| Literature DB >> 27531019 |
B Duncan X Lascelles1,2,3,4, Lesley C Rausch-Derra5, Jessica A Wofford5, Margie Huebner6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics are an important component of perioperative pain management, but the duration of action of available products is limited. We hypothesized that a single local infiltration of a novel bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension (AT-003) would provide clinically effective analgesia over a 72-h period. In a masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center pilot field study, dogs undergoing lateral retinacular suture placement for cranial cruciate insufficiency were randomly assigned to surgical site infiltration with AT-003 (5.3 mg/kg) or an equivalent volume of saline. Infiltration of the surgical site was done prior to closure. Primary outcome measure was the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-SF) assessed prior to surgery and at 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 30, 36, 48, 54, 60 and 72 h following surgery by trained individuals. Provision for rescue analgesia was employed. Repeated measures analysis of variance were utilized to test for possible differences between treatment groups and a success/failure analysis was also employed, based on the need for rescue analgesia.Entities:
Keywords: Bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension; Cruciate surgery; Dog; Pain
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27531019 PMCID: PMC4988028 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0798-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Study participant flow diagram
Per protocol population demographics of enrolled dogs in the AT-003 and saline placebo groups
| Characteristic | AT-003 ( | Saline placebo ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | Mean | 7.47 | 6.71 |
| Min, Max | 2.08, 13.33 | 1.00, 10.42 | |
| Weight (kg) | Mean | 26.54 | 22.57 |
| Min, Max | 3.2, 79.3 | 2.4, 44.8 | |
| Sex | Female | 0 | 0 |
| Female spayed | 13 | 11 | |
| Male | 1 | 0 | |
| Male castrated | 10 | 11 | |
Total mean (SEM) CMPS-SF scores by treatment group and time point
| Time point (hours) | AT-003 | Saline placebo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of dogs evaluated | Mean (+/SEM) CMPS-SF | Number of dogs evaluated | Mean (+/−SEM) CMPS-SF | |
| 0 | 24 | 1.58 (0.22) | 22 | 1.18 (0.20) |
| 2 | 24 | 4.38 (0.47) | 22 | 6.82 (0.72) |
| 4 | 22 | 3.36 (0.35) | 16 | 6.56 (0.82) |
| 8 | 21 | 4.24 (0.43) | 9 | 7.00 (1.11) |
| 12 | 19 | 4.21 (0.66) | 5 | 6.20 (1.93) |
| 24 | 14 | 3.50 (0.69) | 4 | 4.50 (1.32) |
| 30 | 11 | 2.64 (0.43) | 3 | 5.67 (1.20) |
| 36 | 10 | 2.20 (0.29) | 3 | 3.33 (1.20) |
| 48 | 10 | 2.30 (0.68) | 3 | 4.67 (2.19) |
| 54 | 9 | 2.44 (0.53) | 2 | 3.00 (2.00) |
| 60 | 9 | 2.00 (0.53) | 1 | 5.00 (NA) |
| 72 | 9 | 2.11 (0.48) | 2 | 2.00 (0.00) |
NA Not Applicable
Total Mean (SEM) Surgical Site Manipulation Scores by Treatment Group & Time Point
| Time point (hours) | AT-003 | Saline Placebo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of dogs evaluated | Mean surgical site manipulation (SEM) | Number of dogs evaluated | Mean surgical site manipulation (SEM) | |
| 0 | 24 | 0.42 (0.10) | 22 | 0.68 (0.21) |
| 2 | 24 | 1.13 (0.31) | 22 | 2.32 (0.30) |
| 4 | 22 | 0.95 (0.27) | 16 | 2.56 (0.32) |
| 8 | 21 | 1.33 (0.30) | 9 | 2.11 (0.45) |
| 12 | 19 | 1.47 (0.30) | 5 | 1.40 (0.51) |
| 24 | 14 | 1.43 (0.39) | 4 | 1.50 (0.50) |
| 30 | 11 | 0.82 (0.33) | 3 | 1.67 (0.67) |
| 36 | 10 | 0.70 (0.30) | 3 | 1.00 (1.00) |
| 48 | 10 | 0.90 (0.35) | 3 | 1.00 (1.00) |
| 54 | 9 | 0.67 (0.37) | 2 | 0.00 (0.00) |
| 60 | 9 | 0.33 (0.24) | 1 | 0.00 (NA) |
| 72 | 9 | 0.67 (0.29) | 2 | 0.00 (0.00) |
SEM standard error of the mean, NA not applicable
Summary results of the success/failure analysis. Dogs deemed failures in one time period were carried forward into the next time period, where they were also categorized as failures. The Odds of success (and 95 % Confidence Interval, CI) are tabulated
| Time interval | AT-003 | Saline placebo | Chi-square | Odds ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–24 h | Success | 19 (79.2 %) | 5 (22.7 %) | 0.0001 | 12.92 (3.18, 52.48) |
| Failure | 5 (20.8 %) | 17 (77.3 %) | |||
| 0–48 h | Success | 10 (41.7 %) | 3 (13.6 %) | 0.0349 | 4.52 (1.05, 19.54) |
| Failure | 14 (58.3 %) | 19 (86.4 %) | |||
| 0–72 h | Success | 9 (37.5 %) | 2 (9.1 %) | 0.0240 | 6.0 (1.13, 31.94) |
| Failure | 15 (62.5 %) | 20 (90.9 %) | |||
Fig. 2Study Protocol Outline
Surgical Site Manipulation scoring system. At each relevant assessment time point, the joint was gently palpated around the surgical incision, and then the joint was put through a passive range of motion, flexing and extending the joint
| Manipulate the joint through a normal range of motion, and score the patient as per below: | |
|---|---|
| Score | Response |
| 0 | Does not notice manipulation. |
| 1 | Orients to site on manipulation, does not resist. |
| 2 | Orients to site, may lick, slight objection to manipulation |
| 3 | Withdraws from manipulation, may vocalize, excessive licking |
| 4 | Tries to escape from manipulation, or prevent manipulation, may bite or show aggression. |