Comparison of bupivacaine- and ropivacaine-induced conduction blockade in the isolated rabbit vagus nerve

Ropivacaine (LEA-103) is a new amino-amide local anesthetic agent the chemical structure and anesthetic properties of which are similar to bupivacaine. Preliminary studies in animals indicate that the CNS toxicities of ropivacaine and bupivacaine are similar, but that ropivacaine may have less arrhy...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Anesthesia and analgesia 1989-06, Vol.68 (6), p.724-727
Hauptverfasser: BADER, A. M, DATTA, S, FLANAGAN, H, COVINO, B. G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Ropivacaine (LEA-103) is a new amino-amide local anesthetic agent the chemical structure and anesthetic properties of which are similar to bupivacaine. Preliminary studies in animals indicate that the CNS toxicities of ropivacaine and bupivacaine are similar, but that ropivacaine may have less arrhythmogenic effects than bupivacaine. The current study arrhythmogenic effects than bupivacaine. The current study was designed to compare the in vitro potency, onset and recovery from block of ropivacaine and bupivacaine using an isolated rabbit vagus nerve model. The effect of varying concentrations of ropivacaine and bupivacaine on the compound action potential of A and C nerve fibers was assessed to determine whether motor and sensory fibers have different sensitivities to the two agents. The results showed that the depressant effect of bupivacaine was 16% greater than that of ropivacaine on motor fibers, but only 3% greater on sensory fibers. An analysis of variance indicated that this was a statistically significant difference (P = 0.028). Thus, at the concentrations tested, ropivacaine appears to produce relatively less blockade of motor fibers than does bupivacaine but with similar sensory blockade. The onset of this difference became significant as early as five minutes after the drug exposure was begun. No significant differences in recovery times were observed.
ISSN:0003-2999
1526-7598
DOI:10.1213/00000539-198906000-00005