Can ropivacaine and levobupivacaine be used as test doses during regional anesthesia?

BACKGROUND: Lower systemic toxicity reported with ropivacaine and levobupivacaine may produce less reliable recognition of inadvertent intravenous injection during regional anesthesia. This study was undertaken to determine whether ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are suitable for use as intravenous test doses by evaluating central nervous system (CNS) symptoms after intravenous bolus injection. METHODS: Institutional approval and informed consent were granted for the study. One hundred twenty patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery were randomly assigned to receive 5 ml intravenous saline, 100 mg lidocaine, 25 mg ropivacaine, or 25 mg levobupivacaine before anesthesia. Patients reported CNS symptoms after injection and were monitored for hemodynamic change. RESULTS: Intravenous ropivacaine or levobupivacaine produced CNS symptoms in only 52% and 57% of patients, respectively, compared with 87% of patients after lidocaine (P < 0.02). Despite preparatory instruction, many patients receiving ropivacaine or levobupivacaine did not spontaneously volunteer symptoms because they were subtle and admitted symptoms only after in-depth questioning by the investigator. CONCLUSIONS: Plain ropivacaine and levobupivacaine (25 mg) solutions are unsuitable for use as intravenous test doses during regional anesthesia because CNS symptoms are insufficient. When using ropivacaine or levobupivacaine for regional anesthesia, for test dose purposes, the authors recommend the addition of epinephrine to the local anesthetic solution or the use of a separate agent with more predictable CNS characteristics.

Intrathecal but not intravenous opioids release adenosine from the spinal cord.

UNLABELLED: Opioids increase spinal release of adenosine in rats, and analgesia from systemic and intrathecal morphine is reduced in animals by adenosine receptor antagonists. We performed 3 studies to determine whether opioid administration also induces adenosine release in humans. To determine the effect of intrathecal opioid exposure, 15 women received intrathecal fentanyl, 50 microg, or saline, and cerebrospinal fluid was sampled at 2-minute intervals for 6 minutes before surgery. In a second study, 8 healthy volunteers received intrathecal morphine, 50 microg, plus fentanyl, 50 microg, with cerebrospinal fluid sampled 20 and 60 minutes later. To determine the effect of intravenous opioid exposure, 9 healthy volunteers received intravenous remifentanil for 60 minutes, and cerebrospinal fluid was sampled before and at the end of the infusion. Adenosine concentrations were similar in the 3 studies before opioid administration. Intrathecal fentanyl or saline did not affect adenosine concentrations during the 6 minutes in the first study. Adenosine concentrations increased significantly 20 and 60 minutes after intrathecal morphine plus fentanyl was administered. In contrast, adenosine concentrations were unaffected by intravenous remifentanil. These results suggest that intrathecal but not systemic opioid analgesia in humans is associated with spinal release of adenosine. PERSPECTIVE: Although the role of adenosine release in the spinal cord for opioid receptor activation in subsequent analgesia from opioids is controversial in laboratory studies, these clinical data suggest that local opioid receptor stimulation in the spinal cord of humans does release adenosine. Whether adenosine participates in analgesia from spinal opioids in humans is not known, but spinal adenosine itself is analgesic in humans, consistent with an opioid-adenosine role in analgesia.

Intravenous remifentanil produces withdrawal hyperalgesia in volunteers with capsaicin-induced hyperalgesia.

Opioids administered during surgery may be beneficial by preempting postoperative pain or detrimental by causing acute tolerance. We used a stable model of hyperalgesia in volunteers to test whether acute opioid exposure also results in such pain sensitization over a period of hours in humans. Ten healthy volunteers were studied. Areas of mechanical hyperalgesia and allodynia were induced by topical capsaicin application plus intermittent heating. Computer-controlled IV remifentanil infusion was titrated to a targeted plasma concentration that reduced pain report to noxious heat by 70% and was maintained at this level for 60-100 min. Areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia were measured during and after remifentanil infusion. Remifentanil (targeted concentration of 3.1 +/- 1.2 ng/mL) reduced areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia by 33% +/- 31% and 65% +/- 28%, respectively, during infusion (P < 0.05). Areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia continuously enlarged 4 h after remifentanil was stopped, to 180% +/- 47% and 180% +/- 86%, respectively. This study demonstrates that acute opioid exposure enhances hypersensitivity for hours after exposure. If applicable to the surgical setting, this could increase the dose of opioid required for postoperative analgesia and enhance, rather than inhibit, postoperative pain.

