Epidural combination of ropivacaine with sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after total knee replacement: a pilot study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We assessed the analgesic efficacy of postoperative epidural infusions of ropivacaine 0.1 and 0.2% combined with sufentanil 1 microg mL(-1) in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. METHODS: Twenty-two ASA I-III patients undergoing elective total-knee replacement were included. Lumbar epidural blockade using ropivacaine 0.75% was combined with either propofol sedation or general anaesthesia for surgery. After surgery, the epidural infusion was commenced. Eleven patients in each group received either an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (Group 1) or ropivacaine 0.2% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (Group 2) at a rate of 5-9 mL h(-1). All patients had access to intravenous pirinatrimide (piritramide) via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. RESULTS: Motor block was negligible for the study duration in both groups. There was no significant difference with the 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, with the consumption of rescue analgesia or with patient satisfaction. Patients in Group 1 experienced significantly less nausea (P < 0.05) than those in Group 2. Both treatment regimens provided effective postoperative analgesia with only a minimal use of supplemental opioid PCA. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the use of ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after total knee replacement as it provides efficient pain relief with no motor block of the lower limbs. In addition, compared with 0.2% ropivacaine with sufentanil, the mixture reduces local anaesthetic consumption without compromise in patient satisfaction or VAS scores. Patients even experience less nausea.     

What concentration of sufentanil should be combined with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia?

In this randomized double-blinded study, we sought to determine an optimal dose-combination of sufentanil with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol as postoperative epidural analgesics. One hundred twenty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery under general and thoracic epidural anesthesia (T9-11) were assigned to groups receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol (R), ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol + sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL (R+S0.5), 0. 75 microg/mL (R+S0.75), 1.0 microg/mL (R+S1). A visual analog score of less than 40 was considered effective, and all side effects were recorded. In randomized subgroups (10 patients per group), plasma pharmacokinetic data were obtained for both epidural drugs. Four patients in Group R and two in Group R+S0.5 were excluded because of inadequate analgesia. The drug infusion rates (range of means: 5.4-5. 9 mL/h) were similar in all patients. Analgesia was superior for sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL with no further enhancement by the larger sufentanil concentration of 1 microg/mL. Sufentanil plasma levels were within the range of the minimal effective concentrations (highest in R+S1), and there was no covariation between plasma levels and pain relief. Free ropivacaine plasma concentrations remained stable for 96 h. No severe side effects were detected, although pruritus correlated with an increasing dose of sufentanil. We conclude that the combination of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol and 0.75 microg/mL sufentanil provided the best analgesia with the fewest side effects of the three combinations tested. IMPLICATIONS: Sufentanil is added to epidural infusions of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol to improve the effectiveness of postoperative pain management. Regarding the risk of side effects, however, it is still unclear what concentration of sufentanil should be added to the local anesthetic. For postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery, the combination of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol and 0.75 microg/mL sufentanil resulted in an appropriate cost:benefit ratio between good analgesia and side effects.     

The continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 μg·mL−1 sufentanil provides effective postoperative analgesia after total hip replacement: a pilot study

PURPOSE: To assess the analgesic efficacy and functional outcome of postoperative epidural infusion of ropivacaine combined with sufentanil in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty-two ASA I-III patients undergoing elective total hip replacement (THR) were included. Lumbar epidural block using 0.75% ropivacaine was combined with either propofol sedation or general anesthesia for surgery. On arrival in the recovery room, the epidural infusion was commenced at a rate in mL calculated as follows: (height in cm - 100) x 0.1. Eleven patients received an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S0.5), ten patients ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.75 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S0.75), and 11 patients ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S1) over a postoperative study period of 44 hr. All patients had access to iv piritramide via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. Postel-Merle-d'Aubigné scoring system (PMA score) was assessed preoperatively, three weeks after surgery, and three months after surgery by an orthopedic surgeon blinded to study group. RESULTS: Motor block was negligible in all three groups. After eight hours of epidural infusion, sensory block had regressed completely in all patients. There was no significant difference with regard to visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (at rest: P = 0.55, on movement: P = 0.63), consumption of rescue medication (P = 0.99), patient satisfaction (P = 0.22), and the incidence of adverse events. All treatment regimens provided effective postoperative analgesia with only a minimal use of supplemental opioid PCA. There was no difference between groups regarding orthopedic PMA score (pain: P = 0.24, mobility: P = 0.65, and ability to walk: P = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after THR provides efficient pain relief and, compared with 0.75 and 1 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil, reduces sufentanil consumption without compromise in patient satisfaction, VAS scores, and functional outcome.     

