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.     

Minimum local analgesic doses of ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for intrathecal labor analgesia

BACKGROUND: Doses for intrathecal opioid-local anesthetic mixtures have been arbitrarily chosen. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacies of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for labor analgesia and to determine the analgesic potency ratios for these three drugs. For this purpose, the authors used the up-down sequential allocation model, which estimates the minimum local analgesic dose for intrathecal local anesthetic. METHODS: Ninety-seven nulliparous term parturients in spontaneous labor, requesting combined spinal-epidural analgesia, were randomly allocated to one of three groups to receive 0.25% spinal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, or bupivacaine. The initial dose of the local anesthetic drug was chosen to be 2.5 mg, and the testing interval was set at 0.25 mg. The subsequent doses were determined by the response of the previous parturient. Efficacy was accepted if the visual analog pain score decreased to 10 mm or less on a 100-mm scale within 30 min. The minimum local analgesic dose was calculated using the method of Dixon and Massey. RESULTS: The intrathecal minimum local analgesic dose was 3.64 mg (95% confidence interval, 3.33-3.96 mg) for ropivacaine, 2.94 (2.73-3.16) mg for levobupivacaine, and 2.37 (2.17-2.58) mg for bupivacaine. The relative analgesic potency ratios were 0.65 (0.56-0.76) for ropivacaine:bupivacaine, 0.80 (0.70-0.92) for ropivacaine:levobupivacaine, and 0.81 (0.69-0.94) for levobupivacaine:bupivacaine. There were significant trends (P levobupivacaine > ropivacaine.     

A comparison of median effective doses of intrathecal levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for labor analgesia

BACKGROUND: The study was designed to determine and compare the median effective doses (MEDs) of intrathecal ropivacaine with levobupivacaine for labor analgesia. METHODS: In this double-blind study, 100 parturients in early labor were randomized to receive either intrathecal ropivacaine or levobupivacaine. For each drug, the patients were assigned to receive one of the five doses studied, namely 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, or 3 mg. Effective analgesia was defined as a pain score (0-100 visual analog scale) of less than 10 within 15 min of injection, lasting for 45 min or more after the induction of analgesia. MEDs were derived from probit analysis. The duration of analgesia rendered by the two drugs at 2.5 and 3 mg was also compared. RESULTS: The MED for levobupivacaine was 1.07 mg (95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25 mg), and the MED for ropivacaine was 1.40 mg (95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.61 mg). Levobupivacaine was found to be 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.01) times more potent than ropivacaine. At doses of 2.5 mg or greater, there was no significant difference in duration of analgesia between levobupivacaine (median, 63.5 min; range, 46-123 min) and ropivacaine (median, 59.0 min; range, 47-93 min; P = 0.18). We detected no difference in the incidence of hypotension, nausea and vomiting, motor block, or abnormal fetal heart tracing between the two drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The MED of intrathecal ropivacaine for labor analgesia was significantly greater than levobupivacaine experimentally, but this significance was reduced when the comparison was based on molar potency. There was no difference in the duration of analgesia or adverse effects between the two drugs at higher doses (2.5 mg or greater).     

A comparison of epidural bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine on postoperative analgesia and motor blockade

In this prospective, randomized, observer-blinded clinical trial, we compared the incidence of unwanted lower extremity motor blockade and the analgesic efficacy between small-dose (0.125%; 0.2 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) postoperative epidural infusions of bupivacaine (Group B; n = 28), levobupivacaine (Group L; n = 27), and ropivacaine (Group R; n = 26) in children after hypospadias repair. Motor blockade and pain were assessed at predetermined time points during 48 h by using a modified Bromage scale and the Children's and Infant's Postoperative Pain Scale (CHIPPS). Postoperative analgesia was almost identical in all three study groups (CHIPPS range, 0-3), with no need for the administration of supplemental analgesia in any patient. However, significantly more patients in Group B (n = 6; P = 0.03) displayed signs of unwanted motor blockade during the observation period compared with Group L (n = 0) and Group R (n = 0). In conclusion, significantly less unwanted motor blockade was associated with postoperative epidural infusions of 0.125% levobupivacaine or ropivacaine in children after hypospadias repair as compared with a similar infusion of bupivacaine. However, no difference with regard to postoperative analgesia could be detected among the three different local anesthetics studied.     

