Premium
Antinoceptive and motor‐blocking action of epidurally administered IQB‐9302 and bupivacaine in the dog. (La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain) Reg Anesth Pain Med 2000;25:522–528.
Author(s) -
De Segura Ignacio A. Gómez,
Vazquez Isabel,
De Miguel Enrique
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
pain practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.899
H-Index - 58
eISSN - 1533-2500
pISSN - 1530-7085
DOI - 10.1046/j.1533-2500.2001.001002201.x
Subject(s) - bupivacaine , dermatome , medicine , anesthesia , motor block , local anesthetic , nociception , blocking (statistics) , receptor , statistics , mathematics
This study aimed to compare the antinociceptive and motor‐blocking effects of epidurally administered IQB‐9302 and bupivacaine in the dog. Twelve adult female Beagle dogs were used. Each animal received 3 concentrations of either IQB‐9302 or bupivacaine by means of chronic epidural catheter. Epidurally administered IQB‐9302 caused a more potent nocifensive and motor‐blocking action than bupivacaine. The duration of complete nocifensive block was the longest with IQB‐9302, whereas the duration of dermatome nocifensive block was similar for both drugs. The nocifensive to motor block ratio was significantly higher with IQB‐9302. Conclude that IQB‐9302 produced an anesthetic action similar to that of bupivacaine, although the former drug induced slightly more potent nocifensive block. Nocifensive and motor block duration are very similar with IQB‐9302, whereas bupivacaine induces a more prolonged motor block without nocifensive block. Comment by James E. Heavner, D.V.M., Ph.D. IQB‐9302 (1‐methylcycloprophyl‐N‐(2,6‐dymethylphenyl)‐2 piperidinecarboxyamide) is a recently developed local anesthetic with physiochemical properties similar to those of bupivacaine. Therefore, it is not surprising that the two compounds produce very similar outcomes when motor and sensory block is evaluated following epidural administration to dogs. What distinguishes results from the two compounds is that the motor blocking and nociceptive blocking actions of IQB apparently are better matched than are the blocking actions of bupivacaine. Whether this compound will eventually reach clinical use will depend on at least two things: 1) if IQB offers advantage in terms of systemic toxicity relative to the systemic toxicity of bupivacaine; and 2) whether the relatively small difference between bupivacaine and IQB when used for epidural anesthesia exists in humans as it does in animals and the differences are considered to be clinically meaningful. The Holy Grail sought by developers of new local anesthetics is a local anesthetic that produces sensory, but no motor block. IQB clearly is not that Holy Grail.