British journal of anaesthesia
-
Bupivacaine induces fatal arrhythmia when accidentally injected i.v. or overdosed, whereas lidocaine is used as an anti-arrhythmic agent. We have suggested recently that the anti-arrhythmic effect of lidocaine may be explained by suppression of ATP-sensitive potassium (KATP) channels. Therefore, it could be argued that different sensitivities of KATP channels to both drugs could be a reason for their different arrhythmic and anti-arrhythmic properties. ⋯ Binding of bupivacaine influenced the gating of this channel, but did not reduce the conductance of the open channel. Bupivacaine and lidocaine were equipotent in blocking KATP channels. However, because of its excessive block of the sodium channel in the inactivated state, block of KATP channels by bupivacaine will only enhance its cardiotoxicity.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Iontophoretically applied lidocaine reduces pain on propofol injection.
We have compared iontophoretically and locally applied lidocaine for relief of pain on propofol injection. Pain was assessed on insertion of a 20-gauge i.v. cannula and at 10-s intervals for 30 s after injection of propofol. ⋯ Pain after injection of propofol was significantly reduced at 10 (P < 0.002), 20 (P < 0.001) and 30 s (P < 0.001). We conclude that iontophoretically applied lidocaine decreased the pain of cannulation and propofol injection.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Relative potencies of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for analgesia in labour.
We have used the technique of randomized, double-blind sequential allocation to compare the minimum local analgesic concentrations (MLAC) of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine for women in the first stage of labour. The test bolus was 20 ml of local anaesthetic solution. The concentration was determined by the response of the previous woman to a higher or lower concentration of local anaesthetic, according to up-down sequential allocation. ⋯ For bupivacaine, MLAC was 0.093 (95% CI 0.076-0.110)% w/v, and for ropivacaine, 0.156 (95% CI 0.136-0.176)%w/v (P < 0.0001, 95% CI difference 0.036-0.090). The analgesic potency of ropivacaine was 0.60 (0.47-0.75) relative to bupivacaine. Claims for reduced toxicity and motor block must be considered with differences in analgesic potency in mind.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Patients' vs nurses' assessments of postoperative pain and anxiety during patient- or nurse-controlled analgesia.
We have compared patients' and nurses' assessments of postoperative pain and anxiety after different analgesic treatments. Sixty orthopaedic patients were allocated randomly to receive i.v. piritramide (either nurse-controlled or patient-controlled) or subarachnoid bupivacaine (nurse-controlled or patient-controlled). Patients and nurses assessed pain and anxiety using a visual analogue scale (VAS; 1-100 mm). ⋯ In general, patients' pain scores were higher than nurses' scores (patients' median VAS = 34 (range 1-76) mm; nurses VAS 21 (1-59) mm) and for all groups except the patient-controlled subarachnoid bupivacaine group, where they were significantly higher (P < 0.01). Discrepancy in pain estimates between patients and nurses increased with the level of pain. The relationship between patients' and nurses' anxiety scores was less clearly defined and did not depend on the level of anxiety.
-
Clinical Trial
Patient-maintained propofol sedation as premedication in day-case surgery: assessment of a target-controlled system.
We have assessed the efficacy and safety of a system which allowed 20 patients undergoing day-case anaesthesia to operate a target-controlled infusion of propofol to provide anxiolytic premedication. A target-controlled infusion of propofol was started with a target blood concentration of 1 microgram ml-1, and the patient was allowed to increase the target by 0.2 microgram ml-1 by operating a control button. There was a lockout time of 2 min and a maximum target concentration of 3 micrograms ml-1. ⋯ No patient became oversedated and all remained cardiovascularly stable. Two individuals required low-dose supplementary oxygen for mild arterial oxygen desaturation but there were no instances of airway obstruction. Patient satisfaction with the system was high.