Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management logoLink to Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
. 2008 Apr;4(2):381–392. doi: 10.2147/tcrm.s1433

Update on local anesthetics: focus on levobupivacaine

Crina L Burlacu 1, Donal J Buggy 1
PMCID: PMC2504073  PMID: 18728849

Abstract

In recent years levobupivacaine, the pure S (−)-enantiomer of bupivacaine, emerged as a safer alternative for regional anesthesia than its racemic parent. It demonstrated less affinity and strength of depressant effects onto myocardial and central nervous vital centers in pharmacodynamic studies, and a superior pharmacokinetic profile. Clinically, levobupivacaine is well tolerated in a variety of regional anesthesia techniques both after bolus administration and continuous postoperative infusion. Reports of toxicity with levobupivacaine are scarce and occasional toxic symptoms are usually reversible with minimal treatment with no fatal outcome. Yet, levobupivacaine has not entirely replaced bupivacaine in clinical practice. In anesthesia and analgesia practice, levobupivacaine and bupivacaine produce comparable surgical sensory block with similar adverse side effects, and equal labor pain control with comparable maternal and fetal outcome. The equipotency of the two drugs has been recently questioned, prompting clinicians to increase the dose of levobupivacaine in an attempt to ensure adequate anesthesia and analgesia and offsetting, therefore, the advantages of less motor block with levobupivacaine. In this review we aim to discuss the pharmacological essentials of the safer profile of levobupivacaine, and analyze the evidence regarding the current clinical indications.

Keywords: regional anesthesia, levobupivacaine, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, therapeutic use

Reports of fatalities through cardiovascular toxic effects after regional anesthesia with bupivacaine in the late 1970s (Albright 1979) triggered pharmacological research that emphasized the selective behavior of the two enantiomers of racemic bupivacaine, ie, levo- or S (−)-bupivacaine and dextro- or R (+)-bupivacaine, once in contact with biological receptors in the body. Levo-enatiomer appeared to have a safer pharmacological profile than its dextro-partner. Efforts were intensified to synthesize a pure S (−)-bupivacaine enantiomer, and Chirocaine® (levobupivacaine) Injection (Darwin Discovery Ltd., distributed by Purdue Pharma LP, Connecticut, US) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1999. Ropivacaine (Naropin® (ropivacaine HCL) injection, Astra Zeneca Int., distributed by Abraxis BioScience, California, US), another pure S (−)-enantiomer, became also available as an alternative to the racemic mixture for regional anesthesia. This review discusses the pharmacological rationale behind the safer profile of levobupivacaine, and its up-to-date use in anesthesia. The descriptors bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and dextrobupivacaine are used for the racemic mixture and its selective enatiomers, respectively.

Pharmacodynamic foundation of the lesser cardiovascular and central nervous toxicity of levobupivacaine

In common to all local anesthetics levobupivacaine reversibly blocks the transmission of action potential in sensory, motor and sympathetic nervous fibers by inhibiting the passage of sodium through voltage-sensitive ion channels in the neuronal membrane. Whereas the inhibitory action is intended to be localized at the site of administration, excessive doses or accidental intravascular injection may lead to activity at the level of other ion channels in excitable tissues followed by unwanted central nervous and cardiovascular adverse effects. The current pharmacodynamic evidence from animal and human studies suggests that levobupivacaine has a potentially greater margin of safety than the racemic bupivacaine.

Cardiovascular toxicity

Levobupivacaine demonstrated less affinity and strength of inhibitory effect onto the inactivated state of cardiac sodium channels than the racemic parent or dextrobupivacaine in in vitro animal tissue experimental studies (Vanhouette et al 1991; Valenzuela et al 1995a). It also showed less depressant effect on the atrioventricular conduction (Graf et al 1997) and QRS complex duration (Mazoit et al 2000), and provoked less impairment of the contractile function of the isolated animal heart (Simonetti and Fernandes 1997). Levobupivacaine was also less potent in blocking cloned human heart sodium and potassium channels (Valenzuela et al 1995b; Nau et al 2000).

Similarly, in vivo animal studies showed that the cardio-toxic dose of intravenous bupivacaine and its pure S (−)-enantiomers followed the order ropivacaine >levobupivacaine >bupivacaine (Huang et al 1998; Ohmura et al 2001). The estimated mean (standard deviation) fatal dose through severe arrhythmias after intravenous administration of levobupivacaine in sheep is 277 (51) mg, which is significantly larger than the fatal dose of bupivacaine of 156 (31) mg (Chang et al 2000). In regards to the reversibility of cardio-toxic effects, evidence is less clear. It was shown in anaesthetized open chest dogs receiving a continuous infusion of local anesthetic until cardiovascular collapse that animals receiving bupivacaine were more likely to have a fatal outcome than animals receiving levobupivacaine and ropivacaine but the differences were not significant (Groban et al 2001). In another study, there was no difference in the number of successfully resuscitated anaesthetized rats after the administration of bupivacaine, levobupivacaine or ropivacaine (Ohmura et al 2001). However, less epinephrine was required for the successful resuscitation of rats receiving ropivacaine than those receiving levobupivacaine or bupivacaine.

Central nervous toxicity

The uptake of bupivacaine by the central nervous cells is also enantio-selective. For example, experiments in anesthetized rats receiving arrhythmogenic intravenous doses of levobupivacaine or dextrobupivacaine showed a less rapid blockage of the cell firing in the nucleus tractus solitarius after levobupivacaine than after dextrobupivacaine (Denson et al 1992). All animals receiving dextrobupivacaine developed apnea and died whereas those receiving levobupivacaine continued to breathe and all but two survived.

The mean (standard deviation) convulsive dose after intravenous levobupivacaine in conscious sheep is 103 (18) mg, significantly higher than the convulsive dose of bupivacaine of only 85 (11) mg (Huang et al 1998). The convulsive dose of ropivacaine is 155 mg (Nancarrow et al 1989). The susceptibility for seizure activity after intoxication with levobupivacaine and ropivacaine is 1.5–2.5 times less than that after racemic bupivacaine (Groban 2003).

In human volunteers studies, the mean dose of intravenous levobupivacaine and bupivacaine associated with central nervous system symptoms was similar, ie, 56–68 mg and 48–65 mg, respectively (Bardsley et al 1998; Nimmo 1998). At this similar dose, levobupivacaine showed significantly less myocardial contractility and atrio-ventricular conduction depressant effect than bupivacaine.

Pharmacokinetic foundation of the lesser cardiovascular and central nervous toxicity of levobupivacaine

In human volunteers studies, the volume of distribution and overall clearance of levobupivacaine was significantly lower than that of dextrobupivacaine (Burm et al 1994). Nevertheless, the pharmacokinetics of the unbound fraction of levobupivacaine accounts for its less toxicity. The unbound fraction of levobupivacaine was significantly lower than that of unbound dextrobupivacaine because of its increased protein-binding affinity. Together with a higher clearance of the unbound levobupivacaine, this explains the shorter elimination half-life of levobupivacaine while the volume of distribution of both unbound drug was similar (Burm et al 1994). An increase in postoperative levels of alpha-1-glycoprotein (Dauphin et al 1997) that binds large amounts of levobupivacaine, may further explain the lack of toxicity even when large volumes of racemic bupivacaine were administered in clinical studies (Berrisford et al 1993; Blake et al 1994; Mather et al 1995). No clinical signs of cardio-vascular toxicity were demonstrated despite consistent significantly higher total plasma concentrations of levobupivacaine vs dextrobupivacaine.

