A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INTRATHECAL HYPERBARIC 0.5% BUPIVACAINE VERSUS INTRATHECAL 0.5% ISOBARIC LEVOBUPIVACAINE

作者
K Kurmanadh
出处
期刊:Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare [Level Up Business Center]
卷期号:3 (74): 4034-4039
标识
DOI:10.18410/jebmh/2016/862
摘要

BACKGROUND \nBupivacaine is a long-acting agent capable of producing prolonged anaesthesia and analgesia that can be prolonged even \nfurther by the addition of epinephrine. It is substantially more cardiotoxic than lidocaine. The cardiotoxicity of bupivacaine is \ncumulative and substantially greater than would be predicted by its LA potency. At least part of the cardiotoxicity of bupivacaine \nmaybe mediated centrally because direct injection of small quantities of bupivacaine into the medulla can produce malignant \nventricular arrhythmias. Bupivacaine-induced cardiotoxicity can be difficult to treat.[1] Levobupivacaine contains a single \nenantiomer of bupivacaine hydrochloride and is less cardiotoxic than bupivacaine. It is extensively metabolised with no \nunchanged drug detected in urine or faeces. Research results suggest that levobupivacaine is a suitable less toxic alternative \nto bupivacaine.[2] \nMETHODS \nThe study entitled “A Randomised Controlled Double-Blind Comparative Study of 0.5% Levobupivacaine vs. 0.5% Heavy \nBupivacaine For Surgeries Below Umbilicus During Spinal Anaesthesia” for various procedures done in the Department of \nAnaesthesiology at Andhra Medical College at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, from November 2011 to October 2012. \nThe study was undertaken after obtaining Hospital Ethics Committee clearance as well as written informed consent from all \npatients after explaining and reassuring about the spinal procedure. A total of 100 patients of both sexes scheduled for elective \nlower abdominal surgeries under spinal anaesthesia in the age group of 18 to 55 years and belonging to American Society of \nAnaesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I and II were enrolled for the study. The enrolled patients were randomised to one \nof the two groups of equal-sized prospective, comparative study group using a double-blind protocol design Group B (n=50) \nreceived 3.0 mL volume of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally and Group L (n=50) received 3.0 mL volume of 0.5% \nisobaric levobupivacaine intrathecally. Routine preanaesthetic checkup of all the patients was done to exclude coexisting \nmedical conditions and to assess airway and spine. Routine investigations like haemoglobin%, blood group and typing, urine \nexamination, etc. were done. \nRESULTS \nThe mean time of onset of sensory blockade in group B is 1.78±0.708 mins. and in group L is 2.5±0.863 mins. There is no \nclinical significance between group B and L regarding mean time for onset of sensory blockade. Five out of 50 in group B, \ntwelve out of 50 in group L attained level T4 of sensory blockade. Nineteen out of 50 in group B and fourteen out of 50 in \ngroup L attained T6, nineteen out of 50 and seventeen out of 50 attained level T8. Five out of 50 and seven out of 50 attained \nT9 level of sensory blockade. Two out of 50 in group B and none from group L attained T10 level of sensory blockade. The \nmean time taken for attaining maximum sensory blockade is 8.98±1.477 mins. in Group B and 8.08±1.70 mins. in group L. \nThere is no clinical significant difference between group B and L regarding the mean time for attaining maximum sensory \nblockade. The mean time taken for regression of sensory blockade by two segments is 86.3±6.22 mins. in group B and \n86.0±6.08 mins. in group L. The mean duration of analgesia for group B is 161.0±12.66 mins. and group L is 164.20±9.55 \nmins. The mean duration of sensory regression to S1 in group B is 201.2±12.59 mins. and in group L is 200.7±12.25 mins. \nThe mean time taken for the onset of motor blockade is 1.98±0.55 mins. in group B and in group L is 2.08±0.70 mins. The \nmean time taken for attaining maximum motor blockade in group B is 6.56±0.97 mins. and in group L is 6.26±0.92 mins. The \nmean duration of motor blockade for group B is 280.8±27.09 mins. and for group L is 279.0±18.10 mins. Changes in systolic \ndiastolic and mean blood pressures along with changes in heart rate with time were depicted in (Table 2, 3). \nCONCLUSIONS \nFrom the present study, it can be concluded that intrathecal 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine is a safe alternative to 0.5% \nhyperbaric bupivacaine in patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgeries. There are no intergroup differences with \nrespect to onset and duration of sensory blockade, maximum sensory level achieved, onset and duration of motor blockade, \nmean duration of analgesia, haemodynamic changes and incidence of complications. Because of less cardiotoxicity and \nneurotoxicity, it is concluded that levobupivacaine is an interesting and safer alternative to racemic bupivacaine. \n

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
阿娇完成签到 ,获得积分10
刚刚
1秒前
Akim应助幸福妙柏采纳,获得20
1秒前
wangbw完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
Goodamii完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
2秒前
浅沫juanjuan完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
wgm完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
才染完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
赛博完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
细腻梦凡完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
spring_IMU完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
wu发布了新的文献求助30
4秒前
HYQ完成签到 ,获得积分10
5秒前
Syrin完成签到 ,获得积分10
5秒前
6秒前
害羞的妙海完成签到 ,获得积分10
6秒前
Minton完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
zpeng完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
hongyuzhang完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
虚心的南蕾完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
Orca0301发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
yyy发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
elsa嘻嘻完成签到 ,获得积分10
8秒前
李琦完成签到 ,获得积分10
8秒前
_Charmo完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
老实的乐儿完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
柔弱毒娘完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
天地一沙鸥完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
哒哒哒发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
10秒前
酷波er应助傲慢与偏见采纳,获得30
10秒前
10秒前
曾经碧蓉完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
10秒前
活泼的绝山完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
11秒前
牛牛完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
王乐乐哈完成签到 ,获得积分10
11秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Effects of Two Weeks of Red Light Therapy on Choroidal Thickness and Axial Length in Young Adults 700
Management and the Arts 510
Matrix Methods in Data Mining and Pattern Recognition Second Edition 510
The Neuroscience of Language 400
Common Foundations of American and East Asian Modernisation: From Alexander Hamilton to Junichero Koizumi 400
Too Much of Two Good Things: Investment Protection and Environmental Protection in International Law 260
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 纳米技术 工程类 有机化学 化学工程 生物化学 计算机科学 内科学 物理 复合材料 催化作用 细胞生物学 无机化学 光电子学 物理化学 电极 基因
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 7673554
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 9240045
关于积分的说明 19903743
捐赠科研通 7243209
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 3285600
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 2443711
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 2287868