Many studies have shown the beneficial effect of epidural
clonidine in
postoperative pain management. In these studies, the patients received
local anesthetics,
opioids, or both in combination with
clonidine. Due to the interactive potentiation of those drugs, the importance of the intrinsic
analgesic properties of the alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonist is difficult to establish. The authors investigated the
analgesic potency of epidural
clonidine when used as the sole
analgesic agent during and after major abdominal surgery.
METHODS: Fifty young adult patients undergoing intestinal surgery under
general anesthesia with
propofol were studied. At induction, the patients received epidurally either an initial dose of 2 micrograms/kg
clonidine followed by an infusion of 0.5 microgram.kg-1.h-1 (group 1, n = 10) or 4 micrograms/kg followed by 1 microgram.kg-1.h-1 (group 2, n = 20) or 8 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 followed by an infusion of 2 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 (group 3, n = 20). During the operation, increases in arterial blood pressure or heart rate that did not respond to a
propofol bolus (0.5 mg/kg) were treated with a bolus of intravenous
lidocaine (1 mg/kg). Three successive
injections were allowed. When baseline values were not restored,
opioids were added and the patient was removed from the study. After operation, the
clonidine infusions were maintained for 12 h. During this period and at every 30 min, sedation scores and visual analog scale values at rest and at
cough were noted. In case of subjective scores up to 5 cm at rest or up to 8 cm at
cough, the patients were given access to a
patient-controlled analgesia device that delivered epidural
bupivacaine. The end point of the study was reached once the patient activated the
analgesic delivery button.
RESULTS: During surgery, 60% of patients in group 1 compared with 33% of patients in group 2 and only 5% of patients in group 3 were removed from the study protocol because of inadequate
anesthesia (P < 0.05). After operation, epidural
clonidine provided complete
analgesia lasting 30 +/- 21 min in group 1 compared with 251 +/- 237 min in group 2 or 369 +/- 256 min in group 3 (P < 0.05 for group 1 vs. groups 2 and 3 and group 2 vs. group 3).
CONCLUSIONS: