Although reduction in bupivacaine’s anesthetic concentration and changes in anesthetic practice did much to reduce the risk of cardiotoxicity, the recognized differences in the toxicity of the stereoisomers comprising bupivacaine created an opportunity for the development of potentially safer anesthetics (see Chapter 1). Investigations demonstrated that the enantiomers of the racemic mixture bupivacaine were not equivalent with respect to cardiotoxicity, the S(–) enantiomer having better therapeutic advantage, leading to the subsequent marketing of levobupivacaine. This was followed shortly thereafter by ropivacaine, a slightly less potent anesthetic than bupivacaine. It should be noted, however, that the reduction in toxicity afforded by these compounds is only modest and that risk of significant cardiotoxicity remains a very real concern when these anesthetics are administered for high-volume blocks.
3.
Reversal of bupivacaine toxicity—Recently, a series of clinical events, serendipitous observations, systematic experimentation, and astute clinical decisions have identified a relatively simple, practical, and apparently effective therapy for resistant bupivacaine cardiotoxicity using intravenous infusion of lipid. Furthermore, this therapy appears to have applications that extend beyond bupivacaine cardiotoxicity to the cardiac or CNS toxicity induced by an overdose of any lipid-soluble drug (see Box: Lipid Resuscitation).
B. Localized Toxicity 1. Neural injury—From the early introduction of spinal anesthesia into clinical practice, sporadic reports of neurologic injury associated with this technique raised concern that local anesthetic agents were potentially neurotoxic. Following injuries associated with Durocaine—a spinal anesthetic formulation containing procaine—initial attention focused on the vehicle components. However, experimental studies found 10% procaine alone induced similar injuries in cats, whereas the vehicle did not. Concern for anesthetic neurotoxicity reemerged in the early 1980s with a series of reports of major neurologic injury occurring with the use of chloroprocaine for epidural anesthesia. In these cases, there was evidence that anesthetic intended for the epidural space was inadvertently administered intrathecally. As the dose required for spinal anesthesia is roughly an order of magnitude less than for epidural anesthesia, injury was apparently the result of excessive exposure of the more vulnerable subarachnoid neural elements.