A multicenter,randomized, controlled trial comparing bupivacaine with ropivacaine for labor analgesia

BACKGROUND: A meta-analysis of studies comparing high doses of bupivacaine with ropivacaine for labor pain found a higher incidence of forceps deliveries, motor block, and poorer neonatal outcome with bupivacaine. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in these outcomes when a low concentration of patient-controlled epidural bupivacaine combined with fentanyl is compared with ropivacaine combined with fentanyl. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, including term, nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor. For the initiation of analgesia, patients were randomized to receive either 15 ml bupivacaine, 0.1%, or 15 ml ropivacaine, 0.1%, each with 5 microg/ml fentanyl. Analgesia was maintained with patient-controlled analgesia with either local anesthetic, 0.08%, with 2 microg/ml fentanyl. The primary outcome was the incidence of operative delivery. We also examined other obstetric, neonatal, and analgesic outcomes. RESULTS: There was no difference in the incidence of operative delivery between the two groups (148 of 276 bupivacaine recipients vs. 135 of 279 ropivacaine recipients; P = 0.25) or any obstetric or neonatal outcome. The incidence of motor block was significantly increased in the bupivacaine group compared with the ropivacaine group at 6 h (47 of 93 vs. 29 of 93, respectively; P = 0.006) and 10 h (29 of 47 vs. 16 of 41, respectively; P = 0.03) after injection. Satisfaction with mobility was higher with ropivacaine than with bupivacaine (mean +/- SD: 76 +/- 23 vs. 72 +/- 23, respectively; P = 0.013). Satisfaction for analgesia at delivery was higher for bupivacaine than for ropivacaine (mean +/- SD: 71 +/- 25 vs. 66 +/- 26, respectively; P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the incidence of operative delivery or neonatal outcome among nulliparous patients who received low concentrations of bupivacaine or ropivacaine for labor analgesia.     

Ropivacaine, 0.1%, Plus Sufentanil, 0.5 μg/ml, versus Bupivacaine, 0.1%, Plus Sufentanil, 0.5 μg/ml, Using Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia for Labor: A Double-blind Comparison

Background: This study compared the administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil with that of 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil via patient-controlled epidural analgesia route during labor.

Methods: Two hundred healthy pregnant women at term with a single fetus with a vertex fetal presentation were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil or 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia pump (5-ml bolus dose, 10-min locked-out period, no basal infusion). Pain score on a visual analog scale, Bromage score (0-3), level of sensory block, patient-controlled epidural analgesia ratio, drug use, supplemental boluses, and side effects were recorded at 30 min and then hourly. Mode of delivery, duration of first and second stages of labor, umbilical cord pH, Apgar scores of the newborn, and a measure of maternal satisfaction were recorded after delivery.

Results: No differences were seen between the two groups for pain scores on a visual analog scale during labor, volume of anesthetic solution used, mode of delivery, or side effects. Motor block during the first stage of labor was significantly less in the ropivacaine group than in the bupivacaine group (no motor block in 97.8 of patients vs. 88.3%, respectively;P < 0.01). Duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (1.3 +/- 1.0 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.2 h [mean +/- SD];P < 0.05). Maternal satisfaction was greater in the bupivacaine group (91 +/- 13 mm for contraction, 89 +/- 19 mm for delivery on a visual scale: 0 = not satisfied at all, 100 = fully satisfied) than in the ropivacaine group (84 +/- 21 and 80 +/- 25 mm;P < 0.0001). Patients in the ropivacaine group requested more supplemental boluses to achieve analgesia during the second stage of labor than those in the bupivacaine group (29.7 vs. 19.8%, respectively, requested one or more supplemental boluses;P < 0.05).     

Ropivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, versus bupivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, using patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor: a double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND: This study compared the administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil with that of 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil via patient-controlled epidural analgesia route during labor. METHODS: Two hundred healthy pregnant women at term with a single fetus with a vertex fetal presentation were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil or 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia pump (5-ml bolus dose, 10-min locked-out period, no basal infusion). Pain score on a visual analog scale, Bromage score (0-3), level of sensory block, patient-controlled epidural analgesia ratio, drug use, supplemental boluses, and side effects were recorded at 30 min and then hourly. Mode of delivery, duration of first and second stages of labor, umbilical cord pH, Apgar scores of the newborn, and a measure of maternal satisfaction were recorded after delivery. RESULTS: No differences were seen between the two groups for pain scores on a visual analog scale during labor, volume of anesthetic solution used, mode of delivery, or side effects. Motor block during the first stage of labor was significantly less in the ropivacaine group than in the bupivacaine group (no motor block in 97.8 of patients vs. 88.3%, respectively; P < 0.01). Duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (1.3 +/- 1.0 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.2 h [mean +/- SD]; P < 0.05). Maternal satisfaction was greater in the bupivacaine group (91 +/- 13 mm for contraction, 89 +/- 19 mm for delivery on a visual scale: 0 = not satisfied at all, 100 = fully satisfied) than in the ropivacaine group (84 +/- 21 and 80 +/- 25 mm; P < 0.0001). Patients in the ropivacaine group requested more supplemental boluses to achieve analgesia during the second stage of labor than those in the bupivacaine group (29.7 vs. 19.8%, respectively, requested one or more supplemental boluses; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Delivered as patient-controlled epidural analgesia, 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil produce less motor block but are clinically less potent than 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil.     

Epidural infusions of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for labor analgesia: a randomized, double-blind study of obstetric outcome

Studies have shown better obstetric outcome when ropivacaine 0.25% was used for labor epidural analgesia compared with bupivacaine 0.25%, but it is controversial whether there is any difference at smaller concentrations. In a prospective, double-blind trial, we randomized 350 ASA physical status I and II parturients with term cephalic singleton pregnancies to receive epidural labor analgesia using ropivacaine or bupivacaine. Analgesia was initiated with a 0.25% solution and maintained with a continuous infusion of a 0.1% solution with fentanyl 0.0002%. Supplementary boluses of 0.25% solution were given when requested. Labor was managed according to institutional standard labor ward protocols. Among patients who delivered vaginally, the duration of the first stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (median, 520 min; interquartile range, 377-745 min) compared with the bupivacaine group (645 min; interquartile range, 460-820 min; P = 0.009), but there was no difference in any other obstetric or neonatal outcomes. The mode of delivery was similar between groups, with operative (instrumental vaginal and cesarean) delivery rates of 61.8% (95% confidence interval, 54.4%-68.8%) in the ropivacaine group and 58.4% (95% confidence interval, 50.9%-65.5%) in the bupivacaine group (P = 0.72). IMPLICATIONS: In a randomized-controlled study, we found no major outcome advantage of continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 0.0002% over bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 0.0002% for labor analgesia. Although ropivacaine was associated with a shorter first stage of labor, the relative difference is probably of limited clinical importance, and there was no difference in the mode of delivery.     

A multicentre trial comparing different concentrations of ropivacaine plus sufentanil with bupivacaine plus sufentanil for patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal concentration of ropivacaine for bolus-only patient-controlled epidural labour analgesia, three different doses of ropivacaine were evaluated in comparison with bupivacaine in a double-blinded multicentre study. METHODS: Four hundred-and-fifty labouring parturients at term in three different academic institutions were randomized to four groups receiving bupivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL(-1), ropivacaine 0.125% or 0.175% with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL(-1), or ropivacaine 0.2%. After an initial bolus of 10 mL of the study solution, and once visual analogue scores (VAS) were below 30 mm, patient-controlled epidural analgesia was initiated with a bolus of 4 mL, a lockout interval of 15 min and without a background infusion. Variables studied were the quality of analgesia, incidence of side-effects, the degree of motor blockade, and the mode of delivery. RESULTS: Bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil proved equally effective in providing labour analgesia without a difference in local anaesthetic consumption (48.6 +/- 23 mg bupivacaine vs. 52.1 +/- 38 mg ropivacaine), motor blockade or mode of delivery. Ropivacaine 0.175% plus sufentanil enhanced the quality of analgesia of the initial loading dose, whereas ropivacaine 0.2% without sufentanil increased the consumption of local anaesthetics (80.2 +/- 34 mg; P < 0.05) and the degree of motor blockade. CONCLUSION: Despite recent studies indicating that bupivacaine and ropivacaine may not be equipotent, both local anaesthetics provided equi-effective analgesia at equal doses without a difference in side-effects.     

