Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lipid emulsion treatment appears to have application in the treatment of local anesthetic-induced cardiac arrest. To examine whether the efficacy of lipid resuscitation in the treatment of local anesthetic-induced cardiac arrest is affected by lipophilicity, the effects of lipid infusions were compared between levobupivacaine-induced (high lipophilicity) and ropivacaine-induced (lower lipophilicity) rat cardiac arrest model. METHODS: A total of 28 female Sprague-Dawley rats were anesthetized using sevoflurane, which subsequently underwent tracheostomy, followed by femoral artery and vein cannulation. Two hours after the discontinuation of sevoflurane, either levobupivacaine 0.2% (n = 14) or ropivacaine 0.2% (n = 14) was administered at a rate of 2 mg/kg/min to the awake rats. When the pulse pressure decreased to 0, the infusion of local anesthetic was discontinued, and treatment with chest compressions and ventilation with 100% oxygen were immediately initiated. The total doses of local anesthetics needed to trigger the first seizure and pulse pressure of 0 mm Hg were calculated. The 2 groups were each subdivided into a lipid emulsion group (n = 7) and a control group (n = 7). In the lipid emulsion group, 20% lipid emulsion was administered intravenously (5 mL/kg bolus plus continuous infusion of 0.5 mL/kg/min), while in the control group, the same volume of normal saline was administered. Chest compressions were discontinued when the rate-pressure product had increased by more than 20% of baseline. RESULTS: The cumulative doses of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine that produced seizures and 0 pulse pressure showed no significant difference. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) values were higher in the levobupivacaine group than in the ropivacaine group after resuscitation was initiated (P < .05). In levobupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest, heart rate and MAP values were higher in the lipid group than in the control group after starting resuscitation (P < .05); all rats in the lipid group achieved spontaneous circulation (rate-pressure product >20% baseline), while only 2 of 7 rats in the control group achieved spontaneous circulation at 10 minutes. In ropivacaine-induced cardiac arrest, there were no significant differences in heart rate and MAP between the lipid and control groups from the start of resuscitation to 10 minutes; spontaneous circulation returned in 6 of 7 lipid group rats, but in only 2 of 7 control group rats at 10 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Lipid emulsion treatment was more effective for levobupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest than for ropivacaine-induced cardiac arrest. Although lipid therapy is also effective for ropivacaine-induced cardiac arrest, it takes more time than in levobupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest. This suggests that the lipophilicity of local anesthetics influences the efficacy of lipid infusion when treating cardiac arrest caused by these drugs.