Title: Comparative Evaluation of Bupivacaine Versus Ropivacaine Epidurally in Obstetrical Surgeries (LSCS): A Clinical Study
Authors: Prashant Mishra, Navneet Goyal, Pragati Divedi, Manoj Kumar, Divya Pandey, Dheer Singh
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v3i8.61
DIDS : 08.2015-XXXXXXX
Abstract
|
Background: A double blind prospective and randomized study was carried out in our institute to compare the anaesthetic effects of Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine epidurally in elective Lower Segment Caesarean Section (LSCS). Method: A total of 50 patients aged 18-30 years of American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade 1and 2, scheduled for elective LSCS under epidural block ,were enrolled for the study.Patients were divided into two groups of 25 each. Group 1 received 0.5% 15 ml Bupivacaine and group 2 received 0.5% 15 ml Ropivacaine. Heart Rate (HR), Mean Artery Pressure (MAP),SPO2, Respiratory Rate, Sensory Block, Motor Block, Mat-ernal and Fetal outcomes and Blood loss were observed and recorded throughout the study period at regular intervals. At the end of research project data’s were compiled systematically and were subjected to statistical analysis using student t-test. Value of p<0.05 is significant and p<0.01 as highly significant. Results: No significant difference seen in both the groups for demographic characteristics, SPO2, RR,HR, MAP sensory and motor block and materno-fetal outcome. No significant difference seen for side effects and complications in both the groups. Conclusion: Ropivacaine and bupivacaine given epidurally in the same concentration and volume provided similar and effective anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective LSCS. |
Key Worlds: Ropivacaine, Bupivacaine, Epidural, Elective LSCS
References
1. Alberg G. Toxicological and local anaesthetic effects of optically active isomers of two local anaesthetic compounds.Acta Pharmacol Scand 1972;31:273-86.
2. Rutten AJ, Nancarrow C,Mather LE,Ilsely AH, Runciman WB,Upton RN. Haemodynamic and central nervous system effects of intravenous bolus doses of Lidocaine,Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine in sheep.Anesth Analg 1989;69:291-9.
3. Akerman B,Hellberg IB,Trossvik C.Primary evaluation of the local anaesthetic properties of the amino amide agent Ropivacaine (LEA 103).Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1988;32:571-8.
4. Feldman HS,Covino BG.Comparative motor blocking effects of Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine,a new amide local anaesthetic in rat and dog.Anesth Analg 1988;67: 1047-52.
5. Arthur GR,Feldman HS.Covino BG. Comparative pharmacokinetics of Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine,a new amide local anaesthetic. Anesth Analg 1988;67:1053-8.
6. Scott DB,Lee A,Fagan D,Bowler GMR,Bloomfield P,Lundh R.Acute toxicity of Ropivacaine compared with that of Bupivacaine.Anesth Analg 1989;69:563-9.
7. Katz JA, Bridenbaugh PO, Knarr DC, Helton SH,Denson DD. Pharmaco-dynamics and pharmacokinetics of epidural Ropivacaine in humans. Anesth Analg 1990;70: 16-21.
8. Concepcion M, Arthur GR, Steele SM, Bader AM, Covino BG. A new local anaesthetic,Ropivacaine. Its epidural effect in human. Anesth Analg 1990;70:80-5.
9. Whitehead E, Arrigoni B, Bannister J.An open study of Ropivacaine in extradural anaesthesia.Br J Anaesth 1990;64:67-71.
10. Halpern SH,Walsh V.Epidural Ropivacaine versus Bupivacaine for labor:A metanalysis.Anesth Analg 2003;96:1473-9,table of contents.
11. Senard M,Kaba A,Jacquemin MJ et al.Epidural Levobupivacaine 0.1% or Ropivacaine 0.1% combined with Morphine provides comparable analgesia after abdominal surgery.Anesth Analg 2004;98:389-94,table of contents.
12. Launo C,Gastaldo P,Piccardo F,Palermo S,Demartini A,Grattarola C. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia in aortic surgery: role of Levobupivacaine.Minerva Anaesthesiol.2003;69:751-60,760-4.
13. Purdie NL,Mcgardy EM.Comparison of patient controlled epidural bolus administration of 0.1% Ropivacaine and 0.1% Levobupivacaine,both with 0.0002% Fentanyl,for analgesia during labor. Anaesthesia.2004;59:133-7.
14. Hansen TG. Ropivacaine: A pharmacological review.Expert Rev Neurother 2004; 4:781-91.
15. Kindler CH,Paul M,Zou H,LiuC,Winegar BD,Gray AT,et al.Amide local anaesthetics potently inhibit the human tandem pore domain background K+ channel TASK-2 (KCNK5).J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2003;306: 84-92.
16. Schneider M,Ettlin T,Kaufmann M, et al:Transient neurologic toxicity after hyperbaric anaesthesia with 5% lidocaine.Anesth Analg 1993;76:1154-1157.
17. Hampl KF,Heinzmann-Wiedmer S, Luginbuehl I, et al.Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anaesthesia :A lower incidence with Prilocaine and bupivacaine than with lidocaine. Anesthesiology 1998;88:629-633.
18. Freedman JM,Li DK, Drasner K,et al.Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia:an epidemiologic study of 1,863 patients. Anesthesiology 1998;89:633-41.
19. Eberhart LH, Morin AM, Kranke P,et al. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anaesthesia.A quantitative systematic overview (meta-analysis) of randomized controlled studies. Anesthetist 2002;51:539-546.
20. Ganapathy S, Sandhu HB,Stockall CA, et al. Transient neurologic symptom (TNS) following intrathecal ropivacaine. Anesthesiology 2000;93:1537-1539.
21. Susan M Nimmo. Benefit and outcome after epidural analgesia. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, critical care and pain 2004;4(2):44-7.
22. McClellan KJ, Faulds D. Ropivacaine: an update of its use in regional anaesthesia. Anesth Analg.2000 Nov;60(5):1065-93.
23. M.S. Brockway, J. Bannester, J.H. McClure et al- “comparison of extradural ropivacaine and bupivacaine.” British Journal of Anaesthesia,1991,Vol.66,No.1 31-37.
24. Griffin RP, Reynolds F: Extradural anaesthesia for caesarean section : a double-blind comparison of 0.5% ropivacaine with 0.5%bupivacaine.Br J Anaesth. 1995 May;74(5):512-6.
25. Crosby E, Sandler A, Finucane B, Writer D, Reid D,McKenna J, Friedlander M, Miller A, O’Callaghan-Enright S, Muir H, Shukla R. Comparison of epidural anaesthesia with ropivacaine 0.5% and bupivacaine 0.5% for caesarean section . Can J Anaesth.1998 Nov;45(11):1066-71.
26. Kampe, Sandra, et al.“Epidural block with ropivacaine and bupivacaine for elective caesarean section: maternal cardiovascular parameters, comfort and neonatal well-being.” Current Medical Research and Opinion® 20.1(2004):7-12.