Perotti Luciano, Cusato Maria, Ingelmo Pablo, Niebel Thekla Larissa, Somaini Marta, Riva Francesca, Tinelli Carmine, De Andrés José, Fanelli Guido, Braschi Antonio, Regazzi Mario, Allegri Massimo
From the *Anesthesia and Intensive Care III, Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; †Unit of Clinical Pharmacokinetics in Transplant and Autoimmune Diseases, Infectious Diseases Department, Clinical Epidemiology and Biometric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; ‡Department of Anesthesia, Montreal Children's Hospital, Alan Edwards Research Center for Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; §Anesthesia and Intensive Care I, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; ∥Anesthesia and Intensive Care I. Ca'Granda Niguarda Hospital, Milano, and Università degli Studi of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy; ¶Anesthesia and Intensive Care I. San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy; #Department of Experimental Medicine. University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy; **Clinical Epidemiology and Biometric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; ††Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, General University Hospital, Valencia, Spain; ‡‡Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University of Parma, Parma, Italy; §§Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; ∥∥Unit of Clinical Pharmacokinetics in Transplant and Autoimmune Diseases, Infectious Diseases Department, Clinical Epidemiology and Biometric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; ¶¶Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Parma, Parma, Italy; and ##Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy; SIMPAR Group.
Anesth Analg. 2015 Aug;121(2):348-56. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000775.
Epidural infusion of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine provides adequate postoperative pain management by minimizing side effects related to IV opioids and improving patient outcome. The safety profile of different drugs can be better estimated by comparing their pharmacokinetic profiles than by considering their objective side effects. Because levobupivacaine and ropivacaine have different pharmacokinetic properties, our aim was to investigate whether there is a difference in the pharmacokinetic variability of the 2 drugs in a homogeneous population undergoing continuous epidural infusion. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial study was designed to compare the pharmacokinetics of continuous thoracic epidural infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125% or ropivacaine 0.2% for postoperative pain management in adult patients who had undergone major abdominal, urological, or gynecological surgery. This study is focused on the evaluation of the coefficient of variation (CV) to assess the equivalence in the systemic exposure and interindividual variability between levobupivacaine and ropivacaine and, therefore, the possible differences in the predictability of the plasmatic concentrations of the 2 drugs during thoracic epidural infusion.
One hundred eighty-one adults undergoing major abdominal surgery were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized to receive an epidural infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125% + sufentanil 0.75 μg/mL or of ropivacaine 0.2% + sufentanil 0.75 μg/mL at 5 mL/h for 48 hours. The primary end point of this study was to analyze the variability of plasma concentration of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine via an area under the curve within a range of 15% of the CV during 48 hours of continuous epidural infusion. The CV shows how the concentration values of local anesthetics are scattered around the median concentration value, thus indicating the extent to which plasma concentration is predictable during infusion. Secondary end points were to assess the pharmacologic profile of the local anesthetics used in the study, including an analysis of mean peak plasma concentrations, and also to assess plasma clearance, side effects, pain intensity (measured with a verbal numeric ranging score, i.e., static Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] and dynamic NRS]), and the need for rescue doses.
The comparison between the 2 CVs showed no statistical difference: the difference between area under the curve was within the range of 15%. The CV was 0.54 for levobupivacaine and 0.51 for ropivacaine (P = 0.725). The plasma concentrations of ropivacaine approached the Cmax significantly faster than those of levobupivacaine. Clearance of ropivacaine decreases with increasing patient age. There were no significant differences in NRS, dynamic NRS scores, the number of rescue doses, or in side effects between groups.
Considering the CV, the interindividual variability of plasma concentration for levobupivacaine and ropivacaine is equivalent after thoracic epidural infusion in adults. We found a reduction in clearance of ropivacaine depending on patient age, but this finding could be the result of some limitations of our study. The steady-state concentration was not reached during the 48-hour infusion and the behavior of plasma concentrations of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine during continuous infusions lasting more than 48 hours remains to be investigated, because they could reach toxic levels. Finally, no differences in the clinical efficacy or in the incidence of adverse effects between groups were found for either local anesthetic.
硬膜外输注左旋布比卡因和罗哌卡因可通过将与静脉注射阿片类药物相关的副作用降至最低并改善患者预后,从而提供充分的术后疼痛管理。通过比较不同药物的药代动力学特征,比考虑其客观副作用能更好地评估其安全性。由于左旋布比卡因和罗哌卡因具有不同的药代动力学特性,我们的目的是研究在接受持续硬膜外输注的同质人群中,这两种药物的药代动力学变异性是否存在差异。这项双盲、多中心、随机对照试验研究旨在比较0.125%左旋布比卡因或0.2%罗哌卡因持续胸段硬膜外输注用于接受腹部、泌尿外科或妇科大手术的成年患者术后疼痛管理的药代动力学。本研究重点评估变异系数(CV),以评估左旋布比卡因和罗哌卡因在全身暴露和个体间变异性方面的等效性,进而评估胸段硬膜外输注期间这两种药物血浆浓度预测性的可能差异。
181例接受腹部大手术的成年人纳入本研究。患者被随机分为两组,分别接受以5 mL/h的速度输注0.125%左旋布比卡因+0.75μg/mL舒芬太尼或0.2%罗哌卡因+0.75μg/mL舒芬太尼,持续48小时。本研究的主要终点是分析在持续硬膜外输注48小时期间,左旋布比卡因和罗哌卡因血浆浓度在CV的15%范围内的曲线下面积的变异性。CV显示局部麻醉药的浓度值如何围绕中位浓度值分布,从而表明输注期间血浆浓度的可预测程度。次要终点是评估研究中使用的局部麻醉药的药理学特征,包括分析平均血浆峰浓度,还要评估血浆清除率、副作用、疼痛强度(用言语数字评分法测量,即静态数字评定量表[NRS]和动态NRS)以及急救剂量的需求。
两种CV的比较无统计学差异:曲线下面积的差异在15%范围内。左旋布比卡因的CV为0.54,罗哌卡因的CV为0.51(P = 0.725)。罗哌卡因的血浆浓度比左旋布比卡因显著更快地接近Cmax。罗哌卡因的清除率随患者年龄增加而降低。两组之间在NRS、动态NRS评分、急救剂量数量或副作用方面无显著差异。
考虑到CV,成人胸段硬膜外输注后,左旋布比卡因和罗哌卡因血浆浓度的个体间变异性相当。我们发现罗哌卡因的清除率随患者年龄降低,但这一发现可能是我们研究的某些局限性导致的结果。在48小时输注期间未达到稳态浓度,罗哌卡因和左旋布比卡因在持续输注超过48小时期间的血浆浓度行为仍有待研究,因为它们可能达到中毒水平。最后,两种局部麻醉药在两组之间的临床疗效或不良反应发生率方面均未发现差异。