Determination of the full dose-response relation of intrathecal bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine, combined with sufentanil, for labor analgesia

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are local anesthetics that produce less motor block and greater sensory-motor separation when compared with equal milligram doses of bupivacaine. Although minimum local analgesic concentration studies suggested that they are less potent than bupivacaine, full dose-response studies have not been performed. The current trial describes the dose-response relation of levobupivacaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine, combined with sufentanil, when used for intrathecal labor analgesia. METHODS: Four hundred fifty term parturients in active labor were included in this double-blind, randomized trial. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was performed, and ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, or bupivacaine was intrathecally administered in a dose of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, or 3.5 mg, always combined with 1.5 microg sufentanil. Patients were considered responders to spinal analgesia if the visual analog scale score for pain was less than 25 mm within 15 min and the visual analog scale score remained less than 25 mm for 45 min. Patient demographics, obstetric data, maternal side effects, and fetal and neonatal well-being were noted. Group-specific dose-response curves were constructed using a probit regression model. RESULTS: The ED95 of bupivacaine was 3.3 mg (95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.1). The ED95s of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine were 4.8 mg (95% confidence interval, 4.0-6.7) and 5.0 mg (95% confidence interval, 4.1-7.0), respectively. Racemic bupivacaine was significantly more potent than ropivacaine (P=0.0027) and levobupivacaine (P=0.0006). Ropivacaine and levobupivacaine were of similar potency (P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: This full dose-response study suggests that ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are of similar potency, whereas bupivacaine is more potent than both other drugs.     

Relative analgesic potencies of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for epidural analgesia in labor

BACKGROUND: The minimum local analgesic concentration has been defined as the median effective local analgesic concentration (EC50) in a 20-ml volume for epidural analgesia in the first stage of labor. The aim of this study was to assess the relative analgesic potencies of epidural levobupivacaine and ropivacaine by determination of their respective minimum local analgesic concentrations. METHODS: Parturients at 7 cm of cervical dilation or less who requested epidural analgesia were allocated to one of two groups in this double-blind, randomized, prospective study. After lumbar epidural catheter placement, 20 ml of the test solution was given: levobupivacaine (n = 35) or ropivacaine (n = 35). The concentration of local anesthetic was determined by the response of the previous patient in that group to a higher or lower concentration using up-down sequential allocation. Analgesic efficacy was assessed using 100-mm visual analog pain scale scores, with 10 mm or less within 30 min defined as effective. An effective result directed a 0.01% wt/vol decrement for the next patient. An ineffective result directed a 0.01% wt/vol increment. RESULTS: Of 105 women enrolled, 35 were excluded, leaving 70 for analysis. The minimum local analgesic concentration of levobupivacaine was 0.087% wt/vol (95% CI, 0.081-0.094%), and the minimum local analgesic concentration of ropivacaine was 0.089% wt/vol (95% CI, 0.075-0.103%). Levobupivacaine and ropivacaine were of similar potency with a ropivacaine:levobupivacaine potency ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.80-1.20). No difference in motor effects was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that levobupivacaine and ropivacaine are of similar potency for epidural analgesia in the first stage of labor.     