Various factors such as site of administration, duration of continuous infusion and/or addition of agents with vasomotor effect may influence the degree of systemic uptake of levobupivacaine. For example, the administration of levobupivacaine in paravertebral anesthesia and analgesia was characterized by rapid absorption after bolus injection and progressive accumulation after continuous infusion with maximum plasma concentrations at 24 hours (Burlacu et al 2007). A similar rapid absorption from the paravertebral space was reported in other studies (Berrisfort et al 1993; Perttunen et al 1995), fortunately without clinical signs of toxicity. The addition of epinephrine decreased peak plasma levels of levobupivacaine after epidural analgesia (Kopacz et al 2001). In research carried out by our own group, the addition of clonidine to low concentration levobupivacaine (0.05%) was followed by a more erratic pattern of systemic absorption of levobupivacaine from the paravertebral space, which, although did not reach toxic levels, may raise concerns of increased potential for toxicity due to the combined vasodilator effects of the two drugs (Burlacu et al 2007).

Clinical toxicity and tolerability

Regardless of the type of regional blockade with levobupivacaine, 78% of patients may experience at least one adverse effect such as hypotension (20%), nausea (12%), postoperative pain (18%), fever (17%), vomiting (14%), anemia (12%), pruritus (9%), back pain (8%), headache (7%), constipation (7%), dizziness (6%) and fetal distress (5%) (Purdue Pharma L.P.1999). The incidence of adverse events with levobupivacaine was similar to that after bupivacaine in comparative trials.

The early clinical presentation of toxicity after levobupivacaine appears to consist of central nervous symptoms (disorientation, drowsiness, slurred speech), which may culminate with tonic-clonic seizures in some cases (Kopacz and Allen 1999a; Pirotta and Spriqqe 2002; Khan and Atanassoff 2003; Crews and Rothman 2003; Breslin et al 2003). These excitatory symptoms are generally self-limiting, or respond easily to anticonvulsant treatment. In anaesthetized patients, however, sudden cardiovascular collapse may emerge which appears to be relatively easily treated with moderate doses of sympathomimetics (Salomaki et al 2005).

Levobupivacaine in current regional anesthesia practice for surgery

Spinal anesthesia

Because of the small doses of local anesthetic used for subarachnoid administration, systemic toxicity is not a problem. Not surprisingly therefore, bupivacaine remains the most widely and cost-efficient long acting local anesthetic used in spinal anesthesia. A surgical sensory and motor block of similar characteristics and recovery over equal dose ranges of levobupivacaine and bupivacaine was demonstrated in healthy volunteers (Alley et al 2002) and confirmed in surgical patients (Glaser et al 2002; Lee et al 2003; Casati et al 2004a; Fattorini et al 2006) (Table 1). The regression of motor block was significantly more rapid after levobupivacaine and ropivacaine than bupivacaine in a study by Casati and colleagues, which may be advantageous for early ambulation after day-case surgery (Casati et al 2004a).

Table 1.

Summary of patient studies that used levobupivacaine in spinal anesthesia

Reference Dose/concentration No. of patients Type of surgery Onset time of sensory block, mean (SD) or median (range), min Maximum (range) sensory dermatome level Duration of sensory block mean (SD) or median (range), min Complete sensory block (% patients) Onset time of motor block mean (SD) or median (range), min Duration of motor block mean (SD) or median (range), min Complete motor block (% patients) Outcome (time to void), min
Burke et al 1999a 3 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 20 Varicose veins surgery 2 (2–10) T8 (T4–L3) 388 (295–478) 90% 5 (2–10) 266 (170–415) 95%
Glaser et al 2002 3.5 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 39 Hip surgery 11 (6) T8 228 (77) 100% 10 (7) 280 (84) 100%
3.5 mL bupivacaine 0.5% 40 13 (8) T8 237 (88) 100% 9 (7) 284 (80) 100%
Lee et al 2003 2.6 mL levobupivacine 0.5% 24 Urological surgery 10 (6) T7 (T3–T10) 37%
2.6 mL bupivacaine 0.5% 26 8 (4) T8 (T3–T10) 49%
Breebaart et al 2003 10 mg levobupivacaine 20 Ambulatory knee arthroscopy 8 (6) T10 (C8–L1) 173 (47) 97% 137 (40) 74% 284 (57)
15 mg ropivacaine 20 7 (4) T11 (T3–L2) 167 (49) 97% 142 (44) 85% 285 (65)
60 mg lidocaine 20 6 (4) T10 (T3–L2) 145 (30)a 94% 127 (29) Regression at 180 min 85% 245 (65)a
Casati et al 2004a 8 mg hyperbaric levobupivacaine 0.5% 20 Inguinal hernia repair 10 (5) T8 (T12–L5) 210 (63) 100% 84% 100% 255 (58)
8 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% 20 10 (4) T6 (T12–L5) 190 (51) 100% 55%c 100% 298 (68)
12 mg ropivacaine 0.5% 20 10 (6) T5 (T10–L2) 166 (42)b 100% 95% 100% 302 (48)
Cappelleri et al 2005 7.5 mg hyperbaric levobupivacaine 0.5% 30 Ambulatory knee arthroscopy 11 (10–16) T8 (T7–9) 162 (148–201) 100% 238 (221–276)
5 mg hyperbaric levobupivacaine 0.5% 30 10 (9–12) T10 (T7–10) 150 (136–185) 97% 190 (181–247)e
7.5 mg hyperbaric ropivacaine 0.5% 31 10 (9–13) T9 (T8-L1) 135 (126–154)d 97% 189 (126–154)e
Lee et al 2005 2.6 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 25 Urological surgery 8 (4.5) T6 (T3–T10) 96%
2.3 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% + 15 μg fentanyl 25 7.4 (2.8) T7 (T4–T10) 84%
Fattorini et al 2006 3 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 29 Hip or knee 12 (6) T8 (4–12) 391 (96) 69% 11 (6) 256 (86) 86%
3 mL bupivacaine 0.5% 30 replacement surgery 9 (5) T8 (4–12) 381 (105) 82% 8 (4) 245 (86) 100%
Open in a new tab
a

p < 0.05 lidocaine vs levobupivacaine and ropivacaine;

b

p < 0.05 ropivacaine vs levobupivacaine and bupivacaine;

c

p < 0.05 bupivacaine vs levobupivacaine and ropivacaine;

d

p < 0.05 ropivacaine vs levobupivacaine 7.5 mg;

e

p < 0.05 ropivacaine and levobupivacaine 5 mg vs levobupivacaine 7.5 mg.

