Effect of spinal anesthesia-induced deafferentation on pain processing in healthy male volunteers: A task-related fMRI study.

Background: Spinal anesthesia causes short-term deafferentation and alters the crosstalk among brain regions involved in pain perception and pain modulation. In the current study, we examined the effect of spinal anesthesia on pain response to noxious thermal stimuli in non-deafferented skin areas using a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paradigm. Methods: Twenty-two healthy subjects participated in the study. We performed a task-based fMRI study using a randomized crossover design. Subjects were scanned under two conditions (spinal anesthesia or control) at two-time points: before and after spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia resulted in sensory loss up to dermatome Th6. Calibrated heat-pain stimuli were administered to the right forearm (C8-Th1) using a box-car design (blocks of 10s on/25s off) during MRI scanning. Pain perception was measured using a visual analogue scale (1-100) at the beginning and the end of each session. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the effect of intervention by time by order on pain scores. Similarly, higher-level effects were tested with appropriate general linear models (accounting for within-subject variations in session and time) to examine: (1) Differences in BOLD response to pain stimulus under spinal anesthesia versus control; and (2) Effects of spinal anesthesia on pain-related modulation of the cerebral activation. Results: Complete fMRI data was available for eighteen participants. Spinal anesthesia was associated with moderate pain score increase. Significant differences in brain response to noxious thermal stimuli were present in comparison of spinal versus control condition (post-pre). Spinal condition was associated with higher BOLD signal in the bilateral inferior parietal lobule and lower BOLD signal in bilateral postcentral and precentral gyrus. Within the angular regions, we observed a positive correlation between pain scores and BOLD signal. These observations were independent from order effect (whether the spinal anesthesia was administered in the first or the second visit). However, we did observe order effect on brain regions including medial prefrontal regions, possibly related to anticipation of the experience of spinal anesthesia. Conclusions: The loss of sensory and motor activity caused by spinal anesthesia has a significant impact on brain regions involved in the sensorimotor and cognitive processing of noxious heat pain stimuli. Our results indicate that the anticipation or experience of a strong somatosensory response to the spinal intervention might confound and contribute to increased sensitivity to cognitive pain processing. Future studies must account for individual differences in subjective experience of pain sensation within the experimental context.

Effect of lumbar epidural blockade and propofol on mean arterial pressure, cardiac output and bispectral index: A randomised controlled and pharmacodynamic modelling study.

BACKGROUND: It is generally accepted that a neuraxial blockade strengthens the sedative effects of propofol. Deafferentation caused by neuraxial blockade is thought to play a key role. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to determine whether epidural blockade affects the bispectral index (BIS) of propofol and two other pharmacodynamic endpoints, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO). DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Patients scheduled for surgery needing epidural analgesia. INTERVENTION: 28 ASA one or two patients received 0, 50, 100 or 150 mg of epidural ropivacaine. After stabilisation of the epidural blockade, propofol was given by target-controlled infusion. The propofol plasma target concentrations were increased at 6-min intervals from 0 to 1, 2.5, 4 and 6 µg ml-1. The study was performed before surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three endpoints, BIS, mean arterial blood pressure and CO were measured from baseline (prior to the administration of epidural ropivacaine) until 2 h after the start of propofol infusion. The propofol concentration-effect data were analysed to determine the interaction between epidural blockade and propofol sedation. RESULTS: In the absence of propofol, the increase in number of epidural blocked segments from 0 to 15.5 (range 6 to 21) reduced the MAP by 30%, without affecting BIS or CO. In the absence of epidural blockade, the increase in propofol concentration to 6 µg ml-1 reduced BIS, MAP and CO. When combined, epidural anaesthesia and intravenous propofol exhibited no pharmacodynamic interaction on any of the three endpoints. In addition, epidural blockade did not affect the propofol effect-site equilibration half-life for its haemodynamic effects (11.5 ±â€Š0.5 min) or for its effects on the BIS (4.6 ±â€Š0.4 min). CONCLUSION: Epidural blockade reduces the propofol requirements for sedative end points. This is not the result of a pharmacodynamic interaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register CCMO, Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, trial number NL 32295.058.10.

