Search

Background: Increasing evidence indicates that amrinone, a phosphodiesterase fraction III (PDE-III) inhibitor, has relative efficacy as an initial treatment for cardiovascular depression after bupivacaine in an experimental setting. This study was performed to compare the cardiovascular effects of the other new PDE-III inhibitors, milrinone and olprinone, with those of amrinone in reversing bupivacaine-induced cardiovascular depression., Methods: In sevoflurane-anaesthetized dogs, bupivacaine was infused intravenously at 1 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1) until mean arterial pressure fell to 60 mmHg or less. The dogs received either amrinone (2 mg x kg(-1)), milrinone (0.2 mg x kg(-1)), olprinone (0.12 mg x kg(-1)) or 0.9% saline (0.5 ml x kg(-1))., Results: Amrinone, milrinone and olprinone improved left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, resulting in an increase in cardiac index. The most significant difference observed among the three drugs was the change in heart rate (HR) after treatment. Milrinone significantly increased HR, but olprinone did not., Conclusion: Milrinone and olprinone are as effective as amrinone in reversing bupivacaine-induced cardiovascular depression.

Background: To ascertain the efficacy of amrinone and epinephrine in reversing bupivacaine-induced cardiovascular depression, we investigated the time course of recovery of cardiac function with 3 doses of both agents after bupivacaine administration., Methods: In sevoflurane-anaesthetized dogs, bupivacaine was infused intravenously at 1 mg.kg-1.min-1 until mean arterial pressure fell to 60 mmHg or less. The 3 doses of amrinone (1, 2, and 4 mg.kg-1) or the 3 doses of epinephrine (2, 5, and 10 micrograms.kg-1) were administered as a bolus in randomized order in each dog., Results: Amrinone improved maximum left ventricular dP/dt, a time constant of left ventricular isovolemic relaxation and cardiac index persistently and dose-relatedly. Amrinone increased heart rate and decreased left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and systemic vascular resistance index. Amrinone at 1 and 2 mg.kg-1 significantly increased mean arterial pressure, but amrinone at 4 mg.kg-1 did not. Epinephrine increased mean arterial pressure, maximum left ventricular dP/dt, and systemic vascular resistance dose-relatedly. The duration of action of epinephrine, peaking at 1 min and subsequently decreasing by 10 min after administration, did not differ among the groups. Epinephrine at all doses failed to improve a time constant of left ventricular isovolemic relaxation and cardiac index. ECG evidence of serious ventricular dysrhythmias was seen in 1 out of 6 dogs after administrating each dose of amrinone and in 3, 3 and 5 out of 6 dogs after administrating 2, 5 and 10 micrograms.kg-1 of epinephrine, respectively., Conclusion: Bolus amrinone may have a certain efficacy in reversing bupivacaine-induced cardiovascular depression, and improving cardiac contractility and relaxation dose-relatedly. In contrast to amrinone, bolus epinephrine remains indispensable for resuscitation, causing a rapid, massive, transient and dose-related rise in blood pressure. However, the use of amrinone may be limited predominantly by a decrease in systemic vascular resistance, while the use of epinephrine may be limited predominantly by the generation of serious ventricular dysrhythmias and lack of effectiveness on cardiac index and on cardiac relaxation.

The effects of sevoflurane on bupivacaine toxicity have not been defined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of sevoflurane and isoflurane on bupivacaine-induced arrhythmias and seizures in rats. Thirty-seven Sprague-Dawley rats received bupivacaine intravenously at a constant rate of 2 mg.kg-1.min-1 until both arrhythmias and seizures occurred while electrocardiogram (ECG) and electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings were made. The cumulative doses of bupivacaine inducing arrhythmias and seizures were determined in the presence of 1 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane (sevoflurane group, n = 14) or isoflurane (isoflurane group, n = 10) and in the absence of anesthetic (control group, n = 13). The cumulative doses of bupivacaine inducing arrhythmias and seizures were larger in the sevoflurane and isoflurane groups than in the control group and were similar in the sevoflurane and isoflurane groups. These results indicate that sevoflurane and isoflurane attenuate bupivacaine-induced arrhythmias and seizures in rats.