Traditionally, the dose of levobupivacaine used for spinal anesthesia is 15 mg. This dose provides an adequate sensory and motor block for most surgical procedures lasting approximate 6.5 hours (Burke et al 1999a). An up-and-down sequential design study recommends a minimum effective local anesthetic dose (MLAD) of levobupivacaine 11.7 mg (Sell et al 2005). Smaller doses (ie, 5–10 mg) have been used in ambulatory surgery, and allow a more rapid recovery and subsequent discharge home (Breebaart et al 2003, Capelleri et al 2005). The addition of fentanyl 15 μg demonstrate a sparing effect on the requirement of levobupivacaine while maintaining excellent clinical efficacy with less hemodynamic variation (Lee et al 2005) (Table 1).

Epidural anesthesia and analgesia

Table 2 presents a summary of studies regarding the use of levobupivacaine in epidural anesthesia and analgesia for surgery. The onset of sensory block (8–30 min), maximum upper spread (T7-T8 after L2-L3 or L3-L4 lumbar injection) and duration (4–6 hours) are similar after equal doses of levobupivacaine and bupivacaine (15 mL 0.5%) (Cox et al 1998a; Casati et al 2003a). The onset of motor block is slower with levobupivacaine (Kopacz et al 2000), and its quality follows the rank of order bupivacaine >levobupivacaine >ropivacaine (Cox et al 1998a; Kopacz et al 2000; Casati et al 2003a; Peduto et al 2003). The duration of motor block, however, appears to be similar (Cox et al 1998a; Kopacz et al 2000; Peduto et al 2003). Increasing the concentration of levobupivacaine (ie, 15 mL 0.75% vs 0.5%) prolongs the duration of sensory and motor block without increasing the incidence of adverse side effects (Cox et al 1998a). However increasing both volume and concentration to 20 mL levobupivacaine 0.75% is associated with a high incidence of hypotension (82%) and delayed block regression (Kopacz et al 2000).

Table 2.

Summary of research investigating the quality of surgical epidural block after levobupivacaine

Reference Dose/concentration and technique No. of patients Type of surgery Onset time to surgical block, mean (SD) or median (range), min Maximum sensory dermatome level Duration of sensory block; mean (SD) or median (range), min or h Onset time of motor block; mean (SD) or median (range), min Duration of motor block; mean (SD or range), min or h Completeness of motor block (% patients) Adverse events(arterial hypotension)
Cox et al 1998a 15 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 29 Lower limb 8 (5) T8 (T2–12) 377 (128) 25 (23) 185 (122) 62% Hypotension in 18 patients evenly distributed
15 mL levobupivacaine 0.75% 30 6 (4) T8 (C6–T11)T7 460 (111)a 27 (30) 256 (99)
15 mL bupivacaine 0.5% 29 7 (4) (C6–L2) 345 (107) 17 (7) 192 (74)
Casati et al 2003a 15 (10–18) levobupivacaine 0.5% + CEI levobupivacaine 0.125% 5 mL/h + PCEA 2 mL bolus, lockout 20 min 15 Hip replacement 31 (16) T7 (T10–T4) 214 (61) 80
14 (10–18) mL bupivacaine 0.5% + CEI bupivacaine 0.125% 5 mL/h + PCEA 2 mL bolus, lockout 20 min 15 25 (19) T6 (T10–T4) 213 (53) 100
15 (10–18) mL ropivacaine 0.5% + CEI ropivacaine 0.2% 5 mL/h + PCEA 2 mL bolus, lockout 20 min 15 30 (24) T6 (T10–T4) 233 (34) 60b
Kopacz et al 2000 20 mL levobupivacaine 0.75% 28 Lower abdominal 13 (10–18) T5–T6 550.6 (87.6)c Delayed by levobupivacaine 355.4 (83.4) 28% 82%
20 mL bupivacaine 0.75% 28 13 (7–21) T5–T6 505.9 (71) 375.7 (99.2) 25% 61%
Peduto et al 2003 15 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 35 Lower limb 29 (24) 185 (77) 105 (63) 33% 3%
15 mL ropivacaine 0.75% 30 25 (22) 201 (75) 95 (48) 11% 12%
Murdoch et al 2002 10–15 mL levobupivacaine 0.75%+ CEI levobupivacaine 0.0625% 6 mL/h 32 Hip or knee replacement 8.1 (5.0) 3e 8%e
10–15 mL levobupivacaine 0.75% + CEI levobupivacaine 0.125% 6 mL/h 32 9.5 (7.0) 4 25%
10–15 mL levobupivacaine 0.75% + CEI levobupivacaine 0.25% 6 mL/h 32 16.7 (8.3)d 7 22%
Senard et al 2004 PCEA 0.1% levobupivacaine + CEI 0.1 mg/h morphine 25 Major abdominal surgery T4–T5 4 20%
PCEA 0.1% ropivacaine + CEI 0.1 mg/h morphine 25 T4–T5 4 20%
Open in a new tab
a

p < 0.05 levobupivacaine 0.75% vs levobupivacaine 0.5% and bupivacaine 0.5%;

b

p < 0.05 ropivacaine vs levobupivacaine and bupivacaine;

c

p = 0.01 levobupivacaine vs bupivacaine;

d

p < 0.001 CEI levobupivacaine 0.25% vs levobupivacaine 0.125% and levobupivacaine 0.0625%;

e

p < 0.002 CEI levobupivacaine 0.0625% vs levobupivacaine 0.25%.

Abbreviations: CEI, continuous epidural infusion; PCEA, patient controlled epidural analgesia.

A better way to control the quality and duration of epidural block with levobupivacaine without excessive motor block and hemodynamic consequences is via continuous epidural infusion. It was shown that a continuous epidural infusion is associated with excellent postoperative analgesia and similar recovery of sensory and motor function after equipotent doses of levobupivacaine, bupivacaine and ropivacaine (Casati et al 2003a). The spread, quality and haemodynamic effects are also similar after equal doses of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine, self-administered via postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia, but ropivacaine-receiving patients appear to ambulate earlier (Senard et al 2004).

The effective dose of epidural levobupivacaine for continuous postoperative analgesia approaches 15 mg/hour (Murdoch et al 2002). The concentration of levobupivacaine solution determines the quality of analgesia, ie, 0.25% 6 mL/hour providing better analgesia than same volume more diluted solutions (0.125% and 0.0625%), although some prolongation of the motor blockade may be expected with more concentrated solutions (Murdoch et al 2002). Dernedde and colleagues encourage the use of large concentration-small volume epidural infusion (ie, 3 mL/h levobupivacaine 0.5% or 2 mL/hour levobupivacaine 0.75%) which provide similar quality of analgesia as the small concentration-large volume infusion (10 mL/hour levobupivacaine 0.15%) but with less motor block and significantly increased hemodynamic stability (Dernedde et al 2003a,b, 2006). In regards to the mode of delivery, patient-controlled epidural top-ups offer the advantage of equal quality analgesia with that after continuous infusion, but with less consumption of local anesthetic and better motor function (Dernedde et al 2005, 2006). Furthermore, the self-administration of levobupivacaine 15 mg either as low concentration large volume (1.5 mg/mL, bolus 3.3 mL, lockout 20 min) or high concentration small volume (5 mg/mL, 1 mL bolus, lockout 20 min) provides an equal quality of analgesia with no difference in the incidence of side effects (Dernedde et al 2005).

