Premium
Intrathecal amantadine for prolonged spinal blockade of sensory and motor functions in rats
Author(s) -
Tzeng JannInn,
Kan ChungDann,
Wang JiehNeng,
Wang JhiJoung,
Lin HengTeng,
Hung ChingHsia
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
fundamental and clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.655
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1472-8206
pISSN - 0767-3981
DOI - 10.1111/fcp.12200
Subject(s) - mepivacaine , nociception , anesthesia , amantadine , medicine , blockade , local anesthetic , pharmacology , receptor
We aimed to compare the hypothesized local anesthetic action of amantadine (1‐adamantanamine) with that of the known local anesthetic mepivacaine. Motor, proprioceptive, and nociceptive functions were evaluated in rats after intrathecal administration. Amantadine elicited spinal anesthesia in a dose‐related fashion and produced a better sensory‐selective action over motor blockade ( P < 0.01). On the 50% effective dose ( ED 50 ) basis, the rank of potency on spinal motor, proprioceptive, and nociceptive block was mepivacaine > amantadine ( P < 0.01 for the differences). Amantadine (63.5 μmol/kg) and mepivacaine (7.1 μmol/kg) produced complete spinal block of motor function, proprioception, and nociception. On an equipotent basis ( ED 25 , ED 50 , and ED 75 ), the duration of amantadine was longer ( P < 0.01) than that of mepivacaine on spinal motor, proprioceptive, and nociceptive block. Our preclinical data demonstrated that amantadine was less potent than mepivacaine at producing spinal anesthesia. The spinal block duration produced by amantadine was greater than that produced by mepivacaine. Both amantadine and mepivacaine produced a markedly nociceptive‐specific blockade.