低浓度罗哌卡因和布比卡因分娩镇痛的临床研究

目的 对比低浓度罗哌卡因和布比卡因自控硬膜外分娩镇痛（ＰＣＥＡ）的效果。方法 ５２例单胎初产妇随机分为０．１％罗哌卡因－芬太尼组和０．０７５％布比卡因－芬太尼组。采取双盲法进行视觉模拟镇痛评分（ＶＡＳ）和下肢运动神经阻滞评分（ＭＢＳ）。记录产程时间、生产方式、胎儿心率（ＦＨＲ）及新生儿ＳｐＯ２。结果 两组产妇分娩镇痛效果良好且无显著性差别（Ｐ〉０．０５）。罗哌卡因组和布比卡因组中无运动神经阻滞者分     

Comparison of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia during labor]

OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic efficacy and level of motor block using two local anesthetics, ropivacaine and bupivacaine, during labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty nulliparous women were enrolled during labor after full-term pregnancies. They were randomly assigned to receive epidural analgesia with ropivacaine (group R) or bupivacaine (group B). Group R patients received 10 ml of 0.18% ropivacaine with 5 microgram/ml of fentanyl followed by continuous epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 microgram/ml of fentanyl at a rate of 10 ml/h. Group B patients received 10 ml of 0.15% bupivacaine with 5 microgram/ml of fentanyl followed by continuous epidural perfusion of 0.0625% bupivacaine with 2 microgram/ml of fentanyl at the same rate. Pain intensity was assessed on a visual analog scale, motor blockade on a Bromage scale, and level of sensory block at different moments. We also recorded total doses of local anesthetic employed during continuous epidural infusion, manner of final delivery, Apgar score, degree of maternal satisfaction and side effects. RESULTS: The demographic and delivery characteristics were similar in both groups. We found no statistically significant differences between the two groups for level of motor blockade, which was nil for 29 patients (96.66%) in group R and 28 patients (93.33%) in group B. No differences in degree of pain or level of sensory block (T8-T10 in both groups) were observed.The total doses of local anesthetic used were similar at 23.7 +/- 11.6 mg in group R and 16.5 +/- 7.3 mg in group B (non-significant difference). Nor did we find differences in manner of delivery, neonatal Apgar scores, degree of maternal satisfaction or side effects. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine and bupivacaine are equally effective for epidural analgesia during labor at the doses used and they do not cause a relevant level of motor blockade.     

A comparison of epidural infusions in the combined spinal/epidural technique for labor analgesia

We compared the clinical effects of three epidural infusions initiated after subarachnoid medication was administered as part of the combined spinal/epidural technique for labor analgesia. Fifteen minutes after administering subarachnoid fentanyl 25 microg and 1 mL of bupivacaine 0.25%, and 5 min after an epidural test dose of 3 mL of bupivacaine 0.25%, women were randomized to receive an epidural infusion of saline, bupivacaine 0.125%, bupivacaine 0.0625%, or bupivacaine 0.04% with epinephrine 1:600,000. All epidural infusions were started at 10 mL/h, and all except the Saline Group also received fentanyl 2 microg/mL. The end point of the study was delivery or request for additional medication for analgesia. We found that time until request for additional analgesia was longest in women who received bupivacaine 0.125% (median duration, 300 min) versus saline (median duration, 118 min) (P = 0.0001) and was intermediate for bupivacaine 0.0625% and bupivacaine 0.04% (median duration, 162 and 180 min, respectively) (P = 0.0001 versus saline). Women who received bupivacaine 0.125% had the most motor block. We conclude that all the bupivacaine-based infusions we tested maintained the analgesia from subarachnoid medication longer than saline, with the longest duration, but the most motor block, from bupivacaine 0.125%. IMPLICATIONS: In this prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study we found that initiating an epidural infusion of bupivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL at 10 mL/h 15 min after subarachnoid fentanyl 25 microg with 1 mL of bupivacaine 0.25%, followed by an epidural test dose of 3 mL of bupivacaine 0.25%, maintained the analgesia for longer but with more motor block than with either bupivacaine 0.04% or bupivacaine 0.0625%.     

