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.     

Postoperative analgesia by intraarticular and epidural neostigmine following knee surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To define the analgesic efficacy, and to identify a possible site of action, of epidural and intraarticular neostigmine. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Postoperative analgesia, teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 58 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing knee surgery. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were premedicated with 0.05 to 0.1 mg/kg intravenous midazolam and received combined epidural/intrathecal technique. Intrathecal anesthesia consisted of 20 mg bupivacaine. A 10 mL epidural and intraarticular injection was administered to all patients; this consisted of either the study drug or normal saline. Postoperatively, pain was assessed using the 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and intramuscular (IM) 75 mg diclofenac was available at patient request. The control group (CG) received both epidural and intraarticular saline. The 1 microg/kg epidural group (1 microg/kg EG) received epidural neostigmine and intraarticular saline. The 1 microg/kg intraarticular group (1 microg/kg AG) received epidural saline and intraarticular neostigmine. Finally, the 500 microg intraarticular group (500 microg AG) received epidural saline and intraarticular neostigmine. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 56 patients were evaluated. Groups were demographically the same and did not differ in intraoperative characteristics. The VAS score at first rescue analgesic and the incidence of adverse effects were similar among groups (p< 0.05). The time (min) to first rescue analgesic was shorter for both the CG (228+/-54) and 1 microg/kg AG (251+/-87) groups compared to the 1 microg/kg EG (333+/-78) and 500 microg AG (335+/- 111) groups (p<0.05). The analgesic consumption (number of IM diclofenac injections (mean [25(th)-75(th) percentile]) in 24 hours was higher in the CG group than both the 1 microg/kg EG and 500 microg AG groups (p<0.05). The overall 24-hour pain VAS score (cm) was higher in the CG group than in the 1 microg/kg EG (p<0.05) group. CONCLUSION: Although peripheral neostigmine 1 microg/kg did not result in postoperative analgesia, the same dose applied epidurally resulted in over 5 hours of analgesia, similar to a fivefold dose applied peripherally. The results suggest that epidural neostigmine has a greater analgesic efficacy than peripherally applied neostigmine.     

Epidural neostigmine produces analgesia but also sedation in women after cesarean delivery

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal neostigmine produces analgesia but also nausea, limiting its utility. In contrast, epidural administration of neostigmine has been suggested to produce postoperative analgesia without nausea in nonpregnant patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the dose range for efficacy and side effects of epidural neostigmine in women at cesarean delivery receiving combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. METHODS: After institutional approval and informed consent, 80 patients for elective cesarean delivery were given combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with 8 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 10 microg fentanyl. Patients were randomized to receive either saline or 75, 150, or 300 microg neostigmine (n = 20 per group) in 10 ml saline after cord clamping. Pain, morphine consumption, and side effects were monitored for 24 h. RESULTS: Global pain assessment for the first 24 h was reduced from 5.4 +/- 0.2 in the saline group to 3.0-3.5 +/- 0.3 in the neostigmine groups, dose independently. Correspondingly, global satisfaction with neostigmine was also improved (P < 0.05). Nausea and morphine consumption were similar among groups. Intraoperative shivering and sedation were increased in the 300-microg neostigmine group only (P < 0.05), and postoperative sedation was increased by neostigmine in a dose-independent fashion (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural neostigmine produced modest analgesia in women after cesarean delivery. In contrast with previous reports, which focused primarily on nausea, these data suggest that epidural neostigmine can also produce mild sedation for several hours. These data suggest a limited role for single bolus-administration epidural neostigmine for analgesia after cesarean delivery. They also support future study of epidural neostigmine for obstetric analgesia.     

Thoracic epidural anesthesia for cardiac surgery: the effects on tracheal intubation time and length of hospital stay.

Improvements in analgesia after major surgery may allow a more rapid recovery and shorter hospital stay. We performed a prospective randomized trial to study the effects of epidural analgesia on the length of hospital stay after coronary artery surgery. The anesthetic technique and postoperative mobilization were altered to facilitate early intensive care discharge and hospital discharge. Fifty patients received high (T1 to T4) thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) with ropivacaine 1% (4-mL bolus, 3-5 mL/h infusion), with fentanyl (100-microg bolus, 15-25 microg/h infusion) and a propofol infusion (6 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1)). Another 50 patients (the General Anesthesia group) received fentanyl 15 microg/kg and propofol (5 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1)), followed by IV morphine patient-controlled analgesia. The TEA group had lower visual analog scores with coughing postextubation (median, 0 vs 26 mm; P < 0.0001) and were extubated earlier (median hours [interquartile range], 3.2 [2.1-4.6] vs 6.7 [3.3-13.2]; P < 0.0001). More than half of all patients were discharged home on Postoperative Day 4 (24%) or 5 (33%), but there was no difference in the length of stay between the TEA group (median [interquartile range], Day 5 [5-6]) and the General Anesthesia group (median [interquartile range], Day 5 [4-7]). There were no differences in postoperative spirometry or chest radiograph changes or in markers for postoperative myocardial ischemia or infarction. No significant TEA-related complications occurred. In summary, TEA provided better analgesia and allowed earlier tracheal extubation but did not reduce the length of hospital stay after coronary artery surgery. IMPLICATIONS: We found that epidural analgesia was more effective than IV morphine for cardiac surgery. Epidural anesthesia also allowed earlier weaning from mechanical ventilation, but it did not affect hospital discharge time.     

Pre- and intraoperative epidural ropivacaine have no early preemptive analgesic effect in major gynecological tumour surgery

PURPOSE: Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is an established technique for postoperative pain relief after major abdominal surgery. However it is still under discussion whether pre-incisional TEA can reduce postoperative pain perception or postoperative analgesic consumption. METHODS: The present prospective, randomized, double-blind study was performed to investigate the effects of intra- and postoperative TEA vs only postoperative TEA using ropivacaine 0.375% in 30 women scheduled for major abdominal tumour surgery. Prior to induction of general anesthesia patients received an epidural bolus of 10 mL saline in Group I (GI) and 10 mL ropivacaine 0.375% in Group II (GII) followed by an infusion of 6 mL x hr(-1) of the respective solution during surgery. Postoperatively all patients received an epidural infusion of 6 mL x hr(-1) ropivacaine 0.375% during 24 hr followed by patient controlled epidural analgesia for the next 72 hr. Operative data, dynamic pain scores, consumption of local anesthetics and standardized supplemental analgesics were analyzed. RESULTS: No difference was seen between groups with respect to the amount of required postoperative local anesthetics and supplemental analgesics, pain scores and side effects during the first 96 hr following surgery except a reduction of intraoperative sufentanil consumption (GI: 143.2 +/- 52.6 vs GII: 73.3 +/- 32.6 microg, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative TEA with ropivacaine 0.375% did not significantly reduce the amount of analgesics required after major abdominal gynecological tumour surgery.     

Pain control after knee arthroplasty: intraarticular versus epidural anesthesia.

The current study compared the effectiveness of a pain control infusion pump with patient-controlled epidural anesthesia in managing pain after primary total knee arthroplasty. Two protocols using the infusion pump or epidural anesthesia were reviewed retrospectively. Eighty-six consecutive patients (91 knees) treated with the infusion pump were compared with 82 consecutive patients (91 knees) treated with epidural anesthesia. The infusion pump delivered bupivacaine (0.5%) at 2 mL/hour after the knee was infiltrated with 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine in the operating room. The patient-controlled epidural anesthesia delivered fentanyl (2 microg/mL) and bupivacaine (0.125%) at 15 mL/hour, with a demand bolus of 5 mL available every 30 minutes. Both methods were discontinued on the first postoperative day, and each allowed on-demand oral, intravenous, or intramuscular narcotics, intramuscular ketorolac, and acetaminophen. No drain was used for patients with an infusion pump. A reinfusable drain was used for patients with epidural anesthesia. Significantly more acetaminophen, propoxyphene napsylate, and ketorolac were used by patients with an infusion pump. Similar amounts of other analgesics were used in each group. Prolonged wound drainage (> 3 days) was more common in the patients with an infusion pump (four patients; five knees) versus patients with epidural anesthesia (no patients).     

