CSF and plasma pharmacokinetics of pethidine and norpethidine in man after epidural and intrathecal administration of pethidine

Epidural, Intrathecal Pharmacokinetics, and Intrathecal Bioavailability of Ropivacaine

BACKGROUND

Ropivacaine is used by the epidural route for postoperative pain management with various neuraxial techniques. Given the widespread use of these techniques and the relative paucity of data on spinal disposition of local anesthetics, we evaluated through an experimental animal model, the spinal disposition of ropivacaine, allowing further studies of factors influencing their intrathecal bioavailability.

METHODS

Sheep received an IV bolus dose of ropivacaine (50 mg), and 1 wk after, an intrathecal dose of ropivacaine (20 mg) followed 3 h later by epidural ropivacaine (100 mg). A simultaneous microdialysis technique was used to measure epidural and intrathecal drug concentrations after both epidural and intrathecal administrations.

RESULTS

Absorption-time plots showed a large variability in the systemic absorption after both intrathecal and epidural administration, with an apparent faster systemic absorption after intrathecal administration. In the intrathecal space, the elimination clearance was around three-times higher than the distribution clearance. In the epidural space, the relative contribution of elimination and distribution to ropivacaine disposition was different, indicating a more pronounced influence of the distribution process. The intrathecal bioavailability after epidural administration was 11.1% +/- 7.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an animal model, we showed that drug dispositions in the intrathecal and epidural compartments are different, and that the intrathecal bioavailability of ropivacaine after epidural administration is low, and highly variable.

Plasma concentrations of meperidine and normeperidine following continuous intrathecal meperidine in patients with neuropathic cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal administration of meperidine, an opioid with local anesthetic activity, can induce analgesia in patients with intractable cancer pain. However, continuous intrathecal administration may result in the accumulation of normeperidine, responsible for central nervous system toxicity.

METHODS

Ten patients with neuropathic cancer pain, not responding to conventional opioid therapy, were treated with continuous intrathecal administration of meperidine. In all patients, plasma concentrations of meperidine and normeperidine were measured the first days after the start of treatment. Visual analog scale scores were recorded to evaluate pain relief. Quality of life was assessed before and 3 weeks following the start of intrathecal treatment.

RESULTS

In three patients the plasma concentrations of meperidine and normeperidine increased rapidly. In one patient the plasma normeperidine concentration was higher than the meperidine concentration. One patient demonstrated transient symptoms suggestive for central nervous system excitation. Three weeks following the start of treatment, seven patients were available for evaluation of their quality of life. Pain relief and overall quality of life improved during the intrathecal treatment.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that continuous intrathecal administration of meperidine alone, or in combination with clonidine, can provide significant pain relief in patients with poor pain control despite pharmacological treatment. However, accumulation of meperidine and normeperidine resulting in central nervous system toxicity may occur during this treatment.

N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor channel block by meperidine is dependent on extracellular pH

Large concentrations of meperidine inhibit N-methyl-D-aspartate-(NMDA) receptor channels by channel block mechanisms. Extracellular pH regulates the activity and drug sensitivity of NMDA-receptor channels. We examined the influence of extracellular pH on sensitivity to meperidine of epsilon/zeta heteromeric NMDA-receptor channels expressed in Xenopus oocytes. Inhibition of epsilon1/zeta1, epsilon2/zeta1, epsilon3/zeta1, and epsilon4/zeta1 channels by meperidine was dependent on pH, with more inhibition at acidic pH and less inhibition at alkaline pH. The degree of voltage-dependence of meperidine block was only slightly affected by changes in pH, whereas affinity for meperidine was greatly reduced at alkaline pH. Furthermore, interaction of meperidine with Mg(2+) block was reduced at alkaline pH. Because the percentage of the protonated form of meperidine is only slightly affected by pH, changes in properties of the meperidine binding site may be involved in mechanisms of alteration of meperidine potency by pH.

IMPLICATIONS

At acidic pH the potency of meperidine for N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor channels was increased. Any antinociceptive and neuroprotective benefit from the N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor antagonist property of meperidine may be pH dependent.