剖宫产术后患者左旋布比卡因、罗哌卡因与布比卡因混合芬太尼硬膜外镇痛的效应

目的 比较左旋布比卡因、罗哌卡因和布比卡因复合芬太尼用于剖宫产术后硬膜外镇痛的效果和副作用。方法 采用随机双盲法,将51例择期行剖宫产术的足月、单胎孕妇分为三组:左旋布比卡因组(L组)、罗哌卡因组(R组)和布比卡因组(B组),每组17例。术后分别采用0.125％左旋布比卡因、0.2％罗哌卡因及0.125％布比卡因复合小剂量芬太尼(2μg·ml-1)行病人自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)。观察各组术后48 h内镇痛效果、运动阻滞程度变化以及恶心呕吐、尿潴留等副作用的发生率。结果 三组产妇术后视觉模拟评分、改良Bromage评分比较差异均无显著性(P>0.05)。三组产妇对PCEA的非常满意率差异无显著性(L组88.2％,R组76.5％,B组81.3％,P>0.05)。三组不良反应发生率及排气时间差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论 0.125％左旋布比卡因混合芬太尼(2μg·ml-1)用于产科术后硬膜外镇痛可获得满意的镇痛效果且无明显毒副作用。     

Prospective, randomized comparison of epidural and combined spinal epidural analgesia during labor.

The analgesic efficacy and incidence of maternal, fetal and neonatal side-effects of combined spinal epidural (CSE) and epidural (EPI) analgesia, using a mixture of bupivacaine 0.125%, epinephrine (1.25 micrograms.ml-1) and sufentanil (0.75 microgram.ml-1) for the relief of labor pain, were randomly and prospectively compared in 110 parturients. A 29 gauge Whitacre tip spinal needle was used to perforate the dura in CSE patients. Compared to EPI, CSE resulted in rapid (326 +/- 22 vs 766 +/- 79 sec, p < 0.05), excellent analgesia, using less bupivacaine (23.5 +/- 2.3 vs 33.9 +/- 2.9 mg, p < 0.05) and sufentanil (12.5 +/- 1.0 vs 16.5 +/- .7 micrograms, p < 0.05). A tendency to improved patient satisfaction in the CSE group was observed. The incidence of maternal or neonatal side effects was similar in both groups. No PDPH was observed. We conclude that CSE analgesia results in excellent pain relief during labor with immediate gratification as compared to epidural analgesia.     

Hyperbaric bupivacaine 2.5 mg prolongs analgesia compared with plain bupivacaine when added to intrathecal fentanyl 25 microg in advanced labor

We investigated the effect of sequential administration of intrathecal (IT) hyperbaric bupivacaine (after the initial administration of IT hypobaric fentanyl) on the duration of spinal analgesia. Thirty-seven nulliparous parturients with a cervical dilation >/= 5 cm were randomized to receive either IT fentanyl 25 micro g and plain bupivacaine 2.5 mg (group P; n = 19) or IT fentanyl 25 micro g and hyperbaric (with 8% glucose) bupivacaine 2.5 mg (group H; n = 18). The two components of the IT injectate were administered sequentially (fentanyl 25 micro g diluted in 2 mL of normal saline, immediately followed by 0.5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine). Patients were then positioned with their torso elevated at 30 degrees for 30 min. Pain scores using 0-100 visual analog scales were collected before combined spinal/epidural analgesia and at 5, 15, and 30 min after the block. Patients in Group H had a longer median duration of analgesia (122 min; range, 80-210 min) than Group P (95 min; range, 75-125 min) (P < 0.01). Group H also had a more limited dermatomal spread (median highest sensory level of T8 versus T4 in group P; P < 0.05). The side-effect profile was similar. Under these circumstances, hyperbaric bupivacaine conferred an increased duration of IT analgesia compared with plain bupivacaine.     

A comparison of intrathecal, epidural, and intravenous sufentanil for labor analgesia.