Background: Bupivacaine-induced cardiovascular depression is known to be difficult to treat, and the efficacy of epinephrine for treatment of bupivacaine-induced cardiovascular depression is in doubt. We compared the efficacy of amrinone with that of epinephrine for the treatment of bupivacaine-induced cardiovascular depression in anesthetized dogs., Methods: In dogs receiving 1.5-2% sevoflurane anesthesia, 0.5% bupivacaine was infused at a rate of 0.5 mg.kg-1.min-1 intravenously until mean arterial blood pressure decreased to 40 mmHg or less. In the amrinone group (n = 9), amrinone (4 mg.kg-1, intravenously) was given immediately after cardiovascular depression, followed by intravenous infusion at a rate of 0.1 mg.kg-1.min-1. In the epinephrine group (n = 9), epinephrine (0.01 mg.kg-1, intravenously) was given as a bolus, and the same dose was given again as required., Results: All nine dogs that received amrinone survived. Of the nine dogs that received epinephrine, five survived; fatal cardiovascular depression developed in the four remaining animals (P < 0.05). Only one animal in the amrinone group showed tachyrhythmia with wide QRS complexes during resuscitation, whereas all nine animals in the epinephrine group showed tachyrhythmia with wide QRS complexes during resuscitation., Conclusions: Amrinone is superior to epinephrine for the treatment of bupivacaine-induced cardiovascular depression in sevoflurane-anesthetized dogs.

This investigation was conducted to determine the analgesic efficacy of rectal diclofenac coupled with continuous epidural infusion with buprenorphine and bupivacaine for pain relief after upper and lower abdominal surgery. Forty patients in control group received epidural buprenorphine 0.1 mg in 8 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine immediately after surgery and subsequently infusion was started with the solution of epidural buprenorphine 15 micrograms in 1 ml of 0.23% bupivacaine at a rate of 1 ml.h-1 for 48 h. Forty patients in study group received rectal diclofenac 50 mg immediately after surgery in addition to the same epidural injection method described above. Adding rectal diclofenac to continuous epidural infusion of buprenorphine and bupivacaine produced enhanced analgesia and reduced pain scores measured by VAS after upper abdominal surgery. However, after lower abdominal surgery, such effects of rectal diclofenac obtained after upper abdominal surgery were not demonstrable.

We examined the analgesic effects of indomethacin as an adjunct to postoperative epidural analgesia in 40 patients who underwent upper abdominal surgery. Twenty patients in control group were epidurally given 0.1 mg of buprenorphine in 8 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine immediately after surgery and subsequently infused 15 micrograms buprenorphine in 1 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine at a rate of 1 ml.h-1 for 48 h. The remaining 20 patients were rectally given 50 mg of indomethacin in addition to the same epidural method described above. The patients who did not need additional narcotics in the control and indomethacin groups were 45% and 80%, respectively (P < 0.05). In upper abdominal surgery, postoperative pain relief by epidural buprenorphine and bupivacaine plus rectal indomethacin was more effective than that by epidural buprenorphine and bupivacaine.

We studied whether continuous interpleural infusion of bupivacaine would be effective in alleviating pain after thoracotomy compared with effect of continuous epidural infusion of bupivacaine and buprenorphine. Twenty patients who had received thoracotomy and lobectomy were randomly divided into two groups to receive continuous interpleural infusion (IP group) of 0.5% bupivacaine at the rate of 5 ml.h-1 or continuous epidural infusion (E group) of 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.025 buprenorphine at the rate of 1 ml.h-1. The patients assessed their level of pain using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and on coughing or changing the posture, verbal descriptor pain scale (VDPS), and times of supplemental analgesic. Assessment was performed at 7 points (mornings and evenings) for 3 postoperative days. In the evening of the day of surgery, VAS at rest in IP group was significantly higher than one in E group, but VASs at rest were similar in both groups from the first postoperative day to the third postoperative day. VAS on coughing or changing the posture in IP group was significantly higher than in E group in the evening of the day of surgery, and VASs on coughing or changing the posture in IP group were higher than in E group for 3 postoperative days. Supplemental analgesics were administered significantly more often than in E group in the evening of the first postoperative day. We conclude that continuous interpleural infusion does not give better analgesia than continuous epidural infusion after thoracotomy.

We could successfully perform spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine for open reduction of tibial fracture in a patient with late cerebellar cortical atrophy (LCCA). LCCA is a very rare neurologic degenerative disorder localized chiefly in the cerebellum, and it may be followed by various complications. His postoperative course was uneventful, followed by no neurological complication. Regional anesthesia including spinal anesthesia seems to be safe for operations in patients with LCCA.

