Liposomal Bupivacaine for Peripheral Nerve Blockade: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover, Triple-blinded Pharmacodynamic Study in Volunteers

Abstract

Background Little is known about the pharmacodynamic characteristics of liposomal bupivacaine. Hypothesizing that they would not identify pharmacodynamic differences from plain bupivacaine during the initial period after administration, but would find better long-term pharmacodynamic characteristics, the authors designed a randomized, controlled, triple-blinded, single-center study in volunteers. Methods Volunteers aged 18 to 55 yr (body mass index, 18 to 35 kg/m2) received two ulnar nerve blocks under ultrasound guidance. Using a crossover design with a washout phase of 36 days or more, one block was performed with liposomal and one with plain bupivacaine. Which came first was determined by randomization. Sensory data were collected by pinprick testing and motor data by thumb adduction, either way in comparison with the contralateral arm. Endpoints included success, time to onset, and duration of blockade. Residual efficacy was assessed by the volunteers keeping a diary. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon signed-rank and exact McNemar’s tests, as well as a generalized estimation equation model. Results Successful sensory blockade was noted in 8 of 25 volunteers (32%) after liposomal and in 25 of 25 (100%) after plain bupivacaine (P < 0.0001). Significant differences emerged for time to onset, defined as 0% response to pinpricking in four of five hypothenar supply areas (P < 0.0001), and for time from onset to 80% or 20% in one of five areas (P < 0.001; P < 0.001). Carryover effects due to the randomized sequencing were unlikely (estimate, −0.6286; sequence effect, 0.8772; P = 0.474). Self-assessment greater than 3.5 days did reveal, for liposomal bupivacaine only, intermittent but unpredictable episodes of residual sensory blockade. Conclusions The results show that liposomal bupivacaine is not a suitable “sole” drug for intraoperative regional anesthesia. Findings of its limited long-term efficacy add to existing evidence that a moderate effect, at best, should be expected on postoperative pain therapy. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New