Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal of three concentrations of bupivacaine (0.0%. 0.05%. 0.10%) to add to an epidural infusion of mependine (1 mg· ml1) for postoperative pain relief.
Methods
In this prospective, double blind study. 60 patients undergoing abdominal surgery with general anaesthesia were randomized into three groups to receive for postoperative epidural analgesia: 1) 1 mg· ml1 mependine (0% group). 2) bupivacaine 0.05% and 1 mgml mependine (0.05% group). 3) bupivacaine 0.10% and 1 mg· ml mependine (0 10% group). Postoperatively, the epidural infusion rate was titrated to produce adequate analgesia and pain was assessed at rest and on movement.
Results
There were no differences in demographic data, average pain scores or side effects among the three groups. However, there was improvement of pain relief at rest over time in the three groups (P< 0.05). Postoperative epidural analgesic infusion rates increased over time for the three groups (P< 0.05) and were lower in the 0.10% group (mean of 10.0 ml· hr−1 than in the 0% group (mean of 12.6 ml·hr1) (P< 0.05). More than half of the 0% group had serum mependine concentrations >400 g· L−1 to control moderate postoperative pain.
Conclusion
Although analgesia was identical among groups, the lower serum concentrations of mependine support the addition of bupivacaine 0.10% to mependine when administered as a continuous infusion following abdominal surgery.
Résumé
Objectif
Déterminer avec trots concentrations de bupivacaine (0,0%, 0,05%. 0,10%) ajoutées à une perfusion épidurale de mépéndine (1 mgml−1), la dose la plus efficace pour le soulagement de la douleur postopératoire.
Méthodes
Étude prospective en double aveugle. Soixante patients opérés pour une intervention abdominale sous anesthésie générale étaient répartis aléatoirement en trois groupes devant recevoir pour l’analgésie postopératoire épidurale: 1) mépéndme 1 mg·ml 1(groupe 0%), 2) bupivacaine 0.05% et mépéndine 1 mg· ml (groupe 0.05%), 3) bupivacaine 0,10% et mépéndine 1 mg· ml−1 (groupe 0,10%). En postopératoire, la perfusion épidurale était réglée pour produire une analgésie adéquate et la douleur était évaluée au repos et en mouvement.
Résultats
Il n’y avait pas de différences en rapport avec les données démographiques, les scores moyens de douleur et les effets secondaires entre les trois groupes. Cependant, la douleur au repos s’amenuisait avec le temps dans les trois groupes (P< 0.05). La vitesse des perfusions épidurales analgésiques augmentait avec le temps dans les trois groupes (P< 0,05) et était plus basse dans le groupe 0.10% (moyenne 10.0 ml· h−1) que dans le groupe 0% (moyenne 12.6 ml· h−1) (P< 0.05). Plus de la moitié des su|ets du groupe 0% avaient besoin de concentrations sénques > 400 μ·L−1 pour le contrôle de la douleur modérée.
Conclusion
Bien que le niveau d’analgésie ait été identique pour les trois groupes, les concentrations inférieures de mépéndine justifient l’ajout de mépéndine 0,10% en perfusion continue après une intervention abdominale.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Modig J. Lumbar epidural nerve blockade versus parenteral analgesics. Acta Anesthesiol Scand 1978; 70 (Suppl): 30–5.
Rawal N, Sjöstrand U, Christoffersson E, Dahlström B, Arvill A, Rydman H. Comparison of intramuscular and epidural morphine for postoperative analgesia in the grossly obese: influence on postoperative ambulation and pulmonary function. Anesth Analg 1984; 63: 583–92.
Yeager MP, Glass DD, Neff RK, Brinck-Johnsen T. Epidural anesthesia and analgesia in high-risk surgical patients. Anesthesiology 1987; 66: 729–36.
Loper KA, Ready LB, Downey M, et al. Epidural and intravenous fentanyl infusions are clinically equivalent after knee surgery. Anesth Analg 1990; 70: 72–5.
Bouchard F, Drolet P. Thoracic versus lumbar administration of fentanyl using patient-controlled epidural after thoracotomy. Reg Anesth 1995; 20: 385–8.
Baraka A, Maktabi M, Noueihid R. Epidural meperidine-bupivacaine for obstetric analgesia. Anesth Analg 1982; 61: 652–6.
Brownridge P, Frewin DB. A comparative study of techniques of postoperative analgesia following Caesarcan section and lower abdominal surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 1985; 13: 123–30.
Brovpnridge P. Epidural bupivacaine-pethidine mixture. Clinical experience using a low-dose combination in labour. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 28: 17–24.
Handley G, Perkins G. The addition of pethidine to epidural bupivacaine in laboureffect of changing bupivacaine strength. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992; 20: 151–5.
Cousins M, Cherry D, Gourlay G. Acute and chronic pain: use of spinal opioids.In: Cousins MJ, Bridenbaugh PO (Eds.). Neural Blockade in Clinical Anesthesia and Management of Pain, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.B.Lippincott Co., 1988: 955–1029.
Patel D, Janardhan Y, Merai B, Robalino J, Shevde K. Comparison of intrathecal meperidine and lidocaine in endoscopic urological procedures. Can J Anaesth 1990; 37: 567–70.
Kaza R, Lawlor M, Allen W, Ramella L, Johnson C. Epidural meperidine provides surgical anesthesia for critically ill patients undergoing major surgery (Letter). Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 1084.
Katz JA, Bridenbaugh PO, Knarr DC, Helton SH, Denson DD. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of epidural ropivacaine in humans. Anesth Analg 1990; 70: 16–21.