Spinal ropivacaine or bupivacaine for cesarean delivery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was to compare clinical efficacy and safety of ropivacaine and bupivacaine given intrathecally in combination with morphine for cesarean delivery. METHODS: With ethical committee approval and a written informed consent, 60 women scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive spinal anesthesia with either 20 mg ropivacaine plus 0.1 mg morphine (n = 30) or 15 mg bupivacaine plus 0.1 mg morphine (n = 30). Profile of spinal block (onset and recovery times), cardiovascular effects, and quality of postoperative analgesia (patient-controlled morphine) were recorded by a blinded observer. RESULTS: The onset time of motor block was shorter after bupivacaine (8 +/- 2 min) than after ropivacaine (12 +/- 5 minutes) (P <.05), whereas duration of both sensory and motor blocks was longer after bupivacaine (139 +/- 37 minutes and 254 +/- 76 minutes) than after ropivacaine (112 +/- 27 minutes and 211 +/- 48 minutes) (P <.01 and P <.05, respectively). No differences in intraoperative quality of anesthesia and clinical hypotension requiring ephedrine administration were observed between the two groups. Postoperative analgesia was similarly effective in both groups; however median consumption of patient-controlled morphine during the first 24 hours after surgery was higher in patients of group Ropivacaine (5 mg; range, 0 to 18 mg) than in patients of group Bupivacaine (2 mg; range, 0 to 7 mg) (P <.01). CONCLUSION: Spinal anesthesia produced with 20 mg ropivacaine plus 0.1 mg morphine is as effective and safe as that provided by 15 mg bupivacaine plus 0.1 mg morphine, with an earlier recovery of sensory and motor functions after surgery.     

布比卡因、罗哌卡因与芬太尼不同配伍用于连续术后硬膜外镇痛安全性探讨

目的探讨布比卡因、罗哌卡因与芬太尼不同配伍用于连续术后硬膜外镇痛的效果、并发症及安全陛。方法1600例行连续术后硬膜外镇痛的患者,按所用镇痛药物配伍不同分为：0．1％布比卡因＋5μg／ml芬太尼组（B组,n=920）和0．2％罗哌卡因＋2μg／ml芬太尼组（R组,n=680）。对两组镇痛效果（视觉模拟评分及患者对镇痛效果的满意度）、并发症和处理措施进行总结分析。结果视觉模拟评分两组无差异（P〉0．05）。患者对镇痛的满意度R组明显高于B组（P〉0．05）。并发症的发生率B组高于R组（P〉0．05）。两组内年龄≥60岁的患者低血压的发生率高于年龄〈60岁者（P〈0．05）;女性患者恶心呕吐的发生率高于男性（P〈0．05）;腰段硬膜外镇痛患者下肢乏力或麻木的发生率明显高于胸段硬膜外镇痛患者（P〈0．05）。结论布比卡因、罗哌卡因与芬太尼不同配伍均可安全有效地用于连续术后硬膜外镇痛,罗哌卡因组并发症较少,并发症的发生与镇痛药物、年龄、性别及硬膜外置管部位有关。     

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.1%-fentanyl and bupivacaine 0.125% — fentanyl infusions for epidural labour analgesia

PURPOSE: To compare analgesic efficacies of ropivacaine-fentanyl and bupivacaine-fentanyl infusions for labour epidural analgesia. METHODS: In this double- blind, randomized study 100, term, nulliparous women were enrolled. Lumbar epidural analgesia (LEA) was started at cervical dilatation < 5 cm using either bupivacaine 0.25% followed by bupivacaine 0.125% + 2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl infusion (n=50) or ropivacaine 0.2% followed by ropivacaine 0.1% + 2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl infusion (n=50). Every hour maternal vital signs, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, sensory levels, and motor block (Bromage score) were assessed. Data were expressed as mean +/-1 SD and analyzed using Chi -Squared and Mann-Whitney U tests at <0.05. RESULTS: The onset times were 10.62+/-4.9 and 11.3+/-4.7 min for the bupivacaine and ropivacaine groups respectively (P = NS). The median VAS scores were not different between the groups at any of the evaluation periods. However, at least 80% of patients in the ropivacaine group had no demonstrable motor block after the first hour compared with only 55% of patients given bupivacaine (P =0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Both bupivacaine and ropivacaine produce satisfactory labour analgesia. However, ropivacaine infusion is associated with less motor block throughout the first stage of labour and at 10 cm dilatation.     

Combined Spinal-Epidural versus Epidural Labor Analgesia

Background: Despite the growing popularity of combined spinal-epidural analgesia in laboring women, the exact role of intrathecal opioids and the needle-through-needle technique remains to be determined. The authors hypothesized that anesthetic technique would have little effect on obstetric outcome or anesthetic complications.

