Minimal Local Analgesic Dose of Intrathecal Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section: A Comparative Study
Abstract
Introduction: Spinal anesthesia is a reasonable option for cesarean section. Bupivacaine and ropivacaine have been used as intrathecal drugs alone or in combination with various opiods. Ropivacaine is considered a valid and safe alternative to bupivacaine for intrathecal anesthesia. This study aims to determine the median effective dose (ED50) of intrathecal bupivacaine and ropivacaine for cesarean section and defines this as the minimum local anesthetic dose (MLAD). Methods: Forty pregnant women undergoing elective cesarean section were allocated and randomized into two groups. The initial dose was 13mg for both ropivacaine and bupivacaine groups and was increased or decreased of 0.3mg, using the up-down sequential allocation technique. Efficacy was accepted if adequate sensory dermatomal anesthesia to pinprick to T6 was attained within 20 minutes after intrathecal injection and required no supplemental epidural injection for procedure until at least 50 minutes after the intrathecal injection of test drugs. The MLAD for both bupivacaine and ropivacaine was calculated with 95% confidence interval using the formula of Dixon and Massey. Comparison of different variables between the groups was done using t-test with significant p value at < 0.05. Results: The two groups were comparable in terms of demographic profile and clinical characteristics. The MLAD of ropivacaine and bupivacaine were 11.63 mg (95% CI, 11.5-12.92) and 10.459 mg (95% CI, 10.12-10.87) respectively. The potency ratio between spinal ropivacaine and bupivacaine was 0.89. Conclusion: Ropivacaine provided clinically surgical anaesthesia of shorter duration without compromising neonatal outcome and can be used as a safe alternative to bupivacaine.
Downloads
References
Collis RE, Davies DW, Aveling W. Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour. Lancet. 1995;345(8962):1413-6. PMID: 7760614
Richardson MG, Thakur R, Abramowicz JS, Wissler RN. Maternal posture influences the extent of sensory block produced by intrathecal dextrose-free bupivacaine with fentanyl for labor analgesia. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 1996;83(6):1229-33. PMID: 8942591
Malinovsky JM, Charles F, Kick O, Lepage JY, Malinge M, Cozian A, et al. Intrathecal anesthesia: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2000;91(6):1457-60. PMID: 11094000
Wille M. Intrathecal use of ropivacaine: a review. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica. 2004;55(3):251-9. PMID: 15515303
Chung CJ, Choi SR, Yeo KH, Park HS, Lee SI, Chin YJ. Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparision to hyperbaric bupivacaine. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2001;93(1):157-61. PMID: 11429357
Khaw KS, NganKee WD, Wong M, Ng F, Lee A. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2002;94(3):680-5. PMID: 11867397
Danelli G, Fanelli G, Berti M, Cornini A, Lacava L, Nuzzi M, et al. Spinal ropivacaine or bupivacaine for cesarean delivery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2004;29(3): 221-6. PMID: 15138906
Kallio H, Snall EV, Kero MP, Rosenberg PH. A comparison of intrathecal plain solution containing Ropivacaine 20 or 15mg versus bupivacaine 10mg. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2004;99(3):713-7. PMID: 15333400
VanKleef JW, Veering BT, Burn AG. Spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine: a double-blind study on the efficacy and safety of 0.5% and 0.75% solution in patients undergoing minor lower limb surgery. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 1994;78(6):1125-30. PMID: 8198269
McDonald SB, Liu SS, Kopacz DJ, Stephenson CA. Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine: a comparison bupivacaine in volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1999;90(4):971-7. PMID: 10201665
Lacassie HJ, Columb MO, Lacassie HP, Lantadilla RA. The relative motor blocking potencies of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine in labor. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2002;95(1);204-8. PMID: 12088969
Copagna G, Parpaglioni R, Lyons G, Columb M, Celleno D. Minimum analgesic dose of epidural sufentanil for first-stage labor analgesia: A comparison between spontaneous and prostaglandin-induced labors in nulliparous women. Anesthesiology.2001;94(5): 740-4. PMID: 11388522
Stocks GM, Hallworth SP, Fernando R, England AJ, Columb MO, Gordon L. Minimum local analgesic dose of intrathecal bupivacaine in labor and the effect of intrathecal fentanyl. Anesthesiology. 2001;94(4):593-8. PMID: 11379678. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200104000-00011
Celleno D, Parpaglioni R, Frigo MG, Barbati G. Intrathecal levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for cesarean section. New perspectives. 2005;71(9):521-5. PMID: 16166911
Singh S, Singh VP, Jain M, Gupta K, Rastogi B, Abrol S. Intrathecal 0.75% Isobaric Ropivacaine Versus 0.5% Heavy Bupivacaine for Elective Casarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Pakistan Medical Student. 2012;2(2):75-80.