Adding low dose meperidine to spinal lidocaine prolongs postoperative analgesia

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of the addition of low dose meperidine to spinal lidocaine on the sensory and motor blockade profile, and the quality and duration of postoperative analgesia.

METHODS

In a randomized double blind prospective dose finding study 40 patients undergoing transurethral prostatectomy with spinal anesthetic were allocated to receive 75 mg lidocaine 5% intrathecally as the sole agent (group A), or co-administered with 0.15 mg x kg(-1) meperidine (group B) or 0.30 mg x kg(-1) meperidine (group C). Sensory and motor blockade profiles were documented. Postoperatively, the amount of analgesics required, time to first analgesic, visual analogue scores and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Sensory blocks at or above T10 was maintained for 128, 156 and 145 minutes in groups A, B and C respectively. There was no difference in the latency or duration of the motor block among the three groups. Patients in group C had lower visual analogue pain scores (VAPS) over time than did those in groups A and B (P < 0.05). Time to first analgesia was longer (429 +/- 197 minutes) in group C than in group A (254 +/- 157 minutes) (P < 0.05). Fewer patients in group C required parenteral opioid postoperatively than in group A (P < 0.05). The incidence of bradycardia was higher in the groups receiving meperidine. No symptoms of transient radicular irritation (TRI) were reported in the groups receiving meperidine.

CONCLUSION

The addition of 0.3 mg x kg(-1) of meperidine to spinal lidocaine prolongs postoperative analgesia without delaying discharge from post anesthetic care unit (Table II) and reduces the requirement for parenteral analgesics (Table III).

Epidural pethidine: pharmacology and clinical experience

Pethidine is an effective epidural opioid for the treatment of acute pain. Its use has been well described in Australian and New Zealand practice, particularly in the field of obstetric anaesthesia. Reported methods of delivery have included bolus injection, continuous infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Areas of application have included treatment of postoperative pain, labour pain and intraoperative pain. Because of its intermediate lipid solubility, pethidine may have advantages over many other epidural opioids. However, potential for accumulation of norpethidine limits its use to relatively short durations of treatment.

Intrathecal pethidine: pharmacology and clinical applications

Pethidine is the only member of the opioid family that has clinically important local anaesthetic activity in the dose range normally used for analgesia. Pethidine is unique as the only opioid in current use that is effective as the sole agent for spinal anaesthesia. In lower doses, intrathecal pethidine is also an effective analgesic for treating pain in labour. This paper reviews the pharmacology of intrathecal pethidine and clinical experience reported to date. Articles reviewed include those identified by a Medline search using keywords "intrathecal" or "spinal anaesthesia/ anesthesia" and "pethidine" or "meperidine". Reference lists from identified papers were scrutinized to identify further relevant articles.

Continuous intrathecal meperidine via an implantable infusion pump for chronic, nonmalignant pain

OBJECTIVE

To report a continuous infusion of intrathecal meperidine via an implanted infusion pump for nonmalignant, chronic pain.

CASE SUMMARY

A 69-year-old white woman had chronic, nonmalignant low-back pain and bilateral leg pain. Multiple drug therapies and other interventional techniques had failed. The patient achieved significant pain relief by a continuous infusion of intrathecal meperidine via an implanted infusion pump.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first report of meperidine administered intrathecally by continuous infusion. Continuous infusion of intrathecal and epidural opiates by implanted infusion pumps is becoming more widely recognized as an alternative treatment for patients with chronic, benign pain. Epidural and intrathecal meperidine is an effective analgesic for short-term surgical procedures. Data reporting effective relief and safety with continuous intrathecal meperidine remain limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous intrathecal meperidine via an implantable infusion pump may be an effective alternative in the treatment of chronic pain.

