No abstract

Long-acting local anaesthetics are primarily used in the practice of anaesthesia, particularly in regional anaesthesia and analgesia. Ropivacaine is a new long-acting local anaesthetic that has been the focus of interest because of its increased cardiovascular safety compared with bupivacaine. Other advantages of ropivacaine over bupivacaine include a greater sensorimotor differential block and shorter elimination half-life (t(1/2)), with a lower potential for accumulation. The most important attribute of ropivacaine, however, is its increased margin of safety compared with bupivacaine when given in equal doses. Many post-marketing studies have focused on the comparisons of efficacy in blocks and toxicity profiles of bupivacaine versus ropivacaine. Recent animal toxicity studies confirm the results of original studies showing that ropivacaine has less cardiovascular toxicity than bupivacaine with respect to direct myocardial depression, success of resuscitation and arrhythmogenic potential when given in equal doses. Reduced cardiotoxicity may be a distinct characteristic of ropivacaine. A review of current literature suggests that, at clinically relevant doses, ropivacaine provides the lowest potential risk of cardiotoxicity for inadvertent intravascular injection. Studies are currently under way comparing ropivacaine with levobupivacaine, the latest addition to the group of long-acting local anaesthetics.

Background: Studies suggest volatile anesthetics and opioids may enhance the malignant potential of cancer cells. The objective of this single institution retrospective study was to evaluate the survival impact of a multimodal opioid-sparing nonvolatile anesthetic technique (MA) in a group of patients who had undergone cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for appendiceal carcinomatosis. Methods: Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the survivals of patients who received MA (MA group), to those who received volatile-opioid anesthesia (volatile-opioid group). Results: Of the 373 patients, 110 (29%) were in the MA group and 263 (71%) in the volatile-opioid group. The MA group was older (mean ± standard deviation (SD): 55 ± 11 versus 53 ± 10 years, p ¼ .035) and had more patients with ASA scores 3 or 4 (90% versus 81%, p ¼ .032), and those with high grade tumors (18% versus 12%, p ¼ .009). Intraoperative opioid consumption was lower in the MA group (mean morphine equivalents ± SD: 13 ± 10 versus 194 ± 789, p < .0001). After PSM, 107 patients remained in each group. In the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model after PSM, MA was not associated with improved progression free survival (PFS) (HR 1.45, 95% CI [0.94-2.22], p ¼ .093) or overall survival (OS) (HR 1.66, 95% CI [0.86-3.20], p ¼ .128), when compared to volatile-opioid anesthesia. Conclusions: In this retrospective study, a multimodal opioid-sparing nonvolatile anesthetic approach was not associated with improved survival. Precis' statement: In this study of patients undergoing major cancer surgery, the use of multimodal anesthetic and analgesic agents, while avoiding volatile anesthetics and minimizing opioid use was not associated with improved survival. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract