Home About Us Contact Us

 

Table of Content - Volume 21 Issue 1 - January 2022


 

Comparison of efficacy of analgesic like nalbupine with hyperbaric bupivacaine and pentazocine with hyperbaric bupivacaine - A retrospective study

 

M Linga Murthy

 

Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, SVS Medical College Mahaboob Nagar, Telangana, INDIA.

Email: mlmurthy38@gmail.com

 

Abstract              Background: Severe or un-controlled pain may cause myocardial infarction or ischemia. Hence every anaesthesiologist prefers long acting pain relief analogist drugs. Hence efficacies of different drugs were compared with their duration of sensory and motor blockage with least side effects and cost-effective. Method: Out of 80 patients, 40 patients (group-A) anaesthetized with Hyperbaric bupivacaine and Nalbuphine and 40 patients (group-B) with Hyperbaric bupivacine and pentazocaine undergoing major abdominal and pelvic surgery. Their heart rate, nerve blockage was studied and compared. Results: VAS analogue were higher in group-A. Heart rates in different time intervals nerve blockage in both groups had significant (p<0.00) p value and least side effects were observed in group-B patients. Conclusion: Group-B analgesic pentazocaine with hyperbaric Bupivacaine was more efficient better relief for post surgical pain with least side effects as compared to group-A analgesics

Keywords: HR=Heart rate, Sensory lock, Motor block, Analgesic, Telangana

 

INTRODUCTION

Bupivacaine acts mainly blockade of voltage gated Na+ Channels in the axonal membrane and possibly has a further effect on pre-synaptic inhibition of calcium channels.1 The use of adjuvant such as nalbuphine with bupivacaine has shown to reduce its dose requirements in spinal anaesthesia with reduced incidence of side effects and reduced dosage of analgesia.2 Intrathecal anaesthesia is to block the nerve endings of both motor and sensory but the analgesia drugs which causes anaesthesia for longer duration is preferred, by keeping in view of their side effects Hyperbaric bipuvacaine as a spinal anaesthesia but to increase the duration of sensory blockade to prolong post-operative analgesia hyper bupivacaine is added to Nalbuphine but in some patients could not had satisfactory post-operative analgesic hence hyper baric Bupivacaine is added with pentazocine.3,4 Hence attempt was to compare duration of sensory and motor block and rate of side effects so that both group patients of both sexes get relief post surgically for longer duration.

 

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Total 80 patients (40 male and 40 female) aged between 20 to 60 years admitted in surgical ward of SVS Medical College hospital Mahabub Nagar – 509001 Telanagana.

Inclusive Criteria: Patients undergoing major abdominal and pelvic surgery certified fitness by physician for surgery were selected for study.

Exclusion Criteria: Patients suffering from cardiac arrhythmias, heart block, and Bradycardia patients with known allergy for study drugs to test dosage, patients with gross spinal abnormality, localised skin sepsis haemorrhagic diathesis, patients on anti-depressant drugs were excluded from study.

 

METHOD

The present study was hospital based prospective comparative study conducted in department of Anaesthesiolology S V S medical college hospital mahbub Nagar -509001 Telangana 80 patients 20 males and 20 females were selected for each group (group-A and B)

  • Hyper baric bupivacaine 10 mg and 1 mg Nalbuphine (group-A)
  • 10 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine and 3 mg of pentazocaine (group-B)

               Every patients undergoing major surgery of abdomen and pelvic organs were explained the procedure of spinal anaesthesia and got written consent from patients. The fitness of the every patient was confirmed by physician (pathological report and radiologist) spinal anaesthesia was performed at the level of L3-L4 with 25 Quickie needle. Heart rate, RR rate duration of analgesic sensory block, motor block values were noted and compared from both groups.

The duration of study was Four months December-2019 to June-2019

Statistical analysis: The obtained values from both groups were compared with z test. The statistical analysis was performed in SPSS software.

 

OBSERVATION AND RESULTS

Table-1 (A): 40 patient’s visual analogue scale in group-A patients

Grade-I: MV – 3 (7.5%), grade-II 7 (17.5%), grade-III MV-9 (22.5%), grade-IV 21 (52.5%)

In group-B: Patients (40 patients) grade-I 2 (5%), grade-II 8 (20%), grade-III 19 (47.5%), grade-IV 11 (27.5%)

Table-2: Comparison of heart rate values in both group-A and B groups at different intervals.