A number of recent studies have suggested that the analgesic effects of highly lipid-soluble opioids are similar when these agents are administered either epidurally or intravenously. We sought to test whether the lipid-soluble opioid sufentanil was more effective when administered intrathecally than when administered epidurally or intravenously. Twenty-four women during active labor received sufentanil 10 micrograms either intrathecally (n = 9), epidurally (n = 8), or intravenously (n = 7), using a combined spinal-epidural technique. The sufentanil was administered alone, without concomitant local anesthetics. Analgesia was assessed using the visual analogue score as well as the time elapsed from the administration of study drug to the patient's request for additional analgesia via the epidural catheter (bupivacaine 0.25%). The median duration of analgesia (median, interquartile range) was 84 (70-92) min in the intrathecal group, 30 (23-32) min in the epidural group, and 34 (17-30) min in the intravenous group (P < 0.001). The intrathecal group showed rapid and significant decrease in visual analogue scale scores, whereas visual analogue scale scores in the other two groups did not decrease and remained significantly elevated compared to those of the intrathecal group at all observation points. Side effects were limited to pruritus in 3 patients (2 moderate and 1 severe) in the intrathecal group. No patient developed post-dural puncture headache. We conclude that sufentanil 10 micrograms intrathecally provides rapid and effective analgesia of 1-2-h duration during labor. Epidural and intravenous use of this dose of sufentanil did not provide evidence of satisfactory analgesia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Clinical effects and pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia during labor

OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic efficacy, pharmacokinetics and histamine release of ropivacaine and bupivacaine with fentanyl in continuous epidural perfusion during labor and childbirth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study of 40 women at full-term pregnancy who requested epidural analgesia. The patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups of 20: group R received an initial bolus dose of 10 mL of 0.25% ropivacaine and group B received 0.25% bupivacaine, followed in both groups by epidural infusion of the assigned drugs at a concentration of 0.125% plus 0.30 mg of fentanyl at a rate of 5 mL/h through a patient-controlled analgesia device that allowed additional bolus doses. The studied variables were age, weight, height, sensory and motor block, mean blood pressure and maternal-fetal heart rates, number of bolus doses, total local anesthetic administered, duration and type of delivery, oxytocin increase, Apgar at 1 and 5 minutes, plasma levels of local anesthetic (30 minutes after the initial dose, at the end of dilation, in the umbilical vein, and 30 minutes after switching off the perfusion pump), time to clearance, elimination half-life, and a test of histamine release by radioimmunoassay. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the course of labor or in Apgar scores. The plasma concentrations of ropivacaine were higher than those of bupivacaine (p<0.03). Clearance of both drugs was similar. The elimination half-life of ropivacaine was significantly less than that of bupivacaine (5.2 +/- 0.7 h vs. 10.8 +/- 1.06 h). CONCLUSIONS: Analgesia was equally effective in both groups, without adverse maternal-fetal effects, with spontaneous micturition and absence of motor blockade in both groups. The plasma concentrations were higher with ropivacaine but were not toxic.     

A comparison between low-dose ropivacaine and bupivacaine at equianalgesic concentrations for epidural analgesia during the first stage of labor

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, onset and duration of analgesia of two equianalgesic epidural doses of ropivacaine and bupivacaine during the first stage of labor. The study included 190 healthy nulliparous parturients who presented spontaneous onset of labor and required epidural analgesia. They were divided randomly to receive epidural analgesia with an initial dose 0.10% ropivacaine or 0.0625% bupivacaine 20 mL both with the addition of 10 microg of sufentanil. There were no significant differences in onset time, quality of analgesia, maternal hypotension and ability to ambulate. Ropivacaine produced more prolonged analgesia then bupivacaine (89 vs 119 min;P<0.0003). The clinical value of this prolonged analgesia after the first dose needs further evaluation when a continuous infusion technique is used.     