Richardson EP, Beal MF, Martin JB. Degenerative diseases of the nervous system.In: Braunwald E, Isselbacher E, Petersdorf R, Adams R, Wilson J (Eds.). Harrison’s Principle of Internal Medicine, 11th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1987: 2011–27.
Badner NH, Komar WE. Bupivacaine 0.1% does not improve post-operative epidural fentanyl analgesia after abdominal or thoracic surgery. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39: 330–6.
Lerman J. Study design in clinical research: sample size estimation and power analysis. Can J Anaesth 1996; 43: 184–91.
Chestnut DH, Owen CL, Bates JN, Ostman LG, Choi WW, Geiger MW. Continuous infusion epidural analgesia during labor: a randomized, double-blind comparison of 0.0625% bupivacaine/0.0002% fentanylversus 0.125% bupivacaine. Anesthesiology 1988; 68: 754–9.
Badner NH, Bhandari R, Komar WE. Bupivacaine 0.125% improves continuous postoperative epidural fentanyl analgesia after abdominal or thoracic surgery. Can J Anaesth 1994; 41: 387–92.
Ferrante FM, Fanciullo GJ, Grichnik KP, Vaisman J, Sacks GM, Conception MA. Regression of sensory anesthesia during continuous epidural infusions of bupivacaine and opioid for total knee replacement. Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 1179–84.
Etches RC, Gammer T-L. Patient-controlled epidural meperidine with or without bupivacaine after thoracotomy (Letter). Reg Anesth 1995; 20: 4.
Paech MJ, Moore JS, Evans SF. Meperidine for patientcontrolled analgesia after cesarean section. Intravenousversus epidural administration. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 1268–76.
Tarnell RW, Polis T, Reid GN, Murphy IL, Penning JP. Patient-controlled analgesia with epidural meperidine after elective cesarean section. Reg Anesth 1992; 17: 329–33.
Ferrante FM, VadeBoncouer TR. Epidural analgesia with combinations of local anesthetics and opioids.In: Ferrante FM, VadeBoncouer TR (Eds.). Postoperative Pain Management. New-York: Churchill Livingstone, 1993: 305–33.
Etches RC, Gammer T-L, Cornish R. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia after thoracotomy: a comparison of meperidine with and without bupivacaine. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 81–6.
Husemeyer RP, Davenport HT, Cummings AJ, Rosankiewicz JR. Comparison of epidural and intramuscular pethidine for analgesia in labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1981; 88: 711–7.
Perriss BW, Malins AF. Pain relief in labour using epidural pethidine with adrenaline. Anaesthesia 1981; 36: 631–3.
Husemeyer RP, Cummings AJ, Rosankiewicz JR, Davenport HT. A study of pethidine kinetics and analgesia in women in labour following intravenous, intramuscular and epidural administration. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1982; 13: 171–6.
Saissy JM, Taobane H, Dimou M, Atmani M, Drissi-Kamili N, Belamallem I. Analgésie péridurale thoracique à la péthidine après thoracotomic. Cah Anesthésiol 1985; 33: 497–500.
Badner NN, Reimer EJ, Komar WE, Moote CA. Low-dose bupivacaine does not improve postoperative epidural fentanyl analgesia in orthopedic patients. Anesth Analg 1991; 72: 337–41.
George KA, Wright PMC, Chisakuta A. Continuous thoracic epidural fentanyl for post-thoracotomy pain relief: with or without bupivacaine? Anaesthesia 1991; 46: 732–6.
Marcantonio ER, Juarez G, Goldman L, et al. The relationship of postoperative delirium with psychoactive medications. JAMA 1994; 272: 1518–22.
Cousins MJ, Mather LE, Glynn CJ, Wilson PR, Graham JR. Selective spinal analgesia (Letter). Lancet 1979; 1: 1141–2.
Glynn CJ, Mather LE, Cousins MJ, Graham JR, Wilson PR. Peridural meperidine in humans: analgesic response, pharmacokinetics, and transmission into CSF. Anesthesiology 1981; 55: 520–6.
Mather LE, Meffin PJ. Clinical pharmacokinetics pethidine. Clin Pharmacokin 1978; 3: 352–68.
Bromage PR, Pettigrew RT, Crowell DE. Tachyphylaxis in epidural analgesia. 1. Augmentation and decay of local anesthesia. J Clin Pharmacol 1969; 9: 30–8.
Renck H, Edström H, Kinnberger B, Brandt G. Thoracic epidural analgesia. II: Prolongation in the early postoperative period by continuous injection of 1.0% bupivacaine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1976; 20: 47–56.
Lund C, Mogensen T, Hjortsø N-C, Kehlet H. Systemic morphine enhances spread of sensory analgesia during postoperative epidural bupivacaine infusion. Lancet 1985; 2: 1156–7.
Hjortsø N-C, Lund C, Mogensen T, Bigler D, Kehlet H. Epidural morphine improves pain relief and maintains sensory analgesia during continuous epidural bupivacaine after abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 1986; 65: 1033–6.
Alon E, Niv D, Varrassi G, Heintz R. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the control of postoperative pain. Pain Digest 1996; 6: 145–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported, in part, by Faulding (Canada) Inc. Vaudreuil, Québec, and Nellcor Inc, Hayward, California.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
St-Onge, S., Fugère, F. & Girard, M. Bupivacaine decreases epidural meperidine requirements after abdominal surgery. Can J Anaesth 44, 360–366 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03014454
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03014454