Postoperative epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty with sufentanil 1 microg/ml combined with ropivacaine 0.2%, ropivacaine 0.125%, or levobupivacaine 0.125%: a randomized, double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total knee replacement is associated with severe postoperative pain that, if treated insufficiently, interferes with early rehabilitation. The purpose of the present study is to compare the efficacy of ropivacaine (0.2% and 0.125%) and levobupivacaine (0.125%), all in combination with sufentanil 1 microg/mL with regard to postoperative pain relief and absence of motor block in a patient-controlled epidural analgesia setting. METHODS: The study design was randomized and double-blind. Sixty-three patients scheduled for total knee replacement under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive ropivacaine 0.2%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 1), ropivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 2), or levobupivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 3) for postoperative epidural pain relief. Primary endpoints were numerical rating scores for pain and patient satisfaction, motor block scores, time to first demand of the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device and average hourly consumption of local anesthetic and sufentanil. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 3 groups regarding numerical rating scores for pain, patient satisfaction, and motor block scores at any of the time intervals; time to first demand and average hourly sufentanil consumption were similar. Patients in group 1 used significantly more local anesthetic than patients in groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 solutions provided adequate analgesia and minimal motor block. The higher concentration of ropivacaine 0.2% was associated with a higher consumption of local anesthetic and did not result in a decrease in the consumption of sufentanil. Under the conditions of this study, patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption of the epidural mixture was predominantly determined by sufentanil.     

The analgesic effect of sufentanil combined with ropivacaine 0.2% for labor analgesia: a comparison of three sufentanil doses

The combination of opioids with local anesthetics is commonly used for epidural labor analgesia. We examined whether increasing sufentanil in doses of 5, 10, and 15 microg prolonged the duration of labor analgesia produced by ropivacaine. One hundred healthy parturients in the first stage of labor who requested epidural analgesia were enrolled. Parturients were randomized to receive 12 mL ropivacaine 0.2% alone or with sufentanil 5 microg, sufentanil 10 microg, or sufentanil 15 microg. The duration of analgesia, pain score, degree of motor blockade (using a four-point Bromage scale), heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and incidence of nausea and pruritus were recorded. The mean duration of epidural analgesia was 96 +/- 32 min for patients without sufentanil, 134 +/- 27 min for Group 5 (p < 0.01 versus control), 135 +/- 33 min for Group 10 (p < 0.01 versus control), 130 +/- 33 min for Group 15 (p < 0.01 versus control) without differences among sufentanil groups. Between 30 and 90 min, the sufentanil groups (5 microg, 10 microg, and 15 microg) had lower pain scores than the control group (p < 0.01 versus control) but there were no differences among the sufentanil groups. No patient in any group had a Bromage score more than 1. No significant difference was found for opioid-related side effects. We conclude that 5-10 or 15 microg sufentanil induced a similar prolongation of analgesia when combined with ropivacaine 0.2% for initiation of labor analgesia. Implications: We studied the effect of adding one of three possible sufentanil doses to epidural ropivacaine 0.2% for labor analgesia. Adding sufentanil increased the duration of analgesia but there was no advantage in adding more than 5 microg of sufentanil.     

