P Miranda1, M A Corvetto1, Fernando R Altermatt2, A Araneda1, G C Echevarría1,3, L I Cortínez1. 1. División de Anestesiología, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Marcoleta 367, 8330024, Santiago, Chile. 2. División de Anestesiología, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Marcoleta 367, 8330024, Santiago, Chile. fernando.altermatt@gmail.com. 3. Department of Anaesthesiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cases of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) periodically occur following transversus abdominal plane (TAP) blocks. The aim of this study was to characterize levobupivacaine absorption pharmacokinetics, with and without epinephrine, and estimate the risk of LAST, based on a previously reported toxic threshold. METHODS: Previously reported data from 11 volunteers receiving ultrasound-guided TAP blocks with and withoutepinephrine on two independent occasions were analysed. Serial venous concentrations were measured for 90 min. A pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using the NONMEM statistical programme. The use of epinephrine in the solution was included in the analysis of covariates. The associated risk of LAST symptoms associated with different levobupivacaine dose schemes with and without epinephrine was estimated in 1000 simulated subjects. RESULTS: A one-compartment first-order input and elimination model adequately fit the levobupivacaine data. Epinephrine prolonged the levobupivacaine absorption half-life {4.22 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.53-6.50] vs. 7.02 [95 % CI 3.74-14.1]; p < 0.05} and reduced its relative bioavailability (0.84; 95 % CI 0.72-0.97; p < 0.05) The derived model predicts that levobupivacaine dose schemes should be halved from 3 mg kg(-1) body weight with epinephrine to 1.5 mg kg(-1) without epinephrine to obtain a comparable risk of anaesthetic toxicity symptoms of approximately 0.1 %. CONCLUSIONS: Our results strongly support the addition of epinephrine to the local anaesthetic solution, especially when doses of levobupivacaine of >1.5 mg kg(-1) are required. Recommendations regarding the maximum allowable doses of local anaesthetics should consider population analysis to determine safer dosage ranges.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Cases of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) periodically occur following transversus abdominal plane (TAP) blocks. The aim of this study was to characterize levobupivacaine absorption pharmacokinetics, with and without epinephrine, and estimate the risk of LAST, based on a previously reported toxic threshold. METHODS: Previously reported data from 11 volunteers receiving ultrasound-guided TAP blocks with and without epinephrine on two independent occasions were analysed. Serial venous concentrations were measured for 90 min. A pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using the NONMEM statistical programme. The use of epinephrine in the solution was included in the analysis of covariates. The associated risk of LAST symptoms associated with different levobupivacaine dose schemes with and without epinephrine was estimated in 1000 simulated subjects. RESULTS: A one-compartment first-order input and elimination model adequately fit the levobupivacaine data. Epinephrine prolonged the levobupivacaine absorption half-life {4.22 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.53-6.50] vs. 7.02 [95 % CI 3.74-14.1]; p < 0.05} and reduced its relative bioavailability (0.84; 95 % CI 0.72-0.97; p < 0.05) The derived model predicts that levobupivacaine dose schemes should be halved from 3 mg kg(-1) body weight with epinephrine to 1.5 mg kg(-1) without epinephrine to obtain a comparable risk of anaesthetic toxicity symptoms of approximately 0.1 %. CONCLUSIONS: Our results strongly support the addition of epinephrine to the local anaesthetic solution, especially when doses of levobupivacaine of >1.5 mg kg(-1) are required. Recommendations regarding the maximum allowable doses of local anaesthetics should consider population analysis to determine safer dosage ranges.
Authors: Douglas J Eleveld; Johannes H Proost; Anthony R Absalom; Michel M R F Struys Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Marcia A Corvetto; Ghislaine C Echevarría; Natalia De La Fuente; Loreto Mosqueira; Sandra Solari; Fernando R Altermatt Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Mariska Y M Peeters; Karel Allegaert; Heleen J Blussé van Oud-Alblas; Massimo Cella; Dick Tibboel; Meindert Danhof; Catherijne A J Knibbe Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Henrik Torup; Anja U Mitchell; Torben Breindahl; Egon G Hansen; Jacob Rosenberg; Ann M Møller Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Manoj K Karmakar; Anthony M-H Ho; Bonita K Law; April S Y Wong; Steven L Shafer; Tony Gin Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Jan Matek; Stanislav Cernohorsky; Stanislav Trca; Zdenek Krska; David Hoskovec; Jan Bruthans; Martin Sima; Pavel Michalek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 4.241