Baseline – Mean value 70.6 (±0.245) in group-A, 71.5 (±0.295) in group-B, t test 13.9 and p<20.00

10 Minutes: Mean value 77.3 (± 0.121) in group-A, 78.3 (± 0.120) in group-B, t test

 35.04 and p<0.00

30 Minutes: Mean value 74.15 (± 0.024) in group-A, 76.2 (± 0.115) in group-B, t

 test 38.6 and p<0.000

60 Minutes: Mean value 71.5 (± 0.183) in group-A, 73.2 (± 0.150) in group-B, t test

 45.4 and p<0.00

90 Minutes: Mean value 70.7 (± 0.035) in group-A, 71.5 (±0.073) in group-, t test 33.07 and p<0.00

120 Minutes: Mean value 70.7 (± 0.35) in group-A, 71.1 (± 0.033) in group-B, t test 56.5 and p<0.00

150 Minutes: Mean value 69.4 (± 0.027) in group-A, 70.9 (± 0.025) in group-B, t test 75.7 and p<0.00

180 Minutes: mean value 69.2 (± 0.026) in group-A, 70.3 (±0.018) in group-B, t test value was 55.5 and p<0.00

Table-3: Comparison of duration of analgesic, sensory block, Motor block values in both A and B group

Duration of analysis – Mean value 484.1 (±24.2) in group-A, 302.2 (± 4.89) in group-B and t test was 38.6 and p<0.00

Sensory Block (Minutes) – Mean value 153.42 (± 0.352) in group-A, 19.32 (± 0.358) in group-B and t test was -49.1, p<0.00

Motor Block (Minutes) – Mean value 11.42 (± 0.17) in group-A, 13.30 (± 0.30) and t test was -34.9 and p<0.000

Table-4: Study of side effects in both A and B groups

Shivering – 2 (5%) in group-A and group-B

Headache – 3 (7.5%) in group-A, 2 (5%) in group-B

Somnolence – 2 (5%) in group-A, 1 (2.5%) in group-B

Urinary retention – 2 (5%) in group-A and group-B

Nausea and vomiting – 3 (7.5%) in group-A and B

Hypotension – 11 (27.5%) in group-A, 13 (32.5%) in group-B

Bradycardia – 3 (7.5%) in group-A and 1 (2.5%) in group-B


Table 1 (A): Visual Analogue scale in group-A patients (No of 40 patients)

Grade-I

Grade-II

Grade-III

Grade-IV

MV

%

MV

%

MV

%

MV

%

3

7.5

7

17.5

9

22.5

21

52.5

 

Table 1 (B): Visual analogue scale in group- patients(No of 40 patients)

Grade-I

Grade-II

Grade-III

Grade-IV

MV

%

MV

%

MV

%

MV

%

2

5

8

20

19

47.5

11

27.5

MV = Mask Ventilation

  

Table 2: Comparison of heart rate values in both groups (A and B) at different time intervals

(No. of patients 40 + 40 = 80)

Heart rate

Group-A

Group-B

t test

p value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

 

 

Base line

70.69

0.245

71.52

0.275

13.9

p<0.00

10 Minutes

77.32

0.121

78.3

0.120

35.04

p<0.000

30 Minutes

74.14

0.024

76.24

0.115

38.6

p<0.000

60 Minutes

71.52

0.183

73.22

0.150

45.4

p<0.000

90 Minutes

70.77

0.119

71.50

0.073

33.07

p<0.000

120 Minutes

70.73

0.035

71.16

0.033

56.5

p<0.000

150 Minutes

69.42

0.027

70.92

0.025

75.7

p<0.000

180 Minutes

69.22

0.026

70.32

0.018

55.5

p<0.000

 

Table 2: Comparison of heart rate values in both groups (A and B) at different time intervals

 

Table 3: Comparison of duration of analgesic, sensory block and motor block values in both group (A and B)

Heart rate

Group-A

Group-B

t test

p value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

 

 

Duration of analgesic

484.1

24.2

302.2

4.89

38.6

p<0.00

Sensory block (in min)

15.42

0.352

19.32

0.358

-49.1

p<0.00

Motor Block (in min)

11.42

0.17

13.30

0.30

-34.4

p<0.00

 

Table 3: Comparison of duration of analgesic, sensory block and motor block values in both group (A and B)

 

Table 4: Study of side effects in both groups (A and B)

Side effects

Group-A

Percentage

Group-B

Percentage

Shivering

2

5

2

5

Headache

3

7.5

2

5

Somnolence

2

5

1

2.5

Urinary retention

2

5

2

5

Nausea, vomiting

3

7.5

3

7.5

Hypotension

13

32.7

0

--

Bradycardia

3

7.5

1

2.5

Table 4: Study of side effects in both groups (A and B)

 