A comparison of five solutions of local anaesthetics and/or sufentanil for continuous, postoperative epidural analgesia after major urological surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare and assess the quality of analgesia, the safety and the side-effects after the use of a continuous, thoracic epidural infusion of sufentanil (5 microg h(-1)), 0.25% bupivacaine (10 mL h(-1)), 0.2% ropivacaine (10 mL h(-1)) alone or in combination in patients who had undergone major urological surgery. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study investigated the efficacy of thoracic epidural infusions after major urological surgery. METHODS: Patients received a 72-h continuous infusion (10 mL h(-1)) of 0.25% bupivacaine (B), 0.2% ropivacaine (R), 0.25% bupivacaine with 0.5 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (BS), 0.2% ropivacaine with 0.5 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (RS) or 0.5 microg mL(-1) sufentanil only (S). The analysis included 109 patients. RESULTS: The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain were highest in the groups R and S (P < 0.001). The PaCO2 values were significantly higher in the groups RS and S (P = 0.003). Motor block occurred more frequently in the groups B and BS than in the other groups (P < 0.001). Sedation, nausea and pruritus were more common in the groups that received sufentanil. CONCLUSIONS: A continuous, epidural infusion with these drugs was safe and effective in our patients. The combination of 0.2% ropivacaine plus sufentanil appeared preferable because of the low incidence of motor block.     

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.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia after abdominal surgery: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine.

In this randomized, double-blinded study we sought to assess the analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine and bupivacaine in combination with sufentanil and the efficacy of ropivacaine alone after major abdominal surgery. Sixty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery received standardized general anesthesia combined with epidural thoracic analgesia. They were allocated to one of three groups: the BS group received postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia with 0.125% bupivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil; the RS group received 0.125% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil; and the R group received 0.2% ropivacaine, with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device set at bolus 2-3 mL and background infusion 3-5 mL/h. Visual analog scale scores were significantly lower during coughing in the BS group compared with the RS and R groups and in the RS group compared with the R group. The BS group required significantly less local anesthetic (milligrams per day) during the first three postoperative days compared with the RS and R groups, and the RS group, significantly less than the R group. No major side effects were noted in any group. We conclude that, after major abdominal surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia was more effective with bupivacaine than with ropivacaine when these two local anesthetics are used in a mixture with sufentanil. Ropivacaine alone was less effective than ropivacaine in combination with sufentanil. IMPLICATIONS: After major abdominal surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia was more effective with 0.125% bupivacaine than with 0.125% ropivacaine when these two local anesthetics were used in a mixture with 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil. Ropivacaine 0.2% alone was less effective than 0.125% ropivacaine combined with sufentanil.     

Ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) by epidural infusion for labour analgesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) via epidural for analgesia in labour. METHODS: In a randomized study, 80 nulliparous parturients in labour had epidural analgesia initiated with 0.2% ropivacaine and fentanyl and were then randomized to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 10mL h(-1) (Group R1, n = 38) or 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 8 ml h(-1) (Group R2, n = 39) as epidural infusions. Supplementary analgesia was provided on request with ropivacaine 0.2% 5 mL as an epidural bolus. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the visual analogue pain scores either with respect to motor block or sensory block. The amount of local anaesthetic used was lower in the 0.1% ropivacaine group than in the 0.2% ropivacaine group (P = 0.001). Side-effects, patient satisfaction, labour outcome and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: An epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 10 mL h(-1) provided adequate analgesia in the first stage of labour. The level of analgesia was similar to that obtained using 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) and with no differences with regard to motor or sensory block.     

0.2% ropivacaine with or without sufentanil for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after anterior cruciate ligament repair

AIM: The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate the effects of adding 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil to 0.2% ropivacaine for patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on the quality of postoperative pain control in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Twenty ASA physical status I-II patients, scheduled to have elective ACL repair were studied. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was performed at the L3-L4 or L4-L5 interspace using a needle-through-needle technique. Spinal anesthesia was induced with 10 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Postoperative epidural analgesia was started at the end of surgery using a continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine alone (n=10) or 0.2% ropivacaine/0.5 mg mL(-1) sufentanil (n=10). The degree of pain was evaluated at 1, 8, 16, 24 and 48 hours after surgery; at the same observation times the degree of motor block, sedation, oxygen saturation, total consumption of PCEA solution and incremental doses given to the patient were also recorded. RESULTS: No differences in the quality of intraoperative anesthesia was observed, and in no case general anesthesia was required to complete surgery. Patients receiving the combination of ropivacaine and sufentanil showed lower levels of VAS from 16 hours after surgery as compared with ropivacaine group (P=0.02). However, no differences in the degree of pain were observed between the 2 groups during continuous passive mobilization. CONCLUSION: Adding 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil to 0.2% ropivacaine for patient controlled epidural analgesia improved pain control at rest but did not result in significant improvement of postoperative analgesia during continuous passive mobilization.     