Cephalad movement of morphine and fentanyl in humans after intrathecal injection.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades of use, controversy remains regarding the extent and time course of cephalad spread of opioids in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) after intrathecal injection. The purpose of this study was to examine differences between two often used opioids, morphine and fentanyl, in distribution in the CSF after intrathecal injection. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers received intrathecal injection of morphine (50 microg) plus fentanyl (50 microg) at a lower lumbar interspace. CSF was sampled through a needle in an upper lumbar interspace for 60-120 min. At the end of this time, a sample was taken from the lower lumbar needle, and both needles were withdrawn. CSF volume was determined by magnetic resonance imaging. Pharmacokinetic modeling was performed with NONMEM. RESULTS: Morphine and fentanyl peaked in CSF at the cephalad needle at similar times (41 +/- 13 min for fentanyl, 57 +/- 12 min for morphine). The ratio of morphine to fentanyl in CSF at the cephalad needle increased with time, surpassing 2:1 by 36 min and 4:1 by 103 min. CSF concentrations did not correlate with weight, height, or lumbosacral CSF volume. The concentrations of morphine and fentanyl at both sampling sites were well described by a simple pharmacokinetic model. The individual model parameters did not correlate with the distance between the needles, CSF volume, patient height, or patient weight. CONCLUSIONS: Fentanyl is cleared more rapidly from CSF than morphine, although their initial distribution in the first hour after injection does not differ greatly. The pharmacokinetic model demonstrates that mixing is the primary determinant of early concentrations and is highly variable among individuals.

Phase I safety assessment of intrathecal ketorolac.

Spinal prostaglandin synthesis has been implicated in acute pain processes and in generation and maintenance of central sensitization, and intrathecal injection of cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors produce antinociception and reduce hypersensitivity in animals. We herein report a Phase I safety assessment of intrathecal injection of the COX inhibitor, ketorolac, in healthy volunteers, and demonstrate no serious side effects. Preclinical studies suggest a major site of action of COX inhibitors for analgesia lies in the central nervous system, especially the spinal cord. For example, COX isoenzymes are expressed in the spinal cord, acute noxious stimuli and inflammation increase spinal prostaglandin production, and spinally administered prostaglandins excite dorsal horn projection neurons, induce release of excitatory neurotransmitters, and cause nociceptive behavior. Intrathecal injection of COX inhibitors increases thermal and mechanical withdrawal threshold in animals with inflammation or nerve injury at doses several 100-fold less than those required systemically. Following pre-clinical neurotoxicity screening and regulatory agency approval, we examined the safety of intrathecal injection of a preservative-free formulation of the COX inhibitor, ketorolac. In an open label, dose-escalating design, 20 healthy volunteers received intrathecal ketorolac, 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2mg (n=5 per group). Ketorolac did not alter blood pressure, although there was small (10-12%), dose-independent reduction in heart rate for the first hour after injection when data from all subjects were pooled. Ketorolac did not affect sensory or motor function or deep tendon reflexes, and there were no subjective sensations, neurologic or otherwise, reported by the volunteers. Ketorolac did not reduce pain report to heat stimuli applied to the lateral calf. One subject had a mild headache 24h after study, resolving the next day. There were no long-term side effects 6 months after study. These data suggest that intrathecal ketorolac does not produce a high incidence of serious adverse events, and they support further investigation for analgesia.

Dose response of intrathecal adenosine in experimental pain and allodynia.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal adenosine reduces areas of mechanical hypersensitivity and provides analgesia in patients with neuropathic pain. Adenosine also causes side effects, yet its dose response for either efficacy or side effects has not been examined in double blind studies. We studied two doses of intrathecal adenosine in humans with experimental hypersensitivity and the ability of the adenosine receptor antagonist, aminophylline, to reverse adenosine's effects. METHODS: Following Internal Review Board approval and written informed consent, 35 volunteers were studied. Five volunteers were studied to confirm the stability of a new method of inducing hypersensitivity with capsaicin. The remaining 30 volunteers received, in a randomized, double-blind manner, saline, or adenosine, 0.5 or 2.0 mg, by intrathecal injection 40 min after areas of allodynia and hyperalgesia were established from capsaicin. Two hr later, volunteers were randomized to receive intravenous saline or aminophylline, 5 mg/kg. RESULTS: Topical capsaicin with intermittent heating resulted in stable areas of allodynia and hyperalgesia. Intrathecal adenosine, but not saline, reduced areas of allodynia and hyperalgesia from capsaicin, with no differences between doses. Side effects occurred in 1, 2, and 6 volunteers receiving saline, 0.5 mg and 2.0 mg adenosine, respectively. Aminophylline failed to reverse adenosine's effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in efficacy to experimental hypersensitivity between the largest approved dose of intrathecal adenosine and a dose 25% this size, but side effects are more common with the larger dose. Failure of aminophylline to reverse adenosine's effects could reflect inadequate concentrations at receptors in the spinal cord after intravenous injection.

Phase I safety assessment of intrathecal injection of an American formulation of adenosine in humans.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies of intrathecal adenosine suggest it may be effective in the treatment of acute and chronic pain in humans. A phase I safety trial of the intrathecal injection of a mannitol-containing formulation of adenosine in Sweden showed a considerable incidence of backache. We performed a phase I safety trial of intrathecal injection of the American formulation of adenosine, which lacks mannitol. METHODS: Following US Food and Drug Administration and institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 65 volunteers were studied in two trials: an open-label, dose-escalating trial with intrathecal adenosine doses of 0.25-2.0 mg (25 subjects) and a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of adenosine, 2 mg (40 subjects). Blood pressure, heart rate, end-tidal carbon dioxide, and sensory, motor, and reflex neurologic functions were systematically examined for 24 h after injection, and volunteers were contacted by telephone at times up to 6 months after injection. RESULTS: Intrathecal adenosine did not affect blood pressure, heart rate, end-tidal carbon dioxide, or neurologic function. Headache was reported by 10 and back pain was reported by 8 of 30 subjects exposed to adenosine in the second double-blind trial, whereas none of these symptoms was reported by the 10 saline-treated subjects. CONCLUSION: These data support further investigation of intrathecal adenosine for analgesia in humans and suggest that this agent does not produce a high incidence of severe side effects.