Methods: Data were prospectively collected from 2,183 laboring women randomly assigned to have labor analgesia induced with either 10 [mu]g intrathecal sufentanil with or without 2.0 mg bupivacaine (n = 1,071) or 10 [mu]g epidural sufentanil and 12.5-25.0 mg bupivacaine (n = 1,112). Immediately after induction, a continuous epidural infusion of 0.083% bupivacaine plus 0.3 [mu]g/ml sufentanil was begun in all patients and continued until delivery. Labor was managed by nurses, obstetricians, and obstetric residents who were unaware of the anesthetic technique used.

Results: Anesthetic technique lacked impact on our primary outcome: mode of delivery or labor duration. Infants whose mothers were allocated to the combined spinal-epidural group had a slightly higher umbilical artery carbon dioxide partial pressure (54.2 +/- 10.4 vs. 53.2 +/- 10.2 mmHg). However, only achieving at least 5 cm cervical dilation before induction of analgesia and having a cesarean delivery were independent risk factors for elevated umbilical artery carbon dioxide partial pressure. The frequencies of accidental dural puncture, failed epidural analgesia, headache, and epidural blood patch were low and similar in the two groups.     

A comparison of epidural analgesia with 0.125% ropivacaine with fentanyl versus 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl during labor

We previously found that the extent of an epidural motor block produced by 0.125% ropivacaine was clinically indistinguishable from 0.125% bupivacaine in laboring patients. By adding fentanyl to the 0. 125% ropivacaine and bupivacaine solutions in an attempt to reduce hourly local anesthetic requirements, we hypothesized that differences in motor block produced by the two drugs may become apparent. Fifty laboring women were randomized to receive either 0. 125% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg/mL or an equivalent concentration of bupivacaine/fentanyl using patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with settings of: 6-mL/hr basal rate, 5-mL bolus, 10-min lockout, 30-mL/h dose limit. Analgesia, local anesthetic use, motor block, patient satisfaction, and side effects were assessed until the time of delivery. No differences in verbal pain scores, local anesthetic use, patient satisfaction, or side effects between groups were observed; however, patients administered ropivacaine/fentanyl developed significantly less motor block than patients administered bupivacaine/fentanyl. Ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL produces similar labor analgesia with significantly less motor block than an equivalent concentration of bupivacaine/fentanyl. Whether this statistical reduction in motor block improves clinical outcome or is applicable to anesthesia practices which do not use the PCEA technique remains to be determined. Implications: By using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique, ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL produces similar analgesia with significantly less motor block than a similar concentration of bupivacaine with fentanyl during labor. Whether this statistical reduction in motor block improves clinical outcome or is applicable to anesthesia practices which do not use the patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique remains to be determined.     

Ambulatory labor epidural analgesia: bupivacaine versus ropivacaine

Dilute concentrations of bupivacaine combined with fentanyl have recently been used to initiate labor epidural analgesia in an attempt to balance adequate analgesia and minimal maternal motor blockade. Similar concentrations of ropivacaine have not been evaluated. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was designed to compare the efficacy of 20 mL of either 0.08% bupivacaine plus 2 microg/mL fentanyl or 0.08% ropivacaine plus 2 microg/mL fentanyl to initiate ambulatory labor epidural analgesia. Forty nulliparous women in early ( 0 but < 20 at 20 min. The time (mean +/- SD) to visual analog scale score = 0 was BF (n = 18): 12.0 +/- 4.5 min and RF (n = 19): 12.4 +/- 4.0 min (P > 0.05). Spontaneous micturition was observed in 65% (13 of 20) BF compared with 100% (20 of 20) RF (P < 0.01), and ambulation was demonstrated in 75% (15 of 20) BF compared with 100% (20 of 20) RF (P < 0.03). The incidence of forceps delivery was 35% (7 of 20) BF compared with 10% (2 of 20) RF (P < 0.04). The results of this study indicate that dilute ropivacaine combined with fentanyl effectively initiates epidural analgesia while concurrently preserving maternal ability to void and ambulate. Implications: As compared with a similar dilute concentration of bupivacaine, 20 mL of dilute (0.08%) ropivacaine combined with fentanyl (2 microg/mL) effectively initiates epidural analgesia in nulliparous women in early, established labor while preserving their ability to micturate and ambulate. Of importance, it appears that a true ambulatory epidural analgesic for women in labor is now possible.     