Effect of sufentanil on minimum local analgesic concentrations of epidural bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in nullipara in early labour

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the effect of epidural sufentanil on relative analgesic potencies of epidural bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine by determining the minimum local analgesic concentrations during labour. METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind study, 171 parturients were allocated to one of six groups receiving a 10-mL bolus of bupivacaine, ropivacaine or levobupivacaine alone or with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL. The concentration of local anaesthetic was determined by the response of the previous parturient using up-down sequential allocation starting at a concentration of 0.13% wt/vol with a testing interval of 0.01%. Effective analgesia was defined as a visual analogue pain score < or = 15/100 mm within 30 min and lasting for 30 min. Median effective concentrations were estimated and two-sided P < 0.05 was significant. RESULTS: Local anaesthetic concentration, use of sufentanil and local anaesthetic drug were independent significant predictors of effective and ineffective analgesia. Bupivacaine was significantly more potent than levobupivacaine and ropivacaine. The relative potency ratios without sufentanil of 0.77:0.83:1.00 were reduced to 0.36:0.38:1.00 by the addition of sufentanil. The major factor influencing local anaesthetic requirements was the addition of sufentanil, which reduced overall requirements by a factor of 4.2 (95% CI 3.6-4.8); this effect was proportionately more enhanced for bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: Local anaesthetic requirements for bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine follow an analgesic potency hierarchy. Any potency differences are small when compared to the effect of sufentanil, which resulted in a four-fold reduction in local anaesthetic requirements. Sufentanil may also enhance the potency differences between bupivacaine and the two S-enantiomer agents.     

Ropivacaine 0.15% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL and ropivacaine 0.10% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL are equivalent for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor

We compared the administration of 0.15% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil with that of 0.10% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil for labor analgesia with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) to determine whether a decreased concentration of ropivacaine could produce equally effective analgesia. One-hundred-thirty healthy pregnant women at term were randomized in a double-blinded fashion. The PCEA settings were as follows: 12-mL initial bolus, 5-mL bolus dose, 5-min lockout interval, and 10 mL/h basal infusion. Patient demographics and labor characteristics were comparable in both groups. No differences were observed for pain scores, maternal satisfaction, volume of anesthetic solution administered, number of boluses requested and delivered, need for supplemental boluses, mode of delivery, motor block, side effects, or Apgar scores. Patients in the 0.10% ropivacaine group used significantly less drug than those in the 0.15% group (mean, 57 mg; 95% confidence interval, 50.5-63.5 mg; versus mean, 88.0 mg; 95% confidence interval, 74.4-93.3 mg, respectively; P < 0.0001). Ropivacaine 0.10% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil administered via PCEA for labor analgesia is equally effective as ropivacaine 0.15% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil, with a 30% local anesthetic-sparing effect and a 40% reduction in cost. However, this reduction in local anesthetic is not associated with a decrease in the incidence of motor block, side effects, or instrumental deliveries. IMPLICATIONS: Ropivacaine 0.10% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil given via patient-controlled epidural anesthesia for labor analgesia is equally as effective as ropivacaine 0.15% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil, with a 30% local anesthetic-sparing effect and a 40% reduction in cost. This reduction in ropivacaine concentration is not associated with a decrease in the incidence of motor block, side effects, or instrumental deliveries.     

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.     

The dose-range effects of sufentanil added to 0.125% bupivacaine on the quality of patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor

To determine the minimal sufentanil concentration required to improve the quality of patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor, we compared the efficacy of a combination of 0.125% bupivacaine with 1:800,000 epinephrine and different concentrations of sufentanil in a double-blinded randomized study. Concentrations were no sufentanil (n = 66), 0.078 microg/mL sufentanil (n = 65), 0.156 microg/mL sufentanil (n = 65), 0.312 microg/mL sufentanil (n = 65), and 0.468 microg/mL sufentanil (n = 67). The patient-controlled epidural analgesia setting was a 12-mL bolus dose and a 25-min lockout interval. Pain was scored at 5-6 cm, 7-8 cm, and full cervical dilation by using a 10-cm visual analog scale. At full cervical dilation, the pain scores were lower in the groups receiving a solution of at least 0.156 microg/mL sufentanil. Few differences were observed when using the larger concentrations, except for increased pruritus intensity. The duration of labor and the mode of delivery were similar in each group. Rescue analgesia, which consisted of 6 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine, was infrequent and comparable between groups. The use of the pump did not differ between groups. Adding a small concentration of sufentanil to 0.125% bupivacaine for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor improved the quality of analgesia but did not modify the bupivacaine requirement. Reducing the sufentanil concentrations to 0.156 microg/mL decreased the pruritus intensity without reducing analgesia. Implications: Adding a small concentration of sufentanil to 0.125% bupivacaine for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor improved the quality of analgesia but did not modify the bupivacaine requirement. Reducing the sufentanil concentrations to 0.156 microg/mL decreased the pruritus intensity without reducing analgesia.     

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 analgesia in abdominal surgery: 0.2% ropivacaine with sufentanil

AIM: Combining an opioid with peridural local analgesia is an excellent technique to control post-operative pain. Sufentanil is a widely used opioid agent, but its optimal dosage has not yet been defined. In this study we wanted to determine the best dose of epidural sufentanil in major surgery. METHODS: Before the operation, 45 major abdominal surgery patients received blended anesthesia through an epidural chest catheter. The patients were randomized into 3 groups of 15 subjects according to different sufentanil doses [0.2% ropivacaine combined with sufentanil at a dose of 0.5 microg/ml(-1), 0.75 microg/ml(-1), or 1 microg/ml(-1) (groups A, B and C, respectively)] administered through an epidural chest catheter connected to an elastometric pump (5 ml/h) for the first 36 postoperative hours. The level of postoperative analgesia in motion and at rest was measured using an analog visual scale (VAS-R, VAS-I). RESULTS: Analgesia was best in group A, and similar in groups B and C; 2 cases of pruritus were noted in group C. The VAS-I scores were <3 across all 3 patient groups. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia is an efficacious and reliable technique. The combination of 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.75 microg/ml(-1) sufentanil was found to be the optimum choice between analgesic efficacy and minor side effects, which correlated with the higher dose of sufentanil given to group C.     

Comparison of continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine and sufentanil with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after total hip replacement.

We assessed the efficacy of an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microg x ml(-1), comparing it with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia using piritramide in this prospective, randomised, double-blind study of 24 ASA physical status I-III patients undergoing elective total hip replacement. Lumbar epidural block using ropivacaine 0.75% was combined with either propofol sedation or general anaesthesia for surgery. Epidural infusion and patient-controlled analgesia were started after surgery. Twelve patients received an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microg x ml(-1) at a rate of 5-9 ml x h(-1) and an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia device loaded with saline. Eleven patients received an epidural infusion of saline at the same rate and intravenous piritramide via the patient-controlled analgesia device. Motor block was negligible in both groups. The epidural ropivacaine group had significantly lower visual analogue pain scores at rest 4 h after surgery (p < 0.01), and on movement 4 h (p < 0.01) and 8 h (p < 0.05) after surgery, than the intravenous piritramide group. The piritramide group experienced significantly more adverse events than the epidural group (p < 0.001), especially hypotension (p < 0.01) and vomiting (p < 0.05). Patients in the epidural ropivacaine group were more satisfied with the pain management (p < 0.05). We conclude that the epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microg x ml(-1) is superior to intravenous opioid by patient-controlled analgesia in preventing pain after total hip replacement, with fewer adverse effects and greater patient satisfaction.     