Preliminary efficacy assessment of intrathecal injection of an American formulation of adenosine in humans.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies of intrathecal adenosine suggest it may be effective in the treatment of acute and chronic pain in humans, and preliminary studies in volunteers and patients with a Swedish formulation of adenosine suggests it may be effective in hypersensitivity states but not with acute noxious stimulation. The purpose of this study was to screen for efficacy of a different formulation of adenosine marketed in the US, using both acute noxious stimulation and capsaicin-evoked mechanical hypersensitivity. METHODS: Following Food and Drug Administration and institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 65 volunteers were studied in two trials: an open-label, dose-escalating trial with intrathecal adenosine doses of 0.25-2.0 mg and a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of adenosine, 2 mg. Cerebrospinal fluid was obtained for pharmacokinetic analysis, and pain ratings in response to acute heat stimuli and areas of mechanical hyperalgesia and allodynia after intradermal capsaicin injection were determined. RESULTS: Adenosine produced no effect on pain report to acute noxious thermal or chemical stimulation but reduced mechanical hyperalgesia and allodynia from intradermal capsaicin injection for at least 24 h. In contrast, residence time of adenosine in cerebrospinal fluid was short (< 4 h). CONCLUSIONS: These results show selective inhibition by intrathecal adenosine of hypersensitivity, presumed to reflect central sensitization in humans after peripheral capsaicin injection. The long-lasting effect is consistent with that observed in preliminary reports of patients with chronic neuropathic pain and is not due to prolonged residence of adenosine in cerebrospinal fluid.

Relative potency of epidural to intrathecal clonidine differs between acute thermal pain and capsaicin-induced allodynia.

Clonidine is approved in the US for epidural administration in the treatment of intractable neuropathic cancer pain, but is also administered intrathecally for this indication and both epidurally and intrathecally in the treatment of acute, postoperative pain. The purpose of the current study was to estimate the relative potency of clonidine by epidural and intrathecal routes in the treatment of capsaicin-induced hyperalgesia and allodynia as a model of central hypersensitivity and of noxious heat as a model of acute pain. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were randomized to receive either intrathecal clonidine (75, 150, or 300 micrograms) or epidural clonidine (150, 300, or 600 micrograms) and rated pain from a Peltier-controlled thermode at a lumbar, thoracic, and cervical dermatomal site before and after drug administration. In addition, they rated pain from intradermal capsaicin injections at a lumbar dermatome before and 60 min after clonidine injection and described areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia to mechanical stimuli. Clonidine's effect differed with route of administration and modality of sensory testing. For acute thermal pain, intrathecal clonidine produced a dose-dependent analgesia with a lumbar>thoracic>cervical gradient, whereas only one dose of epidural clonidine reduced thermal pain and this was at the thoracic testing site. In contrast, the potency of clonidine to reduce capsaicin-induced allodynia was similar between the two routes of injection, and for hyperalgesia, clonidine was only slightly more potent after intrathecal than epidural injection. These data support clinical studies from non-comparative trials and suggest there is a >6-fold potency ratio of intrathecal:epidural administration of clonidine for acute pain, but a <2-fold potency ratio for these routes for mechanical hypersensitivity.

Effect of pregnancy and pain on cerebrospinal fluid immunoreactive enkephalins and norepinephrine in healthy humans.

Endogenous spinal opioid or noradrenergic system activation may increase pain threshold during pregnancy and following a painful stress. Variation in spinal antinociceptive activity is also postulated to explain in part the large variability in postoperative opioid analgesic requirements. In this study, spinal noradrenergic and opioid activity, as reflected by the CSF concentrations of norepinephrine and immunoreactive enkephalins (total enkephalin-containing peptides), was determined in 58 women prior to surgery. The CSF concentration of these substances did not differ between pregnant and non-pregnant women. CSF norepinephrine tended to be greater in pregnant women who had experienced painful labor than in those who had not (1240 +/- 300 vs. 570 +/- 160 pmol/l; P = 0.056) and these women self-administered less morphine following cesarean section than those without labor pain (64 +/- 4 vs. 86 +/- 7 mg/24 h; P less than 0.01). However, CSF concentration of norepinephrine or immunoreactive enkephalins did not correlate with postoperative morphine use. These results suggest that spinal immunoreactive enkephalin and noradrenergic activity are not increased during pregnancy. However, pain may activate spinal noradrenergic pathways affecting pain sensation.