Yoshimoto Masashi, Horiguchi Takashi, Kimura Tetsu, Nishikawa Toshiaki
From the Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Anesth Analg. 2017 Nov;125(5):1496-1502. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002435.
Lipid emulsion treatment appears to have application in the treatment of local anesthetic-induced cardiac arrest. To examine whether the efficacy of lipid resuscitation in the treatment of local anesthetic-induced cardiac arrest is affected by lipophilicity, the effects of lipid infusions were compared between levobupivacaine-induced (high lipophilicity) and ropivacaine-induced (lower lipophilicity) rat cardiac arrest model.
A total of 28 female Sprague-Dawley rats were anesthetized using sevoflurane, which subsequently underwent tracheostomy, followed by femoral artery and vein cannulation. Two hours after the discontinuation of sevoflurane, either levobupivacaine 0.2% (n = 14) or ropivacaine 0.2% (n = 14) was administered at a rate of 2 mg/kg/min to the awake rats. When the pulse pressure decreased to 0, the infusion of local anesthetic was discontinued, and treatment with chest compressions and ventilation with 100% oxygen were immediately initiated. The total doses of local anesthetics needed to trigger the first seizure and pulse pressure of 0 mm Hg were calculated. The 2 groups were each subdivided into a lipid emulsion group (n = 7) and a control group (n = 7). In the lipid emulsion group, 20% lipid emulsion was administered intravenously (5 mL/kg bolus plus continuous infusion of 0.5 mL/kg/min), while in the control group, the same volume of normal saline was administered. Chest compressions were discontinued when the rate-pressure product had increased by more than 20% of baseline.
The cumulative doses of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine that produced seizures and 0 pulse pressure showed no significant difference. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) values were higher in the levobupivacaine group than in the ropivacaine group after resuscitation was initiated (P < .05). In levobupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest, heart rate and MAP values were higher in the lipid group than in the control group after starting resuscitation (P < .05); all rats in the lipid group achieved spontaneous circulation (rate-pressure product >20% baseline), while only 2 of 7 rats in the control group achieved spontaneous circulation at 10 minutes. In ropivacaine-induced cardiac arrest, there were no significant differences in heart rate and MAP between the lipid and control groups from the start of resuscitation to 10 minutes; spontaneous circulation returned in 6 of 7 lipid group rats, but in only 2 of 7 control group rats at 10 minutes.
Lipid emulsion treatment was more effective for levobupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest than for ropivacaine-induced cardiac arrest. Although lipid therapy is also effective for ropivacaine-induced cardiac arrest, it takes more time than in levobupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest. This suggests that the lipophilicity of local anesthetics influences the efficacy of lipid infusion when treating cardiac arrest caused by these drugs.
脂质乳剂治疗似乎可应用于局部麻醉药所致心脏骤停的治疗。为研究脂质复苏治疗局部麻醉药所致心脏骤停的疗效是否受亲脂性影响,比较了左旋布比卡因诱导(高亲脂性)和罗哌卡因诱导(较低亲脂性)大鼠心脏骤停模型中脂质输注的效果。
总共28只雌性Sprague-Dawley大鼠使用七氟醚麻醉,随后进行气管切开术,接着进行股动脉和静脉插管。停用七氟醚2小时后,以2mg/kg/min的速率向清醒大鼠给予0.2%左旋布比卡因(n = 14)或0.2%罗哌卡因(n = 14)。当脉压降至0时,停止局部麻醉药输注,并立即开始胸外按压和100%氧气通气治疗。计算引发首次惊厥和脉压为0mmHg所需的局部麻醉药总剂量。两组各再分为脂质乳剂组(n = 7)和对照组(n = 7)。脂质乳剂组静脉给予20%脂质乳剂(5mL/kg推注加0.5mL/kg/min持续输注),而对照组给予相同体积的生理盐水。当速率-压力乘积较基线增加超过20%时停止胸外按压。
产生惊厥和0脉压的左旋布比卡因和罗哌卡因累积剂量无显著差异。开始复苏后,左旋布比卡因组的平均动脉血压(MAP)值高于罗哌卡因组(P < 0.05)。在左旋布比卡因诱导的心脏骤停中,开始复苏后脂质组的心率和MAP值高于对照组(P < 0.05);脂质组所有大鼠均实现自主循环(速率-压力乘积>基线的20%),而对照组7只大鼠中只有2只在10分钟时实现自主循环。在罗哌卡因诱导的心脏骤停中,从开始复苏到10分钟,脂质组和对照组的心率和MAP无显著差异;脂质组7只大鼠中有6只在10分钟时恢复自主循环,但对照组7只大鼠中只有2只。
脂质乳剂治疗对左旋布比卡因诱导的心脏骤停比罗哌卡因诱导的心脏骤停更有效。虽然脂质疗法对罗哌卡因诱导的心脏骤停也有效,但比左旋布比卡因诱导的心脏骤停所需时间更长。这表明局部麻醉药的亲脂性在治疗这些药物所致心脏骤停时会影响脂质输注的疗效。