A comparison of intrathecal plain solutions containing ropivacaine 20 or 15 mg versus bupivacaine 10 mg

Ropivacaine, which blocks sensory nerve fibers more readily than motor fibers, is considered to be less potent than bupivacaine. Our hypothesis was that, when used in spinal anesthesia for day surgery, ropivacaine 15 and 20 mg would provide faster motor recovery than bupivacaine 10 mg. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study included 90 ambulatory lower-extremity surgery patients who received 2 mL of ropivacaine 1%, ropivacaine 0.75%, or bupivacaine 0.5%. Motor block was tested with the Bromage scale, and sensory block was tested with pinprick. Ropivacaine 15 mg provided faster recovery of motor block (150 min) than did bupivacaine 10 mg (210 min; P = 0.005), but the median duration of sensory block at T10 (140 min) did not differ significantly from that with bupivacaine 10 mg (140 min). The median duration of sensory block at T10 was significantly longer with ropivacaine 20 mg (170 min) than with bupivacaine 10 mg (140 min; P = 0.005), but the median recovery from motor block (210 min) did not differ significantly. We conclude that the duration of sensory block of ropivacaine was two thirds and the duration of motor block was half when compared with bupivacaine, with calculations based on the duration-per-milligram of the local anesthetic.     

A comparison of 0.0625% bupivacaine with fentanyl and 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl for continuous epidural labor analgesia

We compared the analgesic efficacy and the degree of motor block achieved with epidural infusion of 0.0625% bupivacaine (Group B) versus 0.1% ropivacaine (Group R), both with 0.0002% fentanyl (2 microg/mL) in laboring patients. A prospective, double-blinded study was performed in 98 ASA physical status I-II parturients who were divided randomly into two groups to receive either bupivacaine or ropivacaine after catheter location had been tested with an initial bolus of lidocaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was 15 mL/h in every case. When pain was perceived, 5-mL boluses of the assigned epidural analgesic were administered every 10 min until analgesia was achieved. We recorded pain intensity, level of sensory block, degree of motor block, hemodynamic variables, secondary effects, mode of delivery, neonatal outcome, and patient satisfaction. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the factors analyzed. Highly effective analgesia was achieved in both groups with a small incidence of motor block. These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be more potent than ropivacaine. IMPLICATIONS: We compared different concentrations of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine thought to be equipotent. Both solutions were equally efficient in providing highly effective epidural analgesia for labor with minimal motor block. These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be more potent than ropivacaine.     

A double-blind comparison of 0.125% ropivacaine with sufentanil and 0.125% bupivacaine with sufentanil for epidural labor analgesia

BACKGROUND: This study intends to evaluate the benefits of the administration of intermittent bolus doses of ropivacaine (0.125%) compared with bupivacaine (0.125%) after addition of sufentanil for analgesia during labor. METHODS: One hundred thirty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 or 2 parturients were studied. The 90 initial patients were assigned randomly to receive 10 ml bupivacaine, 0.125%, plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (initial bupivacaine 0.125% group) or ropivacaine, 0.125%, plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (ropivacaine 0.125% group). Forty additional patients were recruited and received 0.125% bupivacaine plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (additional bupivacaine 0.125% group) or 0.100% bupivacaine plus 7.5 microg sufentanil (additional bupivacaine 0.100% group). The duration of analgesia, visual analogue scores for pain, motor blockade (using a six-point modified Bromage scale), patient satisfaction scores, nausea, pruritus, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded. RESULTS: Bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.125% coadministered with sufentanil provided rapid and complete analgesia. Onset of analgesia occurred after +/-15 min and lasted +/-90 min. After the third epidural injection, patients in the ropivacaine group experienced significantly less severe motor blockade than patients in the initial bupivacaine 0.125% group. At this point, 93% of the patients in the ropivacaine group were free from motor impairment versus 66% in the bupivacaine group (P<0.05). Comparable levels of motor blockade were obtained in both additional groups. Patients' evaluation of their analgesia was worst in the bupivacaine 0.100% group. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil affords reliable analgesia with minimal motor blockade.