The addition of adjunctive agents (epinephrine, opioids or clonidine) to levobupivacaine in epidural anesthesia and analgesia may increase the duration and quality of analgesia, and further decrease the risk of toxicity. Epinephrine does not significantly influence the onset, spread and duration of sensory and motor epidural block, or the systemic absorption of levobupivacaine (Kopacz et al 2001). The addition of opioids (fentanyl, morphine) to levobupivacaine improves analgesia compared to levobupivacaine- or opioid-only infusions (Kopacz et al 1999b; Crews et al 1999). It also decreases the risk of local anesthetic toxicity by allowing the use of a small dose levobupivacaine (5–10 mg/hour) and a decline in self-administered analgesia requirements (Kopacz et al 1999b; Crews et al 1999). For example, with combined morphine background infusion (0.1 mg/hour), the effective analgesic dose of levobupivacaine ranges from 8 to 9 mg/hour during the first 24 hours and 7 mg/hour thereafter (Senard et al 2004). Similar improved analgesia and local anesthetic sparing-effect is noticed when clonidine (8 μg/mL) is added to small volume dilute levobupivacaine epidural infusions (0.125% 6 mL/hour) (Milligan et al 2000). The motor block tends to be denser with clonidine and some degree of arterial hypotension is expected, rarely of clinical importance (Milligan et al 2000).

Peripheral nerve blocks

Table 3 summarizes published studies comparing the characteristics of peripheral nerve blocks with levobupivacaine, bupivacaine and ropivacaine. A sensory and motor block of similar onset (6–10 min) and duration (14–16 hours) followed the administration of an equal dose of levobupivacaine 0.5% or bupivacaine 0.5% in brachial plexus nerve blocks (Cox et al 1998b; Liisanantti et al 2004; Duma et al 2005). As expected for larger diameter nerves, the onset time of sciatic nerve block is delayed to approximate 25–30 min, but the average duration remains 14–16 hours (Casati et al 2002a; Urbanek et al 2003). The quality of sensory and motor block appears to be similar in most studies after equal doses of levobupivacaine and bupivacaine (Cox et al 1998b, Casati et al 2002a,b, 2003b, 2005; Urbanek et al 2003). Ropivacaine 0.5% gives a less profound motor block than levobupivacaine and bupivacaine (Casati 2003b; Liisanantti et al 2004). Higher concentrations of levobupivacaine, ie, 0.5%–0.75% speed up the onset, and increase the duration and quality of peripheral nerves blockade (Cox et al 1998b; Urbanek et al 2003; Casati et al 2005). Similar to epidural analgesia, continuing the administration of levobupivacaine via a peripheral nerve block continuous catheter is associated with excellent postoperative analgesia as demonstrated by a significant decline in the postoperative systemic opioids requirements (Kean et al 2006).

Table 3.

Summary of published research using levobupivacaine in single-shot or continuous infusion in peripheral nerve blocks

Reference Dose/concentration No. of patients Type of peripheral nerve block Onset sensory block ; mean (SD) or median (range), min Success rate% Duration of sensory block; mean (SD) or median (range), min or h Onset motor block; mean (SD) or median (range), min Duration of motor block; mean (SD) or median (range), min or h Satisfactory motor block % 24 h local anesthetic consumption in continuous infusion; median (range), mL Postoperative rescue analgesia consumption/24 h; % or n patients
Cox et al 1998b 0.4 mL/kg levobupivacaine 0.25% 25 Brachial plexus (supraclavicular) 7 (6) 100% 892 (250) 9 (17) 847 (246) 68%
0.4 mL/kg levobupivacaine 0.5% 26 6 (5) 92% 1039 (317) 5 (5) 1050 (325) 80%
0.4 mL/kg bupivacaine 0.5% 23 8 (8) 91% 896 (284) 6 (6) 933 (205) 74%
Casati et al 2003b 30 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% + PCA levobupivacaine 0.125% 6 mL/h; Brachial plexus (interscalene) 24 h complete regression
2 mL bolus; lockout 15 min 25 20 (15–45) 92% >90% 80% at 4 ha 147 (144–196) 47%
30 mL ropivacaine 0.5% + PCA ropivacaine 0.2% 6 mL/h; 2 mL bolus; lockout 15 min 25 20 (10–40) 96% >90% 60% at 4 h 162 (144–248)b 55%
Liisanantti et al 2004 45 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 30 Brachial plexus (axillary) 57% 17.1 (6.5) 30% 21
45 mL bupivacaine 0.5% 30 77% c 17.8 (7.2) 47% 22
45 mL ropivacaine 0.5% 30 83% c 15.0 (5.4) 67%d 26
Duma et al 2005 40 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 20 Brachial plexus (axillary) 10 (5–60) 1083 (785–1680) 10 (5–120)
40 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% + clonidine 150 μg 20 5 (5–60) 1365 (705–2465) 10 (5–180)
40 mL bupivacaine 0.5% 28 10 (5–60) 1063 (600–1310) 10 (5–60)
40 mL bupivacaine 0.5% + clonidine 150 μg 20 10 (5–60) 1040 (520–2380) 30 (5–60)
Piangatteli et al 2006 30 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 15 Brachial plexus (infraclavicular) 13.46 (1.06) 11.40 (2.2) he 19.33(2.58) 42 (0.8) he
30 mL ropivacaine 0.75% 15 14.20 (1.17) 10.26 (1.38) h 20.20 (2.39)f 8.33 (1.48) h
Casati et al 2002b 20 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 25 Sciatic nerve 30 (5–60) 92% 16 (8–24) 13 (4–22) 12%
20 mL ropivacaine 0.5% 25 15 (5–60) 96% 16 (8–24) 12 (6–20) 16%
Casati et al 2004b 30 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% + levobupivacaine 0.2% 6 mL/h 20 Continous sciatic nerve (popliteal) 34 (17) 24 h complete regression 35% 150(144–200) 5.5%
30 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% + levobupivacaine 0.125% 6 mL/h 20 32 (15) 95% g 148(144–164) 11%
30 mL ropivacaine 0.5% + ropivacaine 0.2% 6 mL/h 20 28 (15) 85% g 148(144–228) 27%
Piangatteli et al 2004 30 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 40 Lumbar + sciatic (30/10 mL) 10.63 (1.39) 15.52 (2.78) 12.17 (1.69)
30 mL ropivacaine 0.75% 40 Lumbar + sciatic (30/10 mL) 17.15 (2.87)h 14.80 (1.91) 12.30 (1.60)
Casati et al 2002a 20 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 15 Sciatic nerve 32 (5) 94% 814 (96) 716 (80)
20 mL bupivacaine 0.5% 15 35 (5) 94% 790 (110) 761 (112)
Casati et al 2005 20 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 15 Sciatic nerve 30 (5–60)i 75% 16 (13–20)j 8k
20 mL levobupivacaine 0.75% 15 5 (5–40) 100% 18 (15–19)j 3
20 mL ropivacaine 0.75% 15 20 (5–50) 87% 13 (11–14) 9k
Urbanek et al 2003 20 mL levobupivacaine 0.5% 20 3-in-1 block 24 (18–30) 80% l 1001 (844–1158)m
20 mL levobupivacaine 0.25% 20 30 (23–36) 45% 707 (551–863)
20 mL bupivacaine 0.5% 20 27 (20–33) 80% l 1053 (802–1304)m
Open in a new tab
a

