain in bowel movement than LB groups (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.31-5.16).ConclusionsComparing LB to conventional anesthetic/placebo anesthetic for hemorrhoidectomy, we found a statistically significant reduction in pain through 72 h, decreased opioid requirements, and delayed time to first opioid use. Moreover, the conventional anesthetic/placebo group reported more pain in bowel movement than LB groups.