Impact study of the introduction of low-dose epidural (bupivacaine 0.1%/fentanyl 2 microg . mL(-1)) compared with bupivacaine 0.25% for labour analgesia

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the obstetric effects of introducing a low-dose epidural regimen for epidural analgesia in labour. Before this, all women in our unit requesting epidural analgesia for labour received intermittent boluses (10 mL) of 0.25% bupivacaine. After the introduction of the low-dose service in March 2000, intermittent boluses (10 mL) of 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg . mL(-1) were given. The records of 300 women were examined, 150 who had received the standard regimen before the introduction of the new service and 150 women afterwards. The groups were compared for outcome of labour, quality of analgesia and any adverse events related to the epidural analgesia. There was a significant reduction in the low-dose group in the number of women requiring instrumental delivery (41% vs. 29%, P = 0.04). The need for indwelling bladder catheters was also reduced in the patients receiving the low-dose regimen (21.3% vs. 4.7%, P < 0.001). Duration of analgesia was longer in patients receiving bupivacaine 0.25% (mean minimum time between boluses 42.25 +/- 33.8 vs. 24.37 +/- 19.8 min, P < 0.001). The need for further anaesthetic intervention was higher with the low-dose regimen (24% vs. 34%, P = 0.037). Maternal satisfaction was high in both groups (95 and 97%, respectively). We conclude that the introduction of a low-dose regimen of epidural analgesia for labour reduces the incidence of instrumental deliveries. It also decreases the incidence of bladder catheterisation during labour, but the need for anaesthetic intervention may be greater.     

Comparison of bupivacaine 0.2% and ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl for epidural analgesia during labour

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical studies comparing ropivacaine 0.25% with bupivacaine 0.25% reported not only comparable analgesia, but also comparable motor block for epidural analgesia during labour. An opioid can be combined with local anaesthetic to reduce the incidence of side-effects and to improve analgesia for the relief of labour pain. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of epidural bupivacaine 0.2% compared with ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl for the initiation and maintenance of analgesia during labour and delivery. METHODS: Sixty labouring nulliparous women were randomly allocated to receive either bupivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) (B/F), or ropivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) (R/F). For the initiation of epidural analgesia, 8 mL of the study solution was administered. Supplemental analgesia was obtained with 4 mL of the study solution according to parturients' needs when their pain was > or = 4 on a visual analogue scale. Analgesia, hourly local anaesthetic use, motor block, patient satisfaction and side-effects between groups were evaluated during labour and at delivery. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled and 53 completed the study. No differences in verbal pain scores, hourly local anaesthetic use or patient satisfaction between groups were observed. However, motor block was observed in 10 patients in the B/F group whereas only two patients had motor block in the R/F group (P < 0.05). The incidence of instrumental delivery was also higher in the B/F group than in the R/F group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that epidural bupivacaine 0.2% and ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl produced equivalent analgesia for pain relief during labour and delivery. It is concluded that ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) provided effective analgesia with significantly less motor block and need for an instrumental delivery than a bupivacaine/fentanyl combination at the same concentrations during labour and delivery.     

Efficacy of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and levobupivacaine for labor epidural analgesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare analgesic efficacy and intensity of motor block with continuous infusions of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and levobupivacaine in combination with fentanyl for labor epidural analgesia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: Labor and delivery suite at Magee Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. PATIENTS: 162 ASA physical status I and II, full-term, primiparous women. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received epidural labor analgesia. Epidural medication consisted of an initial bolus of 8 mL local anesthetic with fentanyl (100 microg) followed by an infusion at 12 mL/h of local anesthetic with 2 microg/mL fentanyl. Patients were allocated to one of three groups, as follows: group 1 received bolus and infusion of bupivacaine 0.125%, group 2 received bolus and infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125%, and group 3 received a bolus of ropivacaine 0.2% and infusion of ropivacaine 0.1%. MEASUREMENTS: Maternal vital signs, pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, sensory levels, and motor block (Bromage score) were recorded every hour. Duration of first and second stage of labor and mode of delivery were also recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pain VAS or Bromage motor scores among the three groups of patients at any of the measured time intervals. The time to achieve T10 sensory level and patient comfort was shorter in the ropivacaine (9.35 +/- 4.96 min) and levobupivacaine (9.56 +/- 4.71 min) groups than the bupivacaine (11.89 +/- 7.76 min) group, although this difference did not reach a statistically significant level (P = 0.06). The second stage was significantly shorter in the bupivacaine group, lasting 81.27 +/- 63.3 min, compared with the ropivacaine group (121.69 +/- 86.5 min) and the levobupivacaine (115.5 +/- 83.6 minutes) group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: There are no significant differences in pain VAS and Bromage scores between 0.1% ropivacaine, 0.125% bupivacaine, and 0.1% levobupivacaine given for labor epidural analgesia.     

Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Trial of Epidural Analgesia versus Intravenous Meperidine Analgesia during Labor in Nulliparous Women

Background: Controversy concerning increased cesarean births as a result of epidural analgesia for relief of labor pain has been attributed, in large part, to difficulties interpreting published studies because of design flaws. In this study, the authors compared epidural analgesia to intravenous meperidine analgesia using patient-controlled devices during labor to evaluate the effects of labor epidural analgesia, primarily on the rate of cesarean deliveries while minimizing limitations attributable to study design.

Methods: Four hundred fifty-nine nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term were randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous meperidine analgesia. Epidural analgesia was initiated with 0.25% bupivacaine and was maintained with 0.0625% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 [mu]g/ml at 6 ml/h with 5-ml bolus doses every 15 min as needed using a patient-controlled pump. Women in the intravenous analgesia group received 50 mg meperidine with 25 mg promethazine hydrochloride as an initial bolus, followed by 15 mg meperidine every 10 min as needed, using a patient-controlled pump. A written procedural manual that prescribed the intrapartum obstetric management was followed for each woman randomized in the study.

Results: A total of 226 women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 233 women were randomized to receive intravenous meperidine analgesia. Protocol violations occurred in 8% (38 of 459) of women. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups (epidural analgesia, 7% [16 of 226; 95% confidence interval, 4-11%]vs. intravenous meperidine analgesia, 9% [20 of 233; 95% confidence interval, 5-13%];P = 0.61). Significantly more women randomized to epidural analgesia had forceps deliveries compared with those randomized to meperidine analgesia (12% [26 of 226]vs. 3% [7 of 233];P < 0.001). Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared with women who received intravenous meperidine analgesia.     

Postoperative Analgesia after Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Double-blind Comparison between Low Thoracic Epidural and Patient-controlled Intravenous Analgesia

Background: Postoperative pain after radical retropubic prostatectomy can be severe unless adequately treated. Low thoracic epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia were compared in this double-blind, randomized study.

Methods: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either low thoracic epidural analgesia (group E) or patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (group P) for postoperative pain relief. All patients had general anesthesia combined with thoracic epidural analgesia during the operation. Postoperatively, patients in group E received an infusion of 1 mg/ml ropivacaine, 2 [mu]g/ml fentanyl, and 2 [mu]g/ml adrenaline, 10 ml/h during 48 h epidurally, and a placebo patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump intravenously. Patients in group P received a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump with morphine intravenously and 10 ml/h placebo epidurally. Pain, the primary outcome variable, was measured using the numeric rating scale at rest (incision pain and "deep" visceral pain) and on coughing. Secondary outcome variables included gastrointestinal function, respiratory function, mobilization, and full recovery. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short Form-36 questionnaire, and plasma concentration of fentanyl was measured in five patients to exclude a systemic effect of fentanyl.

Results: Incisional pain and pain on coughing were lower in group E compared with group P at 2-24 h, as was deep pain between 3 and 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.05). Maximum expiratory pressure was greater in group E at 4 and 24 h (P < 0.05) compared with group P. No difference in time to home discharge was found between the groups. The mean plasma fentanyl concentration varied from 0.2 to 0.3 ng/ml during 0-48 h postoperatively. At 1 month, the scores on emotional role, physical functioning, and general health of the Short Form-36 were higher in group E compared with group P. However, no group x time interaction was found in the Short Form-36.     

Ropivacaine 0.075% and bupivacaine 0.075% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL are equivalent for labor epidural analgesia.

