4.6 Article

Determination and Comparison of Graded Dose-Response Curves for Epidural Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine for Analgesia in Laboring Nulliparous Women

Journal

ANESTHESIOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue 2, Pages 445-453

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181bdf9da

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China [2040834]
  2. departmental funds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The potencies of bupivacaine and ropivacaine have been compared using up-and-down methodology, but their complete dose-response curves have not been compared. The authors performed a random allocation-graded dose-response study of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine given epidurally for labor analgesia. Methods: Three hundred laboring nulliparous patients were randomly given epidural bupivacaine (5, 10, 15, 20, 30, or 40 mg) or ropivacaine (7, 15, 20, 30, 45, or 60 mg) in 20 ml of saline. Visual Analog Scale pain scores were recorded for 30 min. Response was defined by the percentage decrease in pain score from baseline at 30 min, and dose-response data were analyzed by using nonlinear regression. Results: Sigmoidal E-max model dose-response curves were fitted to the datasets for bupivacaine (R-2 = 0.53) and ropivacaine (R-2 = 0.59). The curves had similar steepness (Hill coefficient 2.02 [95% CI, 1.55-2.50] vs. 2.25 [1.70-2.79], P = 0.55). The ED50 (dose of the drug that reduces pain score to 50% of baseline at 30 min, also known as D-50) of ropivacaine was greater than that of bupivacaine (15.3 [95% CI 13.7-17.1] mg vs. 11.3 [10.0-12.7] mg, P = 0.0003), but ED90 (D-90) was similar (40.6 [32.4-51.1] mg vs. 33.4 [26.2-42.7] mg, P = 0.29). The potency ratio at ED50 for ropivacaine: bupivacaine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.65-0.88). Conclusions: Ropivacaine is less potent than bupivacaine, but otherwise they have similar dose-response characteristics. The difference in potency is not statistically significant at ED90 doses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available