Article Text

Download PDFPDF
0.25% bupivacaine–1% lidocaine vs 0.5% bupivacaine for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block: a randomized controlled trial
  1. Germán Aguilera1,
  2. Camilo Tabilo2,
  3. Álvaro Jara3 and
  4. Julián Aliste3
  1. 1Anesthesia, Hospital de San Carlos, San Carlos, Chile
  2. 2Hospital de San Carlos, San Carlos, Chile
  3. 3Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
  1. Correspondence to Dr Germán Aguilera, Anesthesia, Hospital de San Carlos, San Carlos, 3840511, Chile; german.aguilera{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction In an effort to shorten onset time, a common practice is to add lidocaine to bupivacaine. In the setting of infraclavicular block, it is unclear what the block characteristics of this practice are compared with bupivacaine alone. We hypothesized that bupivacaine alone increases the duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia while resulting in a slower onset time compared with a bupivacaine and lidocaine mixture.

Methods 40 patients receiving ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block were randomly assigned to receive either 35 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 1% lidocaine or 0.5% bupivacaine, both associated with perineural adjuvants (epinephrine 5 µg/mL and dexamethasone 4 mg). After the block was performed, a blinded observer evaluated the success of the block, the onset time, and the incidence of surgical anesthesia. Postoperatively, a blinded observer contacted patients who had successful blocks to inquire about the duration of motor block, sensory block, postoperative analgesia, and the presence of rebound pain.

Results When comparing patients having bupivacaine alone versus bupivacaine and lidocaine, the mean (SD) motor block duration was 28.4 (5.2) vs 18.9 (3.1) hours, respectively; the mean difference 9.5 hours (95% CI 6.5 to 12.4; p<0.001); the mean (SD) sensory block duration was 29.3 (5.8) vs 18.7 (4.0) hours, respectively; the mean difference 10.6 hours (95% CI 7.1 to 14.0; p<0.001); the mean (SD) postoperative analgesia duration was 38.3 (7.4) vs 24.3 (6.6) hours, respectively; the mean difference 14 hours (95% CI 9.2 to 18.8; p<0.001); and the median (IQR) onset time was 35 (15) vs 20 (10) min, respectively; p<0.001. No other significant differences were detected.

Conclusions Compared with mixed bupivacaine–lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine significantly prolongs sensorimotor block and postoperative analgesia at the expense of a delayed onset time.

Trial registration number NCT05834023.

  • Brachial Plexus
  • REGIONAL ANESTHESIA
  • Nerve Block
  • analgesia

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @GerAguileraC, @AlisteJulian

  • Contributors GA: study design, block performer, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing and editing. He is the guarantor of this trial. CT: data collection and analysis, manuscript writing and editing. AJ: study design, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing. JA: study design, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.