We surveyed the attitudes of general surgical patients to the management of their postoperative pain relief. Elective surgical patients (n = 232) were asked postoperatively about their experienced pain which was expressed according to verbal pain scale, the duration of experienced pain, satisfaction with pain relief and medication, and expectations of pain on the 5th to 7th postoperative day. Thirteen percent of the patients had no pain, 47% of whom had no rest pain but pain on moving or coughing, 32% of whom had rest and moving pain, and 0.4% of whom experienced horrible and excruciating pain. Duration of postoperative pain was 2.5 +/- 1.9 days, and 76% of the patients experienced pain only for 3 postoperative days. Results of the interviews indicated that 80% of these patients were satisfied with their postoperative pain relief. Although 80% expressed satisfaction, 39% of whom did have rest pain. In the patients with continuous epidural infusion of buprenorphine and 0.25% bupivacaine, incidence of complained rest pain was significantly low compared with those with intermittent i.v. and/or im injection of analgesics on demands of patients. Lag between patient's demand and nurse's response concerning medication correlated significantly to the satisfaction. There was no relation between satisfaction and age, the nature of operation or sex. Fifty-two percent of the patients reported that degree of experienced pain had been less than expected preoperatively. In conclusion, 80% of the patients were satisfied, but our postoperative pain therapy was still insufficient because 39% of them had rest pain.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The effects of age, weight, height, weight.height ratio, and body mass index on the spread of spinal anesthesia with 3.0 ml of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine was examined in 185 patients. No significant correlation was found between the spread of analgesia and the age, weight, height, weight.height ratio, or body mass index. A significant correlation was found between the decrease in mean arterial pressure and the height of sensory analgesia (rho = -0.21, P < 0.05) as well as the aging (rho = -0.35, P < 0.001).

We evaluated the efficacy of epidural patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with pethidine or buprenorphine plus 0.25% bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia after laparotomy with a midline incision under general anesthesia. Twenty patients were randomly allocated to two groups. In one group (PCEA-P group; n = 10), epidural pethidine plus 0.25% bupivacaine by PCA with 5 mg of pethidine and 2.5 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine bolus with a lockout interval of 20 min was added to a continuous epidural infusion of 0.25% bupivacaine (2 ml.h-1) plus pethidine (100 mg.24h-1) for 72 h. In the other group (PCEA-B group; n = 10), epidural buprenorphine plus 0.25% bupivacaine by PCA with 0.03 mg of buprenorphine and 2.5 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine bolus with a lockout interval of 20 min was added to a continuous epidural infusion of 0.25% bupivacaine (2 ml.h-1) and buprenorphine (0.6 mg.24 h-1) for 72 h. Analgesia was evaluated by 100 mm visual analog scale and verbal descriptor scale. In PCEA-B group, 90% of the patients did not complain of pain at rest, and in PCEA-P group, all the patients did not complain of pain at rest for 72 h. There were no significantly different analgesic effects between PCEA-P and PCEA-B for 48 h. The average doses of epidural PCA were 1.9 mg.kg-1.24 h-1 of pethidine, and 0.012 mg.kg-1.24 h-1 of buprenorphine, respectively. We conclude that PCEA-P and PCEA-B were effective for postoperative pain to the same degree for the first 48 h, but PCEA-P was superior to PCEA-B for the last 24 h.

The efficacy for postoperative analgesia and side-effect of combined epidural infusion of bupivacaine and buprenorphine in comparison with each of these drugs alone were evaluated in 150 patients. All patients received initially bupivacaine 8 ml and buprenorphine 0.1 mg. In a random order, epidural infusion of 5 micrograms.ml-1 buprenorphine 1 ml.h-1 (group A; n = 50), 0.25% bupivacaine 1 ml.h-1 (group B; n = 50), or a combination of the two drugs 1 ml.h-1 (group C; n = 50) was continued for 48 h by a portable disposable device. The analgesic efficacy in group C was superior to that in group A or group B. No significant difference in the incidence of side-effect was found among the three groups. We conclude that epidural analgesia with the combination of buprenorphine and bupivacaine is safe, and easy to manage, giving pain relief superior to that provided by each of these drugs alone.