p = 0.003 levobupivacaine vs ropivacaine;

b

p = 0.02 ropivacaine vs levobupivacaine;

c

p < 0.01 ropivacaine and bupivacaine vs levobupivacaine;

d

p < 0.01 ropivacaine vs levobupivacaine and bupivacaine;

e

p < 0.05 levobupivacaine vs ropivacaine;

f

p < 0.05 ropivacaine vs levobupivacaine;

g

p = 0.0005 ropivacaine 0.2% and levobupivacaine 0.125% vs levobupivacaine 0.2%;

h

p < 0.05 ropivacaine vs levobupivacaine;

i

p = 0.02 levobupivacaine 0.5% vs levobupivacaine 0.75%;

j

p = 0.002 levobupivacaine 0.5% and levobupivacaine 0.75% vs ropivacaine 0.75%;

k

p = 0.05 levobupivacaine 0.5% and ropivacaine 0.75% vs levobupivacaine 0.75%;

l

p = 0.02 levobupivacaine 0.5% and bupivacaine 0.5% vs levobupivacaine 0.25%;

m

p = 0.01 levobupivacaine 0.5% and bupivacaine 0.5% vs levobupivacaine 0.25%.

Adding adjunctive analgesics such as epinephrine, clonidine or opioids to local anesthetic are also used to increase the quality of analgesia and improve safety by decreasing the requirements of levobupivacaine. The long duration of sensory and motor peripheral blockade after levobupivacaine of approximate 14–16 hours diminish the clinical importance of adding epinephrine to levobupivacaine. However, epinephrine may help decrease the potential for systemic toxicity in case of overdose by decreasing systemic absorption through vasoconstriction or by signaling the accidental intravascular injection. The addition of clonidine to levobupivacaine in axillary plexus or psoas compartment was not followed by any significant effect on block’s characteristics and postoperative analgesic requirements (Duma et al 2005; Mannion et al 2005). In contrast, our group found a significant decrease in postoperative systemic morphine use when clonidine was added to levobupivacaine in continuous paravertebral nerve block (Burlacu et al 2006). Similarly, we found that the addition of fentanyl to levobupivacaine is also followed by excellent analgesia as demonstrated by a significant decrease in rescue morphine analgesia. Furthermore, we demonstrated that clonidine and fentanyl had a strong local anesthetic sparing effect, as the concentration of levobupivacaine (0.05%) used for continuous infusion was the lowest ever used in paravertebral block (Burlacu et al 2006).

Levobupivacaine in obstetric anesthesia and analgesia

Spinal anesthesia for caesarean section

The concept of pharmacological equipotency of levobupivacaine and bupivacaine was challenged in several dose-finding studies in obstetric patients receiving spinal anesthesia for caesarean section. For example, Khaw and colleagues found that levobupivacaine is 38% less potent than bupivacaine, with an ED50 and ED95 values of 9.3 and 13.6 mg vs 6.8 and 9.8 mg, respectively (Khaw et al 2004). Parpaglioni and colleagues estimated a similar ED95 levobupivacaine of 12.56 mg, whereas the ED95 ropivacaine was 15.97 mg (Parpaglioni et al 2006). The above potency hierarchy ie, bupivacaine >levobupivacaine > ropivacaine was confirmed in clinical studies in caesarean section patients (Gautier et al 2003; Buyse et al 2007). Based on these studies and our own experience, we recommend that levobupivacaine 12.5–13.5 mg should be used for successful spinal anesthesia for caesarean section. A test dose of 10 mg levobupivacaine is sufficient to confirm at 5 min the accidental intrathecal placement of an epidural-intended catheter (Camorcia et al 2004).

Analgesia for labor

Minimum effective local anesthetic concentration (MLAC) studies using a combined spinal-epidural analgesia technique (CSE) for labor also confirm the potency arrangement bupivacaine >levobupivacaine >ropivacaiane for spinal sensory block (Camorcia et al 2005). However, the above hierarchy is not so clear in regards to epidural only analgesia for labor. Up-and-down sequential allocation studies in patients receiving epidural analgesia for labor pain show that levobupivacaine and bupivacaine on one side (Lyons et al 1998), and levobupivacaine and ropivacaine on the other side (Polley et al 2003; Benhamou et al 2003) are equipotent. One would reasonably assume that the three local anesthetics are equipotent. Intriguingly however, in other similar design studies (Polley et al 1999; Capogna et al 1999), ropivacaine was found to be 40% to 50% less potent than bupivacaine. The minimum effective local anesthetic concentration of levobupivacaine for motor block (MMLAC) is significantly greater than that of bupivacaine indicating that levobupivacaine is less potent at motor block than bupivacaine when administered in epidural analgesia for labor (Lacassie and Columb 2003).

The relative potency of the three most commonly used drugs in obstetric anesthesia remains to be further elucidated, but the current evidence from MLAC and MMLAC studies suggest a potency hierarchy of bupivacaine >levobupivacaine >opivacaine. However, the epidural and spinal MLAC or MMLAC studies estimate the concentration at which only 50% of laboring patients will have adequate pain control with minimal motor block. In clinical practice, anesthetists are inclined to administer larger doses of local anesthetic to ensure adequate pain relief in the majority of patients. Because of the variety of doses and adjunctive analgesics combinations used in clinical studies (Table 4), the rank of order established by the MLAC studies is not always easy to corroborate (Burke et al 1999b; Convery et al 1999; Purdie and McGrady 2004; Lim et al 2004a; Suspandji et al 2004).

Table 4.

Summary of clinical studies of epidural (with its versions ie single bolus, continuous infusion or patient-controlled epidural analgesia) and combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour.