Kasza T, Knapik P, Misiolek H, Knapik D. Comparison of spinal anaesthesia with 0.75% ropivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for elective caesarean section. Annales Academiae Medicae Silesiensis. 2009;63(6):15-22.
Xiao F, Xu WP, Zhang YF, Liu L, Liu X, Wang LZ. The dose-response of Intrathecal Ropivacaine Co-administerd with Sufentanyl for Cesarean Delivery under Combined Spinal-epidural Anesthesia in Patients with Scarred Uterus. 2015;128(19):2577-82. PMID: 26415793. DOI:10.4103/0366-6999.166036
Geng ZY, Wang DX and Wu XM. Minimum effective local anesthetic dose of intrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine and bupivacaine for cesarean section. Chinese Medical Journal 2011;124(4):509-513. PMID: 21362272
Gupta A, Bogra J, Singh PK, Kushwaha JK and Srivastava P. Randomized Double-Blinded Dose Response Study of the Fentanyl with Hyperbaric Ropivacaine in Cesarean Section. Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research. 2014;5(11):467. DOI:10.4172/2155-6148.1000467
Whiteside JB, Burke D, Wildsmith JAW. Comparison of ropivacaine 0.5% (in glucose 5%) with bupivacaine 0.5% (in glucose 8%) for spinal anaesthesia for elective surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2003;90(3):304-8. PMID: 12594141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeg077
McNamee DA, McClelland Am, Scott S, Milligan KR, Westman L, Gustafsson U. Spinal Anaesthetic: comparison of plain ropivacaine 5mg/ml with bupivacaine 5mg/ml for major orthopedic surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2012;89(5):702-6. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aef259
Copyright (c) 2019 Jeevan Singh, Ashish Shrestha, Kalpana Kharbuja, Alex Tandukar, Abha Shrestha
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- The Journal of Lumbini Medical College (JLMC) publishes open access articles under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- JLMC requires an exclusive licence to publish the article first in its journal in print and online.
- The corresponding author should read and agree to the following statement before submission of the manuscript for publication,
- License agreement
- In submitting an article to Journal of Lumbini Medical College (JLMC) I certify that:
- I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- I warrant, on behalf of myself and my co-authors, that:
- the article is original, has not been formally published in any other peer-reviewed journal, is not under consideration by any other journal and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights;
- I am/we are the sole author(s) of the article and have full authority to enter into this agreement and in granting rights to JLMC are not in breach of any other obligation;
- the article contains nothing that is unlawful, libellous, or which would, if published, constitute a breach of contract or of confidence or of commitment given to secrecy;
- I/we have taken due care to ensure the integrity of the article. To my/our - and currently accepted scientific - knowledge all statements contained in it purporting to be facts are true and any formula or instruction contained in the article will not, if followed accurately, cause any injury, illness or damage to the user.
- I, and all co-authors, agree that the article, if editorially accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, I/we will notify JLMC at the time of submission, and in such cases the article shall be released under the Creative Commons 1.0 Public Domain Dedication waiver. For the avoidance of doubt it is stated that sections 1 and 2 of this license agreement shall apply and prevail regardless of whether the article is published under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 or the Creative Commons 1.0 Public Domain Dedication waiver.
- I, and all co-authors, agree that, if the article is editorially accepted for publication in JLMC, data included in the article shall be made available under the Creative Commons 1.0 Public Domain Dedication waiver, unless otherwise stated. For the avoidance of doubt it is stated that sections 1, 2, and 3 of this license agreement shall apply and prevail.
Please visit Creative Commons web page for details of the terms.
