Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clément, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Viale, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clément, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Viale, J. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2002, Vol. 88, No. 6 809-813
© 2002 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Clinical Investigations

Epidural analgesia with 0.15% ropivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 µg ml–1 versus 0.10% bupivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 µg ml–1: a double-blind comparison during labour

H. J. Clément*,1, L. Caruso1, F. Lopez1, F. Broisin1, M. Blanc-Jouvan1, E. Derré-Brunet1, A. Thomasson1, G. Leboucher2 and J. P. Viale1

1Department of Anaesthesiology, Hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, F-69004 Lyon, France. 2Department of Pharmacy, Hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, F-69004 Lyon, France*Corresponding author

Background. Ropivacaine has been claimed to produce less motor block than bupivacaine during epidural analgesia. However, this advantage has not been clearly confirmed in obstetric studies using low analgesic concentrations in a ratio close to that suggested to be equianalgesic.

Methods. This double-blind, randomized, prospective study was performed in 140 parturients who requested epidural analgesia. After a lumbar epidural catheter had been placed, patients received either 0.10% bupivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 µg ml–1 or 0.15% ropivacaine plus sufentanil 0.5 µg ml–1 followed by a continuous infusion. Additional boluses were used for inadequate levels of analgesia. Visual analogue pain scores, motor block, level of sensory block, supplementary boluses and main characteristics of labour were recorded.

Results. No differences were observed between the two groups for pain scores, total volume of anaesthetic solution used [59 (23) and 57 (24) ml in the bupivacaine and ropivacaine groups respectively], duration of labour, mode of delivery, side-effects or satisfaction score. The incidence of motor block was not statistically different between the groups (54 and 69% in the bupivacaine and ropivacaine groups respectively, P=0.07). However, when motor block occurred, survival analysis showed that it occurred sooner in the course of labour with ropivacaine compared with bupivacaine (log rank test, P=0.012).

Conclusion. Combined with sufentanil 0.5 µg ml–1, 0.10% bupivacaine and 0.15% ropivacaine produce effective and equivalent analgesia during labour, with similar incidences of motor block.

Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 809–13


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. B. Lee, W. D. Ngan Kee, F. F. Ng, T. K. Lau, and E. L. Y. Wong
Epidural Infusions of Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine for Labor Analgesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Obstetric Outcome
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2004; 98(4): 1145 - 1152.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.