A comparison of the local anesthetic effects of meperidine, fentanyl, and sufentanil on dorsal root axons

The local anesthetic effects of opioids have been demonstrated in both clinical and laboratory studies. Clinically, both meperidine and sufentanil can produce segmental sensory anesthesia. However, previous studies of the effects of opioids on nerve conduction have all made use of peripheral nerve preparations and yielded conflicting results. In the present study we describe the local anesthetic effects of phenylpiperidine opioids on individual dorsal root axons, the probable target for intrathecal local anesthetics. Dorsal roots were removed from anesthetized adult male rats and maintained in vitro. Standard single fiber recording techniques were used to isolate activity in the individual axons. Drug exposure was accomplished by perfusing the isolated dorsal root with an artificial cerebrospinal fluid containing the study drug at a clinically relevant concentration. Steady-state drug effects were measured after 15-30 min of exposure and compared to control measurements in the same preparation. Meperidine (705 microM) blocked conduction in 61.5% of 39 myelinated and unmyelinated axons, and significantly reduced conduction velocity in the remaining unblocked axons. These effects were not naloxone reversible. Fentanyl (0.6 microM and 3 microM) and sufentanil (1.04 microM) failed to affect the nerve conduction in any dorsal root axon. The discrepancy between laboratory and clinical observations is discussed. We suggest that the site of conduction block may occur at the proximal end of the dorsal root as it passes through the dorsal root entry zone, an anatomically unique segment of the primary sensory pathway with decreased conduction safety for action potential propagation.

Postthoracotomy pulmonary function: a comparison of epidural versus intravenous meperidine infusions

It has remained unclear whether epidural opioid analgesia permits better recovery of postthoracotomy pulmonary function than an optimal method of systemic opioid administration. Lumbar epidural meperidine infusions were compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesic (PCA) meperidine infusions in a prospective randomized unblinded study for 72 hours postthoracotomy. Before induction of general anesthesia, patients received a bolus of meperidine, 1 mg/kg, and an infusion of meperidine, 0.33 mg/kg/hr, was started via either a lumbar epidural or intravenous catheter. Postoperatively, the meperidine infusion rates were titrated as needed for analgesia. In addition, the intravenous group received meperidine, 10 mg per dose, as required, from a patient-controlled analgesia pump. No other opioid was administered during the study period. Patients were studied for recovery of spirometric tests of pulmonary function, visual analog pain scores, sedation, arterial blood gases, meperidine dose requirements, radiographic pulmonary complications, and neurologic signs and symptoms. A subgroup of 10 patients (5 from each group) had venous blood samples drawn every 24 hours for 96 hours and assayed for serum meperidine and normeperidine concentrations. Epidural meperidine analgesia was associated with improved postthoracotomy pulmonary function, better analgesia scores, and lower meperidine dose requirements than intravenous PCA meperidine. There were no differences between the epidural versus intravenous PCA subgroups with respect to serum meperidine or normeperidine levels. Normeperidine levels greater than 300 ng/mL were associated with an increased incidence of shakiness and/or tremors. Meperidine provides satisfactory postthoracotomy analgesia via a lumbar epidural infusion. This analgesia is associated with improved recovery of postoperative pulmonary function when compared with an intravenous PCA meperidine infusion.

The cerebrospinal fluid and plasma pharmacokinetics of sufentanil after thoracic or lumbar epidural administration

The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma pharmacokinetics of sufentanil were studied in 29 adult patients undergoing thoracotomy under general anesthesia. Sufentanil, 75 micrograms, diluted in 10 mL saline, was given preoperatively in either the lumbar or thoracic epidural space to 14 and 15 patients, respectively. Lumbar CSF and plasma were frequently sampled for 10 h and analyzed for sufentanil concentration by radioimmunoassay. In plasma, the area under the concentration curve (AUC) did not differ between the groups. The fraction of the lumbar epidural dose found in CSF was calculated to be 2.7%. The time to peak CSF sufentanil concentration differed (P < 0.01) after epidural administration in the lumbar (0.76 +/- 0.50 h) and thoracic (2.1 +/- 1.4 h) region. In the lumbar group, the AUC and Cmax values in CSF were 19 (P < 0.01) and 45 (P < 0.01) times higher than in plasma, and 4.7 (P < 0.01) and 8.2 (P < 0.001) times higher than in CSF in the thoracic group. The decline in sufentanil concentration was more rapid in CSF than plasma; in the lumbar group the CSF/plasma concentration-ratio was eight and five at 6 and 10 h, respectively, after sufentanil administration. This study shows that after epidural administration sufentanil concentrations are higher in CSF than in plasma, and are highly localized within CSF to the site of administration.