Hyperalgesia and Reduced Offset Analgesia During Spinal Anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal anesthesia induces short-term deafferentation and causes connectivity changes in brain areas involved in endogenous pain modulation. We determined whether spinal anesthesia alters pain sensitivity and offset analgesia. Offset analgesia is a manifestation of endogenous pain modulation and characterized by profound analgesia upon a small decrease in noxious stimulation. METHODS: In this randomized controlled crossover trial, static thermal pain responses and offset analgesia were obtained in 22 healthy male volunteers during spinal anesthesia and control conditions (absence of spinal anesthesia). Pain responses and offset analgesia were measured on a remote skin area above the upper level of anesthesia (C8/Th1). RESULTS: Following spinal injection of the local anesthetic, the average maximum anesthesia level was Th6. Static pain scores at C8/Th1 were higher during spinal anesthesia compared to control: 59.1 ± 15.0 mm (spinal anesthesia) versus 51.7 ± 19.7 mm (control; p = 0.03). Offset analgesia responses were decreased during spinal analgesia: pain score decrease 79 ± 27% (spinal anesthesia) versus 90 ± 17% (control; p = 0.016). DISCUSSION: We confirmed that spinal anesthesia-induced deafferentation causes hyperalgesic responses to noxious thermal stimulation and reduced offset analgesia at dermatomes remote and above the level of deafferentation. While these data suggest that the reduction of offset analgesia has a central origin, related to alterations in brain areas involved in inhibitory pain control, we cannot exclude alternative (peripheral) mechanisms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Cochrane Center under identifier (www.trialregister.nl) NL3874.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intrathecally administered Xen2174, a synthetic conopeptide with norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and analgesic properties.

AIM: Xen2174 is a synthetic 13-amino acid peptide that binds specifically to the norepinephrine transporter, which results in inhibition of norepinephrine uptake. It is being developed as a possible treatment for moderate to severe pain and is delivered intrathecally. The current study was performed to assess the pharmacodynamics (PD) and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pharmacokinetics (PK) of Xen2174 in healthy subjects. METHODS: This was a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study in healthy subjects. The study was divided into three treatment arms. Each group consisted of eight subjects on active treatment and two or three subjects on placebo. The CSF was sampled for 32 h using an intrathecal catheter. PD assessments were performed using a battery of nociceptive tasks (electrical pain, pressure pain and cold pressor tasks). RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects were administered Xen2174. CSF PK analysis showed a higher area under the CSF concentration-time curve of Xen2174 in the highest dose group than allowed by the predefined safety margin based on nonclinical data. The most common adverse event was post-lumbar puncture syndrome, with no difference in incidence between treatment groups. Although no statistically significant differences were observed in the PD assessments between the different dosages of Xen2174 and placebo, pain tolerability in the highest dose group was higher than in the placebo group [contrast least squares mean pressure pain tolerance threshold of Xen2174 2.5 mg-placebo (95% confidence interval), 22.2% (-5.0%, 57.1%); P = 0.1131]. CONCLUSIONS: At the Xen2174 dose level of 2.5 mg, CSF concentrations exceeded the prespecified exposure limit based on the nonclinical safety margin. No statistically significant effects on evoked pain tests were observed.

Epidural Blockade Affects the Pharmacokinetics of Propofol in Surgical Patients.