Reference Dose/concentration No. Subjects Anesthetic technique Onset time of sensory block, mean (SD) or median (range), min Maximum sensory dermatome level Duration of sensory block mean (SD) or median (range), min Successful sensory block (% patients) Modified Bromage > 0 (% patients) Maternal arterial hypotension (% patients)
Burke et al 1999b 10 mL levobupivacaine 0.25% 68 10 mL epidural bolus + 12 (5–39) T8 49 (3–129) 85% 16% 11%
10 mL bupivacaine 0.25% 69 10 mL top-ups 12 (2–50) T9 51 (7–157) 91% 17% 7%
Convery et al 1999 10 mL levobupivacaine 0.25% 38 10 mL epidural bolus + Similar 43.3% Less motor block with levobupivacaine
10 mL bupivacaine 0.25% 42 CEI 0.125% 12 mL/h + 43.7%
10 mL 0.25% top-ups
Supandji et al 2004 10 mL levobupivacaine 0.2% 20 10 mL epidural bolus T8 (6–10) 90.50 (31.72) 100% 20% 0
10 mL ropivacaine 0.2% 20 T8 (6–10) 103.30 (37.52) 100% 30% 0
Purdie and McGrady 2004 15 mL levobupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 μg/mL 28 15 mL epidural bolus; 38 (19–51) T6 (3–11) 34 (25–50) 32% 32%
15 mL ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 μg/mL 26 PCEA 5 mL; lockout 5 min 30 (15–45) T8 (4–11) 35 (20–37) 30% 50%
Lim et al 2004a 2.5 mg levobupivacaine 20 CSE 5 T4 (1–9) 51.5 (3.4) 100% 0% 5%
2.5 mg bupivacaine 20 5 T3 (1–8) 76.3 (5.9)a 100% 25%a 5%
2.5 mg ropivacaine 20 5 T4 (1–9) 52.6 (4.0) 100% 10% 0%
Lim et al 2004b 2.5 mg levobupivacaine 20 CSE; CEI levobupivacaine T4 (1–9) 361 (66) 43.8% 15% 0%
2.5 mg levobupivacaine + 25 μg fentanyl 20 0.125% with fentanyl 2 μg/mL T3 (1–8) 530 (65)b 87.5%b 25% 15%
Chang and Chiu 2004 2.5 mg levobupivacaine + fentanyl 25 μg 20 CSE 15 T4 (2–10) 101.4 (26.64) 95% 75%c 10%
1.25 mg levobupivacaine + fentanyl 12.5 μg 20 15 T4 (3–10) 90.6 (28.03) 100% 25% 5%
Soetens et al 2006 Levobupivacaine 0.125% + sufentanyl 2.5 μg/mL + 1:800000 epinephrine 34 CEI 10 mL/h + 10 mL mixture top-up 88% d 50% 6%
Levobupivacaine 0.125% + sufentanyl 2.5 μg/mL 33 66% 27% 9%
Open in a new tab
a

p < 0.05 bupivacaine vs levobupivacaine and ropivacaine;

b

p < 0.05 levobupivacaine and fentanyl vs levobupivacaine only;

c

p < 0.01 levobupivacaine 2.5 mg with fentanyl 25 μg vs half dose of each;

d

p < 0.05 epinephrine group vs the other group.

Abbreviations: CEI, continuous epidural infusion; CSE, combined spinal-epidural; PCEA, patient-controlled epidural analgesia.

Table 4 also shows the results of several studies using levobupivacaine combined with opioids with or without epinephrine in epidural or CSE analgesia in labor. In particular, the addition of fentanyl to levobupivacaine prolongs the duration and increases the success rate of the sensory block after intrathecal administration in a CSE analgesia technique (Lim et al 2004b). A local anesthetic sparing effect of fentanyl is also demonstrated as intrathecal levobupivacaine 1.25 mg with fentanyl 12.5 μg was followed by effective analgesia with less motor block compared with a double dose of each drug (Chang and Chiu 2004). The addition of epinephrine to a mixture of levobupivacaine and opioid increased the success rate of sensory block but appeared to also increase the frequency of motor blockade (Soetens et al 2006).

In our experience, using an epidural bolus of 10 mL levobupivacaine 0.2%–0.25% followed by epidural infusions or top-ups of low concentrations levobupivacaine (ie, 0.1%–0.125%) combined with opioids based on institutionally designed protocols, provides the same good quality labor analgesia as bupivacaine, but possibly with less motor block. A combined spinal-epidural technique with intrathecal levobupivacaine 1.2–2.5 mg combined with small dose opioid (eg, fentanyl 12.5–25 μg) provides excellent prolonged sensory block with minimum motor blockade.