The effects of femoral nerve blockade in conjunction with epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty

Either epidural analgesia or femoral nerve blockade improves analgesia and rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. No study has evaluated the combination of femoral nerve blockade and epidural analgesia. In this prospective, randomized, blinded study we investigated combining femoral nerve blockade with epidural analgesia. Forty-one patients received a single-injection femoral nerve block with 0.375% bupivacaine and 5 microg/mL epinephrine; 39 patients served as controls. All patients received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and patient-controlled epidural analgesia with 0.06% bupivacaine and 10 microg/mL hydromorphone. Average duration of epidural analgesia was 2 days. All patients received the same standardized physical therapy intervention. Median visual analog scale (VAS) scores with physical therapy were significantly lower for 2 days among patients who received a femoral nerve block versus controls: 3 versus 4 (day 1), 2.5 versus 4 (day 2); P < 0.05. Median VAS pain scores at rest were 0 in both groups on days 1 and 2. Flexion range of motion was improved on postoperative day 2 (70 degrees versus 63 degrees ; P < 0.05). No peripheral neuropathies occurred. We conclude that the addition of femoral nerve blockade to epidural analgesia significantly improved analgesia for the first 2 days after total knee arthroplasty.     

新斯的明降低分娩期患者A控硬膜外镇痛（PCEA）的布比卡因用量：一项随机对照研究

背景鞘内注射新斯的明产生镇痛作用的同时可能导致重度恶心。相反,硬膜外注射新斯的明可以增强阿片类药物和局部麻醉药的镇痛作用而不产生恶心呕吐。以往的研究只针对单次硬膜外注射新斯的明,而对连续硬膜外注射新斯的明和母婴安全性未进行评估。因此,本研究拟验证在分娩期患者中新斯的明复合布比卡因硬膜外注射是否减少布比卡因用量。方法12例择期剖宫产的健康产妇随机分组,分别接受40μg（n=6）和80μg（n=6）新斯的明单次注射,监测20分钟胎心率（fetalheartrate,FHR）和宫缩。然后,另外40例健康的分娩期产妇随机分组,分别接受布比卡因1．25mg／ml或联合新斯的明4μg／ml产妇自控硬膜外镇痛（patient—controlledepiduralanalgesia,PCEA）。主要观察指标为每小时布比卡因用量。结果硬膜外新斯的明单次注射未导致FHR基础值改变,未诱导宫缩或产生恶心。硬膜外新斯的明的使用可使全部产妇的布比卡因用量减少19％,P〈0．05（使用4小时以上产妇用量减少达25％,P〈0．05）,但可能导致轻度镇静。两组产妇的分娩方式、恶心发生率和FHR异常情况均相似。结论以上数据显示硬膜外使用新斯的明可降低PCEA中布比卡因每小时需要量的19％-25％。单次给药和连续注射新斯的明均不会诱发恶心、诱导宫缩或FHR异常,但可能导致轻度镇静。     

Lidocaine with fentanyl, compared to morphine, marginally improves postoperative epidural analgesia in children

PURPOSE: To compare the epidural administration of fentanyl (1 microg/mL) combined with lidocaine 0.4% to preservative-free morphine for postoperative analgesia and side effects in children undergoing major orthopedic surgery. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind study, 30 children, ASA I-II, 2-16-yr-old, were randomly allocated to receive immediately after surgery either epidural F-L (epidural infusion at a rate of 0.1-0.35 mL/kg/hr of 1 microg/mL of fentanyl and lidocaine 0.4%) or epidural M (bolus of 20 microg/kg of morphine in 0.5 mL/kg saline every eight hours). Both groups received 40 mg/kg of iv metamizol (dipyrone) every six hours. In the F-L Group, blood samples were taken on the second and third postoperative day to determine total lidocaine concentrations. Adequacy of analgesia using adapted pediatric pain scales (0-10 score) and side-effects were assessed every eight hours postoperatively. RESULTS: Resting pain scores were under 4, 95% of the time in the F-L Group and 87% of the time in the M Group (Chi square=4.674, P <0.05). The frequency of complications was very similar in both groups. The F-L Group total plasma lidocaine concentrations were directly related to the dose received, and below the toxic range in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative epidural fentanyl with lidocaine infusion provides slightly better analgesia than conventional bolus administration of epidural morphine. Side-effects or risk of systemic toxicity were not augmented by the addition of lidocaine to epidural opioids.     

The effect of epidural clonidine on perioperative cytokine response, postoperative pain, and bowel function in patients undergoing colorectal surgery

The postoperative period is associated with an increased production of cytokines, which augment pain sensitivity. We investigated the hypothesis that epidural clonidine premedication and postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) including clonidine would decrease the release of proinflammatory (interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1beta, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha) and antiinflammatory (IL-1 receptor antagonist (RA)) cytokines in patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery and that they would provide better postoperative analgesia. Forty patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups of 20 each: the control group received normal saline 10 mL, whereas the clonidine group received epidural clonidine 150 microg diluted with 9 mL of normal saline 30 min before surgery. Venous blood samples for cytokine levels were obtained before induction, at the end of surgery, and after surgery at 12 and 24 h. After surgery, the clonidine group patients received PCEA with morphine (0.1 mg/mL) and clonidine (1.5 microg/mL) in 0.2% ropivacaine 100 mL, whereas control group patients received only PCEA morphine and ropivacaine. Patients in the clonidine group exhibited longer PCEA trigger times, lower pain scores at rest and while coughing, less morphine consumption, and a faster return of bowel function throughout the 72-h postoperative observation period, compared with patients in the control group. For patients in the clonidine group, production of IL-1RA, IL-6, and IL-8 was significantly less increased at the end of the surgical procedure and at 12 and 24 h after surgery. However, the concentrations of IL-1beta and TNF-alpha were not significantly increased.     

Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects of preemptively used epidural ketamine and neostigmine

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic and side effects of preemptively used epidural ketamine +bupivacaine, neostigmine +bupivacaine, and bupivacaine alone on postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled study. SETTING: Inpatient anesthesia at the department of surgery of a metropolitan hospital. PATIENTS: 30 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients scheduled for abdominal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Group K received 1 mL (50 mg) ketamine and 5 mL (25 mg) bupivacaine epidurally, Group N received 1 mL (0.5 mg) neostigmine and 5 mL (25 mg) bupivacaine epidurally, and Group B received 1 mL saline and 5 mL (25 mg) bupivacaine epidurally 30 minutes before operation. All patients underwent anesthesia induction with thiopental and vecuronium; anesthesia was maintained with isoflorane and vecuronium. For postoperative analgesia, all patients received epidural morphine for 48 hours postoperatively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Standard monitoring included: 48 hours of analgesic requirement, visual analog scale (VAS), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) in the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 12th, 24th, and 48th hours. Data were analyzed using Kruskall-Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests, with a p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. No significant differences were observed regarding MAP and HR among the groups during the study period. In Group N, VAS was significantly lower than Group K and Group B. The total opioid consumption in Group N was significantly lower than in Groups K and B in the first 48 hours after the operation. CONCLUSIONS: Preemptive neostigmine can be a good choice for postoperative analgesia.     

Post-thoracotomy analgesia: epidural vs intravenous morphine continuous infusion

BACKGROUND: We compared thoracic morphine epidural analgesia (TEA) and I.V. analgesia (IVA) with morphine, in respect to the time to extubation, the quality of postoperative analgesia, side effects, complications, postoperative hospital length of stay in patients having thoracotomy lung resection. METHODS: We prospectively studied 563 consecutive patients, undergoing thoracotomy (lobectomy, bilobectomy or pneumonectomy), randomized in two groups: TEA 286 patients and IVA 277 patients. In the epidural group, before the induction of anesthesia, continuous infusion of 15 mg of morphine in 250 mL of normal saline at 5 mL/h was started. In the IVA group a continuous infusion of 30 mg of morphine associated with 180 mg ketorolac in 250 mL of normal saline at 5 mL/h was started before the induction of anesthesia. The pain degree was evaluated on an analogic scale by Keele modified at 1 (end of anesthesia) 6, 12, 24, and 48 postoperative hours, at rest and after movements. Data obtained were analysed by means of the analysis of variance for repeated measures. RESULTS: The time from the end of surgery to tracheal extubation was similar in both groups. Significantly lower numeric verbal pain scores at rest and after movements were found in the epidural group (p<0.001). Postop complications, nausea and vomiting were higher in the IVA group (p<0.05). Postoperative mean hospital length of stay was 9+/-4 days in TEA and 11+/-4 in the IVA group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study the epidural root was superior in terms of analgesia, side effects, length of stay and postoperative complications after thoracotomy.     