The effect of epidural neostigmine combined with ropivacaine and sufentanil on neuraxial analgesia during labor

Spinal neostigmine produces analgesia without respiratory depression or hypotension but provokes major gastrointestinal side effects. Epidural injection of this drug, however, appears to induce analgesia devoid of such side effects. In this study, we evaluated the effect of a bolus of epidural neostigmine on the duration and magnitude of analgesia in early labor and assessed its eventual sparing effect on subsequent local anesthetic requirements. Epidural neostigmine methylsulfate (maximal dose 4 microg/kg) was added to 10 mL of ropivacaine 0.1%, with and without sufentanil 10 microg, to initiate analgesia. Twenty minutes after injection, pain score, sensory level, and motor block were assessed. Time until request for supplemental epidural medication was also recorded. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with ropivacaine 0.1% was used for epidural supplementation. Maternal and fetal side effects were closely recorded. Neostigmine (4 microg/kg), when added to ropivacaine 10 mg, provided equivalent analgesia to ropivacaine 20 mg but was less effective than sufentanil 10 microg for the initiation of labor epidural analgesia. Further, neostigmine did not modify the subsequent patient-controlled epidural analgesia local anesthetic requirements during labor. No hemodynamic instability, additional motor block, or bothersome side effects were recorded. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of epidural neostigmine (4 microg/kg) with the local anesthetic ropivacaine, with or without sufentanil, does not significantly enhance neuraxial analgesia during labor. Such a dose, however, has no bothersome side effects.     

Epidural ropivacaine 1% with and without sufentanil addition for Caesarean section

BACKGROUND: So far only ropivacaine concentrations of 0.5 and 0.75% have been used for Caesarean section. This prospective double-blind trial evaluated the anaesthetic quality of ropivacaine 1% with and without sufentanil addition. METHODS: Three groups of patients (n=20 each) scheduled for an elective Caesarean section were studied. The patients received initially 120 mg ropivacaine, or 120 mg ropivacaine plus 10 microg or 20 microg sufentanil. Additional epidural ropivacaine was injected if necessary. Primary outcome parameter was time to achieve sensory block at T4. Moreover, pain intensity at delivery (visual analogue scale, VAS), incidence of maternal side-effects (hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, vomiting, shivering, pruritus), and neonatal outcome (Apgar score, neurologic and adaptive capacity score, umbilical cord blood-gas values) were recorded. RESULTS: The onset time for the sensory block was not significantly different among the groups. Also, VAS scores at delivery did not differ significantly between the plain ropivacaine 1% group (18 +/- 29 mm), the 10-microg sufentanil group (1 +/- 5 mm), and the 20-microg sufentanil group (6 +/- 18 mm). The total dose of ropivacaine was significantly higher in the plain ropivacaine 1% group (145 +/- 19 mg) compared to the patients receiving additional 10 microg sufentanil (130 +/- 15 mg, P = 0.02) or 20 microg sufentanil (129 +/- 16 mg, P = 0.01). The incidence of maternal side-effects and neonatal outcome were similar in all groups. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine 1% alone provided sufficient analgesia. Sufentanil addition did not significantly improve the quality of epidural anaesthesia with ropivacaine 1.0% for Caesarean section.     

Ropivacaine 2 mg/mL vs. bupivacaine 1.25 mg/mL with sufentanil using patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND: In recent studies, minimum local analgesic concentrations have been defined as 0.93 mg/mL for bupivacaine and 1.56 mg/mL for ropivacaine for epidural analgesia for the first stage of labour, resulting in an analgesic potency ratio of 1 : 0.6. In the current study we compared ropivacaine and bupivacaine in a PCEA system (combined with sufentanil) taking this potency ratio into account but administering drug doses providing sufficient analgesia for all stages of labour. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blinded study 114 parturients were randomised to receive either ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL or bupivacaine 1.25 mg/with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL. After epidural catheter placement, PCEA was available with boluses of 4 mL, a lock-out time of 20 min and no basal infusion rate. We evaluated pain intensity during contractions, sensory and motor function, duration of labour, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Consumption of local anaesthetic and opioid drugs and PCEA system variables were recorded. RESULTS: Mean total consumption as well as mean hourly drug consumption was significantly increased in the ropivacaine-sufentanil group. No differences in analgesic quality, sensory or motor blocking potencies or neonatal outcome variables between groups were detected. Frequency of instrumental deliveries was significantly increased in the ropivacaine-sufentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the findings of previously published studies postulating ropivacaine to be 40-50% less potent for labour epidural analgesia compared to bupivacaine. However, we observed an increased frequency of instrumental deliveries with ropivacaine. To evaluate the clinical relevance of these findings, further investigations are warranted.