Fifty percent effective dose estimates for ropivacaine and bupivacaine suggest that ropivacaine is 40% less potent than bupivacaine to initiate labor analgesia. At clinically used concentrations, however, the drugs seem indistinguishable for initiating and maintaining labor analgesia. We designed this study to evaluate a concentration near the reported 50% effective dose values for ropivacaine and bupivacaine in an attempt to detect differences between the drugs during routine clinical use. Fifty-nine nulliparous women in labor were randomized to receive 0.075% ropivacaine or bupivacaine, each with fentanyl 2 microg/mL. After epidural placement and the administration of a lidocaine/epinephrine test dose, 20 mL of study solution was administered and a patient-controlled epidural infusion was initiated with the following settings: 6 mL/h basal rate, 5 mL bolus, 10 min lockout, and 30 mL/h limit. Breakthrough pain was treated with 10-mL boluses of study solution. By using a study design to detect a 40% difference in hourly drug use between groups, we found no statistically significant differences in the amount of local anesthetic used, verbal pain scores, sensory levels, motor blockade, labor duration, mode of delivery, side effects, or patient satisfaction. We conclude that 0.075% ropivacaine and bupivacaine, with fentanyl, are equally effective for labor analgesia using the patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique. IMPLICATIONS: At small concentrations, ropivacaine and bupivacaine when combined with fentanyl are equally effective for labor analgesia. Patients self-administered similar volumes of 0.075% ropivacaine or bupivacaine solutions containing fentanyl (2 microg/mL) suggesting that at this concentration, and with the addition of fentanyl, ropivacaine and bupivacaine can be used interchangeably.     

Epidural ropivacaine – where are the benefits? A prospective,randomized, double‐blind trial in patients with retropubic prostatectomy

BACKGROUND: In comparison with bupivacaine, ropivacaine exhibits comparable anaesthetic effects but with less motor impairment and systemic toxicity. However, the analgesic potency may differ. For example, ropivacaine during obstetric epidural analgesia provides an approximately 40% lower analgesic potency than bupivacaine. Equal visual analogue pain scores require significantly higher dosages of ropivacaine, and general statements about a favourable benefit-risk profile relative to that of bupivacaine may therefore have limited clinical impact. We addressed this topic in a male pain model by evaluating the analgesic efficacy of epidural ropivacaine 0.2% vs. bupivacaine 0.125% after retropubic prostatectomy. METHODS: Forty patients scheduled for retropubic prostatectomy were randomly assigned to two groups (20 patients per group). In a double-blind prospective design, patient-controlled lumbar epidural analgesia was provided by ropivacaine 0.2% in the ropivacaine group and by bupivacaine 0.125% in the bupivacaine group. The primary endpoint was the total amount of local anaesthetic consumption. The secondary endpoints were the numeric rating scale scores for rest and dynamic pain and the degree of motor impairment. RESULTS: Ropivacaine consumption was 60% higher (mean +/- standard deviation, 1372.5 +/- 108.3 mg) than that of bupivacaine (852 +/- 75.2 mg) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the numeric rating scale scores and motor impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In male patients, lumbar epidural administration of ropivacaine 0.2% after retropubic prostatectomy does not appear to provide benefits over bupivacaine 0.125%. Moreover, in view of the significantly higher drug requirements, general statements focusing on the favourable therapeutic index of ropivacaine may require critical analysis, at least during epidural administration.     

Patient supplemented epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery with bupivacaine/fentanyl or ropivacaine/fentanyl

PURPOSE: To compare analgesic efficacy and occurrence of motor block and other side effects during patient supplemented epidural analgesia (PSEA) with either ropivacaine/fentanyl or bupivacaine/fentanyl mixtures. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, 32 ASAI-III patients undergoing major abdominal surgery received an epidural catheter at the T8- T10, followed by integrated general epidural anesthesia. Postoperative epidural analgesia was provided using a patient controlled pump with either ropivacaine 0.2%/2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl (group Ropivacaine, n = 16) or bupivacaine 0.125%/2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl (group Bupivacaine, n = 16) [background infusion 4-6 ml x hr(-1), 1.5 ml Incremental Doses and 20 min lock out]. Verbal pain rating score, number of incremental doses, consumption of epidural analgesic solution and rescue analgesics, sedation (four-point scale), and pulse oximetry were recorded by a blind observer for 48 hr after surgery. RESULTS: No differences in pain relief, motor block, degree of sedation, pulse oximetry and other side effects were observed between the two groups. The number of incremental doses and the volume of analgesic solution infused epidurally were higher in patients receiving the bupivacaine/fentanyl mixture (10 [0-52] I.D. and 236 [204-340] ml) than in patients receiving the ropivacaine/fentanyl solution (5 [0-50] I.D. and 208 [148-260] ml) (P = 0.03 and P = 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: Using a ropivacaine 0.2%/2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl mixture for patient supplemented epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery provided similar successful pain relief as bupivacaine 0.125%/2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl, but patients receiving bupivacaine/fentanyl requested more supplemental.