Pre-incisional epidural ropivacaine, sufentanil, clonidine, and (S)+-ketamine does not provide pre-emptive analgesia in patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND: The concept of pre-emptive analgesia remains controversial. This prospective, randomized, and double-blind study compared epidural administration of ropivacaine 2 mg ml(-1), sufentanil 0.5 microg ml(-1), clonidine 3 microg ml(-1), and S(+)-ketamine 0.25 mg ml(-1) (study solution) given before incision with the same combination started at the end of the operation. METHODS: After testing the stability of the solution using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and examining 12 patients for possible side-effects in comparison with the epidural infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg ml(-1) and sufentanil 0.5 microg ml(-1), 30 patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery were recruited into the study. Before induction of anaesthesia, an epidural catheter was inserted (TH6-8). Patients in Group 1 received a bolus of 8 ml followed by a continuous infusion (8 ml h(-1)) of the study solution before induction of anaesthesia. In Group 2, patients received the same volume of saline before operation, the study solution was started at the end of surgery. After operation, the infusion was maintained for at least 96 h using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pump in both groups. Patients were evaluated up to the seventh postoperative day for pain and side-effects. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale (VAS) values at rest were as follows: G1 vs G2: 24 h, 19 (sd 23) vs 6 (13); 48 h, 4 (10) vs 11 (21); and 72 h, 12 (22) vs 13 (21). VAS values during coughing and mobilization were also comparable. Total volume of epidural infusion was 904 (114) ml in G1 vs 892 (154) ml in G2. The incidence of side-effects (nausea, vomiting, and motor block) was low and not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-incisional epidural analgesic infusion did not provide pre-emptive analgesia compared with administration started at the end of surgery, but both groups had low pain scores.     

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.     

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.     

A randomized comparison of programmed intermittent epidural bolus with continuous epidural infusion for labor analgesia

Bolus injection through an epidural catheter may result in better distribution of anesthetic solution in the epidural space compared with continuous infusion of the same anesthetic solution. In this randomized, double-blind study we compared total bupivacaine consumption, need for supplemental epidural analgesia, quality of analgesia, and patient satisfaction in women who received programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) compared with continuous epidural infusion (CEI) for maintenance of labor analgesia. The primary outcome variable was bupivacaine consumption per hour of analgesia. Combined spinal epidural analgesia was initiated in multiparas scheduled for induction of labor with cervical dilation between 2 and 5 cm. Subjects were randomized to PIEB (6-mL bolus every 30 min beginning 45 min after the intrathecal injection) or CEI (12-mL/h infusion beginning 15 min the after the intrathecal injection). The epidural analgesia solution was bupivacaine 0.625 mg/mL and fentanyl 2 microg/mL. Breakthrough pain in both groups was treated initially with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) followed by manual bolus rescue analgesia using bupivacaine 0.125%. The median total bupivacaine dose per hour of analgesia was less in the PIEB (n = 63) (10.5 mg/h; 95% confidence interval, 9.5-11.8 mg/h) compared with the CEI group (n = 63) (12.3 mg/h; 95% confidence interval, 10.5-14.0 mg/h) (P < 0.01), fewer manual rescue boluses were required (rate difference 22%, 95% confidence interval of difference 5% to 38%), and satisfaction scores were higher. Labor pain, PCEA requests, and delivered PCEA doses did not differ. PIEB combined with PCEA provided similar analgesia, but with a smaller bupivacaine dose and better patient satisfaction compared with CEI with PCEA for maintenance of epidural labor analgesia.     