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial blockade reduces the dose requirements of sedative agents. It is unclear whether neuraxial blockade affects the pharmacokinetics and/or the pharmacodynamics of IV hypnotics. We therefore studied the influence of epidural blockade on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in patients scheduled for general surgery. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were randomly divided into 4 groups, in a double-blind manner, to receive 0, 50, 100, or 150 mg epidural ropivacaine. When the epidural blockade had stabilized, a target-controlled infusion of propofol was started at a target concentration of 1, 2.5, 4, and 6 µg/mL at 0, 6, 12, and 18 minutes, respectively. The infusion was terminated at 24 minutes. Arterial blood samples for blood propofol concentration determination were taken during and up to 150-minute postinfusion. The influence of epidural blockade on propofol pharmacokinetics was determined by mixed-effects modeling. RESULTS: With a ropivacaine dose increasing from 0 to 150 mg, the number of blocked segments (median [range]) increased from 0 (0-3) to 16 (6-21). With increasing epidural dose, blood propofol concentration increasingly exceeded target concentration. An epidural blockade of 20 segments reduced propofol's elimination clearance from 2.64 ± 0.12 to 1.87 ± 0.08 L/min. Adjusting for weight and sex further improved the propofol pharmacokinetic model. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural blockade affects the pharmacokinetics of propofol and the performance of a target-controlled infusion of propofol. At an epidural ropivacaine dose that blocks 20 segments, the propofol dosage or target concentration may be reduced by 30% compared with when no epidural blockade is present. An epidural-induced reduction in hepatic and/or renal blood flow may explain this pharmacokinetic interaction.

Effect of deafferentation from spinal anesthesia on pain sensitivity and resting-state functional brain connectivity in healthy male volunteers.

Patients may perceive paradoxical heat sensation during spinal anesthesia. This could be due to deafferentation-related functional changes at cortical, subcortical, or spinal levels. In the current study, the effect of spinal deafferentation on sensory (pain) sensitivity was studied and linked to whole-brain functional connectivity as assessed by resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (RS-fMRI) imaging. Deafferentation was induced by sham or spinal anesthesia (15 mg bupivacaine injected at L3-4) in 12 male volunteers. RS-fMRI brain connectivity was determined in relation to eight predefined and seven thalamic resting-state networks (RSNs) and measured before, and 1 and 2 h after spinal/sham injection. To measure the effect of deafferentation on pain sensitivity, responses to heat pain were measured at 15-min intervals on nondeafferented skin and correlated to RS-fMRI connectivity data. Spinal anesthesia altered functional brain connectivity within brain regions involved in the sensory discriminative (i.e., pain intensity related) and affective dimensions of pain perception in relation to somatosensory and thalamic RSNs. A significant enhancement of pain sensitivity on nondeafferented skin was observed after spinal anesthesia compared to sham (area-under-the-curve [mean (SEM)]: 190.4 [33.8] versus 13.7 [7.2]; p<0.001), which significantly correlated to functional connectivity changes observed within the thalamus in relation to the thalamo-prefrontal network, and in the anterior cingulate cortex and insula in relation to the thalamo-parietal network. Enhanced pain sensitivity from spinal deafferentation correlated with functional connectivity changes within brain regions involved in affective and sensory pain processing and areas involved in descending control of pain.

Postoperative epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty with sufentanil 1 microg/ml combined with ropivacaine 0.2%, ropivacaine 0.125%, or levobupivacaine 0.125%: a randomized, double-blind comparison.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total knee replacement is associated with severe postoperative pain that, if treated insufficiently, interferes with early rehabilitation. The purpose of the present study is to compare the efficacy of ropivacaine (0.2% and 0.125%) and levobupivacaine (0.125%), all in combination with sufentanil 1 microg/mL with regard to postoperative pain relief and absence of motor block in a patient-controlled epidural analgesia setting. METHODS: The study design was randomized and double-blind. Sixty-three patients scheduled for total knee replacement under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive ropivacaine 0.2%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 1), ropivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 2), or levobupivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 3) for postoperative epidural pain relief. Primary endpoints were numerical rating scores for pain and patient satisfaction, motor block scores, time to first demand of the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device and average hourly consumption of local anesthetic and sufentanil. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 3 groups regarding numerical rating scores for pain, patient satisfaction, and motor block scores at any of the time intervals; time to first demand and average hourly sufentanil consumption were similar. Patients in group 1 used significantly more local anesthetic than patients in groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 solutions provided adequate analgesia and minimal motor block. The higher concentration of ropivacaine 0.2% was associated with a higher consumption of local anesthetic and did not result in a decrease in the consumption of sufentanil. Under the conditions of this study, patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption of the epidural mixture was predominantly determined by sufentanil.