BACKGROUND: Liposome bupivacaine is a liposomal formulation that allows delivery of bupivacaine for 96 hours with a single local administration. It is indicated for the management of postsurgical pain. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective review of 10 clinical trials assessed the potential impact of local anesthetics on wound healing and chondrolysis. Various doses of liposome bupivacaine and bupivacaine hydrochloride (HCl) were evaluated. METHODS: Primary inclusion criteria across the 10 Phase 2 and Phase 3 randomized, double-blind studies required that patients be ≥18 years of age at the screening visit and scheduled to undergo the specified surgical procedure in each study (inguinal hernia repair, total knee arthroplasty, hemorrhoidectomy, breast augmentation, or bunionectomy). Key exclusion criteria were: a history of clinically significant medical conditions (including cardiovascular, hepatic, renal, neurologic, psychiatric, or metabolic disease) or laboratory results that indicated an increased vulnerability to the study drugs and/or procedures; medical condition(s) or concurrent surgery that may have required analgesic treatment in the postoperative period for pain that was not strictly related to the study surgery; and/or any clinically significant event or condition discovered during surgery that could have complicated the patient's postsurgical course. Assessments included the clinician's overall satisfaction with the patient's wound healing, wound status (erythema, drainage, edema, and induration), and wound scarring. Adverse events (AEs) potentially manifesting as wound complications and local AEs were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 823 patients received liposome bupivacaine at doses ranging from 66 to 532 mg across the 5 different surgical settings; 446 patients received bupivacaine HCl (75-200 mg), and 190 patients received placebo. Few studies showed statistically significant differences between liposome bupivacaine and the comparator (bupivacaine HCl or placebo) with regard to the clinician's overall satisfaction with patient wound healing; the incidence of erythema, drainage, edema, and induration; and wound scarring. The incidences of local AEs were similar between treatments, ranging from 9% to 20% with liposome bupivacaine across the studies compared with 8% to 19% with bupivacaine HCl. CONCLUSIONS: Liposome bupivacaine given locally at the surgical wound site appeared to have no clinically evident impact on wound or bone healing at doses up to 532 mg across different surgical models. The wound-healing profile of liposome bupivacaine was similar to that of bupivacaine HCl.
"Regarding observed wound-related adverse events in this study, there were no incidences of incisional site drainage, edema, erythema, or pain reported after surgery in the liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesia group. These results were not unexpected, given the previously reported data from ten clinical studies of 823 liposome bupivacaine-treated patients with no negative impact on wound healing observed with this compound.28 "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Opioid analgesics are effective for postsurgical pain but are associated with opioid-related adverse events, creating a significant clinical and economic burden. Gastrointestinal surgery patients are at high risk for opioid-related adverse events. We conducted a study to assess the impact of an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia regimen with liposome bupivacaine, compared with the standard of care (intravenous [IV] opioid-based, patient-controlled analgesia [PCA]) on postsurgical opioid use and health economic outcomes in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal.
In this open-label, multicenter study, sequential cohorts of patients undergoing ileostomy reversal received IV opioid PCA (first cohort); or multimodal analgesia including a single intraoperative administration of liposome bupivacaine (second cohort). Rescue analgesia was available to all patients. Primary outcome measures were postsurgical opioid use, hospital length of stay, and hospitalization costs. Incidence of opioid-related adverse events was also assessed.
Twenty-seven patients were enrolled, underwent the planned surgery, and did not meet any intraoperative exclusion criteria; 16 received liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesia and eleven received the standard IV opioid PCA regimen. The multimodal regimen was associated with significant reductions in opioid use compared with the IV opioid PCA regimen (mean, 20 mg versus 112 mg; median, 6 mg versus 48 mg, respectively; P < 0.01), postsurgical length of stay (median, 3.0 days versus 5.1 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and hospitalization costs (geometric mean, $6482 versus $9282, respectively; P = 0.01).
A liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesic regimen resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in opioid consumption, shorter length of stay, and lower inpatient costs than an IV opioid-based analgesic regimen.
Journal of Pain Research 07/2013; 6:549-55. DOI:10.2147/JPR.S46467
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: When physicians consider which analgesia to use postsurgery, the primary goal is to relieve pain with minimal adverse side effects. Bupivacaine, a commonly used analgesic, has been formulated into an aqueous suspension of multivesicular liposomes that provide long-lasting analgesia for up to 72 hours, while avoiding the adverse side effects of opioids. The increased efficacy of liposomal extended-release bupivacaine, compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, has promoted its usage in a variety of surgeries including hemorrhoidectomy, bunionectomy, inguinal hernia repair, total knee arthroplasty, and augmentation mammoplasty. However, like other bupivacaine formulations, the liposomal extended-release bupivacaine does have some side effects. In this brief review, we provide an update of the current knowledge in the use of bupivacaine for postsurgical analgesia.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.