Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25977992›Full record

Trial reportAnesthesia and analgesia2015

A Comparison of Differences Between the Systemic Pharmacokinetics of Levobupivacaine and Ropivacaine During Continuous Epidural Infusion: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

Luciano Perotti, Maria Cusato, Pablo Ingelmo, Thekla Larissa Niebel, Marta Somaini, Francesca Riva, Carmine Tinelli, José De Andrés, Guido Fanelli, Antonio Braschi and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Anesthesia and analgesia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Application of a modified thoracoabdominal approach that avoids cutting open the costal portion of diaphragm during anterior thoracolumbar spine surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Luciano PerottiFrom the *Anesthesia and Intensive Care III, Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; †Unit of Clinical Pharmacokinetics in Transplant and Autoimmune Diseases, Infectious Diseases Department, Clinical Epidemiology and Biometric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; ‡Department of Anesthesia, Montreal Children's Hospital, Alan Edwards Research Center for Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; §Anesthesia and Intensive Care I, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; ∥Anesthesia and Intensive Care I. Ca'Granda Niguarda Hospital, Milano, and Università degli Studi of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy; ¶Anesthesia and Intensive Care I. San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy; #Department of Experimental Medicine. University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy; **Clinical Epidemiology and Biometric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; ††Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, General University Hospital, Valencia, Spain; ‡‡Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University of Parma, Parma, Italy; §§Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; ∥∥Unit of Clinical Pharmacokinetics in Transplant and Autoimmune Diseases, Infectious Diseases Department, Clinical Epidemiology and Biometric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; ¶¶Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Parma, Parma, Italy; and ##Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy; SIMPAR Group.
Maria Cusato
Pablo Ingelmo
Thekla Larissa Niebel
Marta Somaini
Francesca Riva
Carmine Tinelli
José De Andrés
Guido Fanelli
Antonio Braschi
Mario Regazzi
Massimo Allegri
University of Parma · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda · ITHospital General Universitario De Valencia · ESPoliclinico San Matteo Fondazione · ITUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpidural infusion of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine provides adequate postoperative pain management by minimizing side effects related to IV opioids and improving patient outcome. The safety profile of different drugs can be better estimated by comparing their pharmacokinetic profiles than by considering their objective side effects. Because levobupivacaine and ropivacaine have different pharmacokinetic properties, our aim was to investigate whether there is a difference in the pharmacokinetic variability of the 2 drugs in a homogeneous population undergoing continuous epidural infusion. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial study was designed to compare the pharmacokinetics of continuous thoracic epidural infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125% or ropivacaine 0.2% for postoperative pain management in adult patients who had undergone major abdominal, urological, or gynecological surgery. This study is focused on the evaluation of the coefficient of variation (CV) to assess the equivalence in the systemic exposure and interindividual variability between levobupivacaine and ropivacaine and, therefore, the possible differences in the predictability of the plasmatic concentrations of the 2 drugs during thoracic epidural infusion.

methodsOne hundred eighty-one adults undergoing major abdominal surgery were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized to receive an epidural infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125% + sufentanil 0.75 μg/mL or of ropivacaine 0.2% + sufentanil 0.75 μg/mL at 5 mL/h for 48 hours. The primary end point of this study was to analyze the variability of plasma concentration of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine via an area under the curve within a range of 15% of the CV during 48 hours of continuous epidural infusion. The CV shows how the concentration values of local anesthetics are scattered around the median concentration value, thus indicating the extent to which plasma concentration is predictable during infusion. Secondary end points were to assess the pharmacologic profile of the local anesthetics used in the study, including an analysis of mean peak plasma concentrations, and also to assess plasma clearance, side effects, pain intensity (measured with a verbal numeric ranging score, i.e., static Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] and dynamic NRS]), and the need for rescue doses.

resultsThe comparison between the 2 CVs showed no statistical difference: the difference between area under the curve was within the range of 15%. The CV was 0.54 for levobupivacaine and 0.51 for ropivacaine (P = 0.725). The plasma concentrations of ropivacaine approached the Cmax significantly faster than those of levobupivacaine. Clearance of ropivacaine decreases with increasing patient age. There were no significant differences in NRS, dynamic NRS scores, the number of rescue doses, or in side effects between groups.

conclusionsConsidering the CV, the interindividual variability of plasma concentration for levobupivacaine and ropivacaine is equivalent after thoracic epidural infusion in adults. We found a reduction in clearance of ropivacaine depending on patient age, but this finding could be the result of some limitations of our study. The steady-state concentration was not reached during the 48-hour infusion and the behavior of plasma concentrations of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine during continuous infusions lasting more than 48 hours remains to be investigated, because they could reach toxic levels. Finally, no differences in the clinical efficacy or in the incidence of adverse effects between groups were found for either local anesthetic.

Indexed as

AbdomenAgedAmidesAnesthetics, LocalArea Under CurveBupivacaineDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansInfusions, SpinalItalyLevobupivacaineMaleMetabolic Clearance RateMiddle AgedPain MeasurementAmidesAnesthetics, LocalBupivacaineLevobupivacaineRopivacaine

Identifiers

PMID25977992
PMCPMC4885546
OpenAlexW2423041871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.