References

  1. Albright GA. Cardiac arrest following regional anesthesia with etidocaine or bupivacaine. Anesthesiology. 1979;51:285–7. doi: 10.1097/00000542-197910000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alley EA, Kopacz DJ, McDonald SB, et al. Hyperbaric spinal levobupivacaine:a comparison to racemic bupivacaine in volunteers. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:188–93. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200201000-00036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardsley H, Gristwood R, Baker H, et al. A comparison of the cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and rac-bupivacaine following intravenous administration to healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;46:245–9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1998.00775.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Benhamou D, Ghosh C, Mercier FJ. A randomized sequential allocation study to determine the minimum effective analgesic concentration of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in patients receiving epidural analgesia for labor. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:1383–6. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200312000-00022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berrisford RG, Sabanathan S, Mearns AJ, et al. Plasma concentrations of bupivacaine and its enantiomers during continuous extrapleural intercostal nerve block. Br J Anaesth. 1993;70:201–4. doi: 10.1093/bja/70.2.201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blake DW, Bjorksten A, Dawson P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of bupivacaine enantiomers during interpleural infusion. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1994;22:522–8. doi: 10.1177/0310057X9402200504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Breebaart MB, Vercauteren MP, Hoffmann VL, et al. Urinary bladder scanning after day-case arthroscopy under spinal anaesthesia:comparison between lidocaine, ropivacaine, and levobupivacaine. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90:309–13. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeg078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Breslin DS, Martin G, Macleod DB, et al. Central nervous system toxicity following the administration of levobupivacaine for lumbar plexus block:A report of two cases. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2003;28:144–7. doi: 10.1053/rapm.2003.50127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Burke D, Henderson DJ, Simpson AM, et al. Comparison of 0.25% S(–)-bupivacaine with 0.25% RS-bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labour. Br J Anaesth. 1999b;83:750–5. doi: 10.1093/bja/83.5.750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Burke D, Kennedy S, Bannister J. Spinal anesthesia with 0.5% S(–)-bupivacaine for elective lower limb surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1999a;24:519–23. doi: 10.1016/s1098-7339(99)90042-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Burlacu CL, Frizelle HP, Moriarty DC, et al. Fentanyl and clonidine as adjunctive analgesics with levobupivacaine in paravertebral analgesia for breast surgery. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:932–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04793.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Burlacu CL, Frizelle HP, Moriarty DC, et al. Pharmacokinetics of levobupivacaine, fentanyl and clonidine after administration in thoracic paravertebral analgesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2007;32:136–45. doi: 10.1016/j.rapm.2006.11.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Burm AG, van der Meer AD, van Kleef JW, et al. Pharmacokinetics of the enantiomers of bupivacaine following intravenous administration of the racemate. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;38:125–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1994.tb04335.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Buyse I, Stockman W, Columb M, et al. Effect of sufentanil on minimum local analgesic concentrations of epidural bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in nullipara in early labour. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007;16:22–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2006.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Camorcia M, Capogna G, Lyons G, et al. Epidural test dose with levobupivacaine and ropivacaine:determination of ED(50)motor block after spinal administration. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92:850–3. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeh155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Camorcia M, Capogna G, Columb MO. Minimum local analgesic doses of ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for intrathecal labor analgesia. Anesthesiology. 2005;102:646–50. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200503000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Capogna G, Celleno D, Fusco P, et al. Relative potencies of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for analgesia in labour. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:371–3. doi: 10.1093/bja/82.3.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cappelleri G, Aldegheri G, Danelli G, et al. Spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for outpatient knee arthroscopy:a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:77–82. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000155265.79673.56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Casati A, Borghi B, Fanelli G, et al. A double-blinded, randomized comparison of either 0.5% levobupivacaine or 0.5% ropivacaine for sciatic nerve block. Anesth Analg. 2002b;94:987–90. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200204000-00039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Casati A, Borghi B, Fanelli G, et al. Interscalene brachial plexus anesthesia and analgesia for open shoulder surgery:a randomized, double-blinded comparison between levobupivacaine and ropivacaine. Anesth Analg. 2003b;96:253–9. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200301000-00051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Casati A, Chelly JE, Cerchierini E, et al. Clinical properties of levobupivacaine or racemic bupivacaine for sciatic nerve block. J Clin Anesth. 2002a;14:111–4. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(01)00364-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Casati A, Moizo E, Marchetti C, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of unilateral spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine, ropivacaine, or levobupivacaine for inguinal herniorrhaphy. Anesth Analg. 2004a;99:1387–92. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000132972.61498.F1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Casati A, Santorsola R, Aldegheri G, et al. Intraoperative epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia with levobupivacaine for major orthopedic surgery: a double-blind, randomized comparison of racemic bupivacaine and ropivacaine. J Clin Anesth. 2003a;15:126–31. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(02)00513-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Casati A, Vinciguerra F, Cappelleri G, et al. Levobupivacaine 0.2% or 0.125% for continuous sciatic nerve block:a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison with 0.2% ropivacaine. Anesth Analg. 2004b;99:919–23. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000129977.44115.93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Casati A, Vinciguerra F, Santorsola R, et al. Sciatic nerve block with 0.5% levobupivacaine, 0.75% levobupivacaine or 0.75% ropivacaine:a double-blind, randomized comparison. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:452–6. doi: 10.1017/s0265021505000773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Chang SY, Chiu JW. Intrathecal labor analgesia using levobupivacaine 2.5 mg with fentanyl 25 μg – would half the dose suffice? Med Sci Monit. 2004;10:110–114. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Chang DH, Ladd LA, Wilson KA, et al. Tolerability of large-dose intravenous levobupivacaine in sheep. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:671–9. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200009000-00033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Convery P, Burke D, Donaldson L, et al. A comparison of 0.125% levobupivacaine and 0.125% bupivacaine epidural infusions for labor analgesia (abstract) Int J Obst Anesth. 1999;8:196. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cox CR, Checketts MR, Mackenzie N, et al. Comparison of S(–)-bupivacaine with racemic (RS)-bupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Br J Anaesth. 1998b;80:594–8. doi: 10.1093/bja/80.5.594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Cox CR, Faccenda KA, Gilhooly C, et al. Extradural S(–)-bupivacaine:comparison with racemic RS-bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth. 1998a;80:289–93. doi: 10.1093/bja/80.3.289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Crews JC, Hord AH, Denson DD, et al. A comparison of the analgesic efficacy of 0.25% levobupivacaine combined with 0.005% morphine, 0.25% levobupivacaine alone, or 0.005% morphine alone for the management of postoperative pain in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:1504–9. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199912000-00035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Crews JC, Rothman TE. Seizure after levobupivacaine for interscalene brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg. 2003;96:1188–90. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000053235.07186.39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Dauphin A, Gupta RN, Young JE, et al. Serum bupivacaine concentrations during continuous extrapleural infusion. Can J Anaesth. 1997;44:367–70. doi: 10.1007/BF03014455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Denson DD, Behbehani MM, Gregg RV. Enatiomer-specific effects of an intravenously administered arrhythmogenic dose of bupivacaine on neurons of the nucleus tractus solitarius and cardiovascular system in anesthetised rat. Reg Anesth. 1992;17:311–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Dernedde M, Stadler M, Bardiau F, et al. Comparison of different concentrations of levobupivacaine for post-operative epidural analgesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003a;47:884–90. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.2003.00182.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Dernedde M, Stadler M, Bardiau F, et al. Continuous epidural infusion of large concentration/small volume versus small concentration/large volume of levobupivacaine for postoperative analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2003b;96:796–801. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000048977.66133.D5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Dernedde M, Stadler M, Bardiau F, et al. Comparison of 2 concentrations of levobupivacaine in postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia. J Clin Anesth. 2005;17:531–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2005.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Dernedde M, Stadler M, Bardiau F, et al. Low vs high concentration of levobupivacaine for post-operative epidural analgesia:influence of mode of delivery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:613–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.001004.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Duma A, Urbanek B, Sitzwohl C, et al. Clonidine as an adjuvant to local anaesthetic axillary brachial plexus block:a randomized, controlled study. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:112–6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aei009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Fattorini F, Ricci Z, Rocco A, et al. Levobupivacaine versus racemic bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in orthopaedic major surgery. Minerva Anestesiol. 2006;72:637–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gautier P, De Kock M, Huberty L, et al. Comparison of the effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine and bupivacaine for Caesarean section. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:684–9. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeg251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Glaser C, Marhofer P, Zimpfer G, et al. Levobupivacine versus racemic bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:194–8. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200201000-00037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Graf BM, Martin E, Bosnjak ZJ, et al. Stereospecific effect of bupivacaine isomers on atrioventricular conduction in isolated perfused guinea pig heart. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:410–9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199702000-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Groban L. Central nervous system and cardiac effects from long-acting amide local anesthetic toxicity in the intact animal model. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2003;28:3–11. doi: 10.1053/rapm.2003.50014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Groban L, Deal DD, Vernon JC, et al. Cardiac resuscitation after incremental overdosage with lidocaine, bupivacaine,levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine in anesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:37–43. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200101000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Huang YF, Pryor ME, Mather LE, et al. Cardiovascular and central nervous system effects of intravenous levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in sheep. Anesth Analg. 1998;86:797–804. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199804000-00023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kean J, Wigderowitz CA, Coventry DM. Continuous interscalene infusion and single injection using levobupivacaine for analgesia after surgery of the shoulder. A double-blind, randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1173–7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B9.17412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Khan H, Atanassoff PG. Accidental intravascular injection of levobupivacaine and lidocaine during the transarterial approach to the axillary brachial plexus. Can JAnaesth. 2003;50:95. doi: 10.1007/BF03020200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Khaw K, Ngan Kee WD, Ng F, et al. Dose-finding comparison of spinal levobupivacaine and bupivacaine for caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2004;13:S17. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kopacz DJ, Allen HW. Accidental intravenous levobupivacaine. Anesth Analg. 1999a;89:1027–9. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199910000-00038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Kopacz DJ, Allen HW, Thompson GE. A comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.75% with racemic bupivacaine for lower abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:642–8. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200003000-00026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kopacz DJ, Helman JD, Nussbaum CE, et al. A comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% with or without epinephrine for lumbar spine surgery. Anesth Analg. 2001;93:755–60. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200109000-00041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Kopacz DJ, Sharrock NE, Allen HW. A comparison of levobupivacaine 0.125%, fentanyl 4 microg/ml or their combination for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after major orthopedic surgery. Anesth Analg. 1999b;89:1497–503. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199912000-00034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Lacassie HJ, Columb MO. The relative motor blocking potencies of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine in labor. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:1509–13. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000083375.48151.FF. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lee YY, Muchhal K, Chan CK. Levobupivacaine versus racemic bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for urological surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2003;31:637–41. doi: 10.1177/0310057X0303100604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lee YY, Muchhal K, Chan CK, et al. Levobupivacaine and fentanyl for spinal anaesthesia:a randomized trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:899–903. doi: 10.1017/S0265021505001523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Lim Y, Ocampo CE, Sia AT. A comparison of duration of analgesia of intrathecal 2.5 mg of bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in combined spinal epidural analgesia for patients in labor. Anesth Analg. 2004a;98:235–9. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000094338.80430.C5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lim Y, Sia AT, Ocampo CE. Comparison of intrathecal levobupivacaine with and without fentanyl in combined spinal epidural for labor analgesia. Med Sci Monit. 2004b;10:187–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Liisanantti O, Luukkonen J, Rosenberg PH. High-dose bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in axillary brachial plexus block. Acta AnaesthesiolScand. 2004;48:601–6. doi: 10.1111/j.0001-5172.2004.00393.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Lyons G, Columb M, Wilson RC, et al. Epidural pain relief in labour:potencies of levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth. 1998;81:899–901. doi: 10.1093/bja/81.6.899. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Mannion S, Hayes I, Loughnane F, Murphy DB, et al. Intravenous but not perineural clonidine prolongs postoperative analgesia after psoas compartment block with 0.5% levobupivacaine for hip fracture surgery. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:873–8. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000143950.13939.7A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Mather LE, McCall P, McNicol PL. Bupivacaine enantiomer pharmacokinetics after intercostal neural blockade in liver transplantation patients. Anesth Analg. 1995;80:328–35. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199502000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Mazoit JX, Decaux A, Bouaziz H, et al. Comparative ventricular effect of racemic bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine on the isolated rabbit heart. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:784–92. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200009000-00028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Milligan KR, Convery PN, Weir P, et al. The efficacy and safety of epidural infusions of levobupivacaine with and without clonidine for postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:393–7. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200008000-00030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Murdoch JA, Dickson UK, Wilson PA, et al. The efficacy and safety of three concentrations of levobupivacaine administered as a continuous epidural infusion in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:438–44. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200202000-00040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Nancarrow C, Rutten AJ, Runciman WB, et al. Myocardial and cerebral drug concentrations and the mechanisms of death after fatal intravenous doses of lidocaine, bupivacaine, and ropivacaine in the sheep. Anesth Analg. 1989;69:276–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Nau C, Wang SY, Strichartz GR, et al. Block of human heart hH1 sodium channels by the enantiomers of bupivacaine. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:1022–33. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200010000-00026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Nimmo W. European Society of Anaesthesiologists. Barcelona, Spain: 1998. Evidence of improved safety over bupivacaine in human volunteers (abstract) [Google Scholar]
  69. Ohmura S, Kawada M, Ohta T, et al. Systemic toxicity and resuscitation in bupivacaine-, levobupivacaine-, or ropivacaine-infused rats. Anesth Analg. 2001;93:743–8. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200109000-00039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Parpaglioni R, Frigo MG, Lemma A, et al. Minimum local anaesthetic dose (MLAD) of intrathecal levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for Caesarean section. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:110–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04380.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Peduto VA, Baroncini S, Montanini S, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% with epidural ropivacaine 0.75% for lower limb procedures. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20:979–83. doi: 10.1017/s0265021503001583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Perttunen K, Nilsson E, Heinonen J, et al. Extradural, paravertebral and intercostal nerve blocks for post-thoracotomy pain. Br J Anaesth. 1995;75:541–7. doi: 10.1093/bja/75.5.541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Piangatelli C, De Angelis C, Pecora L, et al. Levobupivacaine versus ropivacaine in psoas compartment block and sciatic nerve block in orthopedic surgery of the lower extremity. Minerva Anestesiol. 2004;70:801–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Piangatelli C, De Angelis C, Pecora L, et al. Levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in the infraclavicular brachial plexus block. Minerva Anestesiol. 2006;72:217–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Pirotta D, Spriqqe J. Convulsions following axillary brachial plexus blockade with levobupivacaine. Anaesthesia. 2002;57:1187–9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2002.02860.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Polley LS, Columb MO, Naughton NN, et al. Relative analgetic potencies of ropivacine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labour. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:944–50. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199904000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Polley LS, Columb MO, Naughton NN, et al. Relative analgesic potencies of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for epidural analgesia in labor. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:1354–8. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200312000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Purdie NL, McGrady EM. Comparison of patient controlled epidural bolus administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.1% levobupivacaine, both with 0.0002% fentanyl, for analgesia during labour. Anesthesia. 2004;59:133–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.03582.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Purdue Pharma L.P. Chirocaine (levobupivacaine injection) prescribing information. Norwalk (CT), USA: 1999. [Google Scholar]
  80. Salomaki TE, Laurila PA, Ville J. Successful resuscitation after cardiovascular collapse following accidental intravenous infusion of levobupivacaine during general anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:1095–6. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200511000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Sell A, Olkkola KT, Jalonen J, et al. Minimum effective local anaesthetic dose of isobaric levobupivacaine and ropivacaine administered via a spinal catheter for hip replacement surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:239–42. doi: 10.1093/bja/aei015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Senard M, Kaba A, Jacquemin MJ, et al. Epidural levobupivacaine 0.1% or ropivacaine 0.1% combined with morphine provides comparable analgesia after abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:389–94. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000093389.80111.02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Simonetti MPB, Fernandes L. S(–)bupivacaine and RS(?)bupivacaine:a comparison of effects on the right and left atria of the rat. Reg Anesth. 1997;S22:58. [Google Scholar]
  84. Soetens FM, Soetens MA, Vercauteren MP. Levobupivacaine-sufentanyl with and without epinephrine during epidural labor analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:182–6. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000221038.46094.c0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Supandji M, Sia ATH, Ocampo CE. 0.2% ropivacaine and levobupivacaine provide equally effective epidural labour analgesia. Can J Anaesth. 2004;51:918–22. doi: 10.1007/BF03018891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Urbanek B, Duma A, Kimberger O, et al. Onset time, quality of blockade and duration of three-in-one blocks with levobupivacaine and bupivacaine. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:88–92. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000072705.86142.5D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Valenzuela C, Delpon E, Tamkun MM, et al. Stereoselective block of a human cardiac potassium channel (K v 1.5) by bupivacaine enantiomers. Biophys J. 1995b;69:418–27. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(95)79914-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Valenzuela C, Snyders DJ, Bennett PB, et al. Stereoselective block of cardiac sodium channels by bupivacaine in guinea pig ventricular myocytes. Circulation. 1995a;92:3014–24. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.92.10.3014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Vanhouette F, Vereecke J, Verbeke N, et al. Stereoselctive effects of the enantiomers of bupivacaine on the electrophysiological properties of the guinea-pig papillary muscle. Br J Pharmacol. 1991;103:1275–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1991.tb12336.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management are provided here courtesy of Dove Press

RESOURCES