4.4 Article

Stable plasma concentrations of unbound ropivacaine during postoperative epidural infusion for 24-72 hours in children

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 410-417

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1017/S0265021507003146

关键词

anaesthesia conduction, epidural block; postoperative period; anaesthetics local, ropivacaine; pharmacokinetics, plasma concentrations; analgesia, postoperative; nerve block, continuous epidural infusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: The aim of this open, non-controlled, multi-centre study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of a 24-72 h continuous epidural ropivacaine infusion in children aged 1-9 yr. Methods: After induction of general anaesthesia, 29 ASA I-II children, scheduled for major surgery in dermatomes below T10 had lumbar epidural catheters placed. A bolus of ropivacaine, 2 mg kg(-1) was given over 4 min, followed immediately by an infusion of 2 mg mL(-1) ropivacaine 0.4 mg kg(-1) h(-1) for the next 24-72 h. Results: Plasma concentrations of total ropivacaine (mean 0.83 and 1.06 mg L(-1) at 16-31 and 59-72 h, respectively) and (alpha(1)-acid-glucoprotein (mean 13 and 25 mu mol L(-1) at baseline and 59-72 h) increased over the course of the infusion. Plasma concentrations of unbound ropivacaine were stable throughout the epidural infusion (mean 0.021 range 0.011-0.068 and mean 0.016 range 0.009-0.023 mg L(-1) at 16-31 and 59-72 h, respectively) and were well below threshold levels associated with central nervous system toxicity in adults (0-35 mg L(-1)). Apparent unbound clearance (mean 346, range 86-555 mL min(-1) kg(-1)) showed no age-dependency. No signs of systemic toxicity or cardiovascular effects were observed. All patients received additional analgesics with morphine. Conclusion: Following a 24-72 h epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.4 mg kg(-1) h(-1) in 1-9-yr-old children, the plasma concentrations of unbound ropivacaine were stable over time with no age-dependency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据