Oral clonidine premedication enhances postoperative analgesia by epidural morphine

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of oral clonidine premedication on postoperative analgesia by epidural morphine in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded design. Sixty consenting patients, scheduled for total abdominal hysterectomy, were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 20 each); the clonidine-morphine group received oral clonidine 5 microg/kg 90 min before arriving in the operating room and epidural morphine 2 mg before induction of general anesthesia, the clonidine-placebo group received oral clonidine 5 microg/kg and no epidural morphine, and the placebo-morphine group received no clonidine and epidural morphine 2 mg. An epidural catheter was placed at the L1-2 or L2-3 interspace, and 1.5% lidocaine was used for surgical anesthesia in all patients. General anesthesia was then induced with propofol, and maintained with a continuous infusion of propofol and 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen during surgery. Four patients were subsequently withdrawn from the study. After surgery, patient-controlled analgesia using IV morphine was used to assess analgesic requirement. Morphine consumptions determined every 6 h after surgery in the clonidine-morphine and placebo-morphine groups were significantly less than the clonidine-placebo group until 12 h after surgery, whereas those of the clonidine-morphine group were significantly less than the placebo-morphine group from 13 to 42 h after surgery. Visual analog (pain) scale (VAS) scores in the clonidine-morphine group were significantly lower than the placebo-morphine group at 48 h at rest, and at 1, 24, 36, and 48 h with movement. Similarly, VAS scores in the clonidine-morphine group were significantly lower than the clonidine-placebo group at 1 and 6 h both at rest and with movement, whereas VAS scores in the clonidine-placebo group were significantly lower than the placebo-morphine group at 24, 36, and 48 h at rest and with movement. The incidence of nausea and pruritus was similar between groups. We conclude that the combination of oral clonidine and epidural morphine produces more potent and longer lasting postoperative analgesia than either drug alone without increasing the incidence of adverse effects after major gynecologic surgeries. IMPLICATIONS: A small dose of epidural morphine is often used for postoperative analgesia. We found that oral clonidine premedication 5 microg/kg improves the analgesic efficacy of epidural morphine without increasing the incidence of adverse side effects.     

Comparison of three modes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labour

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study compares three modes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia in parturients during labour. METHODS: Eighty-four women were randomized to one of three groups. The epidural solution used in all the three groups was 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1). Patients were able to self administer a demand dose of 3 mL with a lockout interval of 6 min in Group A, 6 mL with a lockout interval of 12 min in Group B and 9 mL with lockout interval of 18 min in Group C. All patients received a background infusion at a rate of 6 mL h(-1). Visual analogue pain scores, pinprick analgesia and motor block were assessed hourly by a blinded observer. The physician-administered supplementation and the cumulative dose of bupivacaine were also compared between the three groups. RESULTS: Pain scores, sensory level and motor block were not different among the study groups. Patients' satisfaction was rated good to excellent with no difference among groups. The cumulative dose of bupivacaine was not significantly different. However, there was a trend towards a decreased need for rescue analgesia in Group C. Within each group, the physician-administered supplementations were significantly higher during the second stage of labour than during the first stage (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The three modes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia supplemented by a background infusion of 6 mL h(-1) were equally effective for labour analgesia with a trend for decreased rescue analgesia in the group with a larger bolus dose and a longer lockout interval.     

Clonidine added to a continuous interscalene ropivacaine perineural infusion to improve postoperative analgesia: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study

Although clonidine has been shown to increase the duration of local anesthetic action and prolong postoperative analgesia when included in single-injection nerve blocks, the only controlled investigation of the efficacy of this practice to improve analgesia for continuous perineural local anesthetic infusion failed to discern any clinically relevant benefits. For this study, we used a larger dose of clonidine in an attempt to improve analgesia. Patients (n = 20) undergoing moderately painful orthopedic surgery of the shoulder received an interscalene brachial plexus block (40 mL of mepivacaine 1.5%, epinephrine 2.5 microg/mL, and clonidine 50 microg) and a perineural catheter before surgery. After surgery, ropivacaine 0.2% or ropivacaine 0.2% plus clonidine 2 microg/mL was delivered via the catheter for 3 days (basal rate, 5 mL/h; patient-controlled bolus, 5 mL; lockout, 1 h). Investigators and patients were blind to random group assignment. The primary outcome variable was designated as the most intense pain during the day after surgery. Secondary end-points included additional pain scores, patient-controlled bolus doses, oral analgesic use, sleep quality, and catheter- or infusion-related complications. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for any of the variables investigated. We conclude that adding clonidine 2 microg/mL to a ropivacaine interscalene perineural infusion does not decrease breakthrough pain intensity the day after surgery. For the additional end-points, our negative findings are only suggestive of a lack of effect and require further study for verification.     

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.