DISCUSSION

Present comparative study of efficacy of analgesic like Nulbupine with Hyperbaric and pantazocaine with Hyperboric bupivacaine. In visual analogue scale in group-A patients Grade-I had MV 3 (7.5%), grade-II had MV 7 (17.5%), grade-III had MV 9 (22.5%) and grade-IV had 21 (52.5%). In group-B patients visual analogue scale was – grade-I MV 2 (5%), grade-II MV 8 (20%), grade-III MC 19 (47.5%), grade-IV MV 11 (29.5%) (Table-1) In comparison of heart rate values at different time interval of 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes, 120 minutes, 150 minutes and 180 minutes the p value was highly significant in every interval of time (p<0.001) Table-2. In comparison of duration of analgesic, neural block values of both A and B groups. In duration of analgesic mean value 484.1 (± 0.352) in group-A, 302.2 (± 4.82) in group-B, t test 38.6 and p value was highly significant (p<0.00). In sensory block mean value 15.42 (± 0.352) in group-A, 19.32 (± 0.358) in group-B, t test -49.1 and p value was highly significant (p<0.00). In motor block mean value 11.42 (± 0.170 in group-A, 13.30 (± 0.30) in group-B, patient t test -34.4 and p value was highly significant (p<0.00). These findings are more or less in agreement with previous studies.5,6,7 Visual analogue scale (VAS) is to assess the post-operative pain, Nausea pruritis and somnolence. It was observed that high rates in group-A patients as compared to group- patients.8 In group-B heart rate values were more than group-B. It certainly indicates that, the analgesic group- (Hyperbaric Bipuvacaine + pantazocine) was quite effective than group-A (Hyperbaric Bipuvacaine Nalbupine 1 mg). Bipuvacaine is an amido – amine anaesthetic of high potency and long duration due to its high liposolubality property they develop enough interstitial pressure to cause diffusion of injected material in the dependent region out causes respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting and psycho mimic reaction were also observed.9 Pantazocine is the N-ally derivative of narcotic analgesic phenazocaine it is the strong analgesic with weak narcotic antagonist activity. It is advocated for moderate to severe pain. Pentozocaine has low abuse potential and is not controlled by narcotic regulation.10 Hence it is safer than Nalbuphine. Nalbuphine may provide better pain relief than pentazocaine but it has high rate of side effects as compared to pentazocaine.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The comparative study between group-A and group-B though both groups have beneficiary. The group-B analgesics Hyperbaric Bupivacaine and pentazocaine proved better than group-A administrated intrathecally (spinal) anaesthesia because of prolonged analgesic effect with minimal side effects post-surgically. But this study demands further pharmacological, patho-physiological, cardio-vascular, nutritional, genetic studies because exact factors and mechanism of analgesic is still unclear.

  • This research paper was approved by Ethical committee SVS Medical College and Hospital Mahabub Nagar – 509001, Telangana
  • No Conflict of Interest
  • No Funding

 

REFERENCES

  1. Erick J K, Heels – A preliminary review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy Br. J. Anaesth. 2005, 104; 368-72.
  2. Lujs carpacter RL, Neal JM – Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia their role in post-operative outcome Anaesthesiology 1995, 82 (6); 1474-500.
  3. Vvu CL, Fleisther LA – Outcomes research in regional anaesthesia Analg. 2000, 9 (5); 1232-42.
  4. Mahafer P, Charrvws – Ultra sound guided anaesthesia current concept and future trends Anaesth. Analgesic 2007, 104; 1265-70.
  5. Tiwari Aklesh Kumar, tomar Gourav – Intrathecal Bupivacaine in comparison with Nalbupine and pubivacaine with pantazocaine for sub archanoid block study Am. J. of Therapauties 2013, vol. 20 (6); 592-595.
  6. Nidhi Aihmed, Madhu Bharadraj Vimal Rai – Comparative study between Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine Tramadol in supra-clavicular brachial plexus block Int. J. of comp. Surg. July-Dec 2015, vol. 13 (2); 4-9.
  7. Bonica JJ – Principles and practice of obstetrics analgesia and anaesthesia 1967, 1st edition Philadelphia, FA Dias publication 39-45.
  8. Lund DC – Principles and practice of spinal analgesia 1971, 2nd edition spring field Illinois, Charles, C. Thomas comparison publication 301-307.
  9. Fafacl De Ross, Breno FB – perimed analgesia and hemodynamic effects of epidural administration of Meperidine of Hyperbaric bupivacaine horses can. Vet. J. 2004, vol. 45 (1); 42-47.
  10. Nirmala BS, Narashiamha Reddy, Rajappa – A comparative study of Analgesic efficacy of Nalbuphine with Hyperbaric bupivacine and pentazocine with hyperbaric bupivacaine Int. J. of con. Temp. Surg. 2015, vol. (3); 36-40.

 



 



 





 



































 








 




 








 

 









Policy for Articles with Open Access
Authors who publish with MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology (Print ISSN:2579-0900) (Online ISSN: 2636-4654) agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.