Skip Navigation LinksHome > August 2004 - Volume 101 - Issue 2 > Clonidine Prolongation of Lidocaine Analgesia after Sciatic...
Anesthesiology:
Pain and Regional Anesthesia

Clonidine Prolongation of Lidocaine Analgesia after Sciatic Nerve Block in Rats Is Mediated via the Hyperpolarization-activated Cation Current, Not by α-Adrenoreceptors

Kroin, Jeffrey S. Ph.D.*; Buvanendran, Asokumar M.D.†; Beck, Daniel R. M.S.‡; Topic, Julie E. B.S.§; Watts, Daniel E. B.S.§; Tuman, Kenneth J. M.D.∥

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Collapse Box

Abstract

Background: Although clonidine is commonly combined with local anesthetics to extend duration of peripheral nerve block, the mechanism by which clonidine potentiates local anesthetic action in vivo is unclear.
Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley rats received percutaneous injections of 1% lidocaine with/without clonidine or epinephrine into the sciatic notch and duration of sensory blockade was quantified by inhibition of pinprick foot withdrawal. The antagonists prazosin or yohimbine were injected before lidocaine with clonidine or epinephrine to determine the role of α-adrenergic receptors. The role of the hyperpolarization-activated cation current (Ih) was evaluated by injecting the current blocker ZD 7288 as well as the current enhancers forskolin and 8-Br-cAMP before lidocaine alone or with 15 μg/ml clonidine.
Results: Mean duration of sensory block for lidocaine alone was 69 ± 2 min. Sensory block duration increased monotonically with increasing doses of added clonidine or epinephrine. Preinjection of prazosin but not yohimbine prevented the increase in block duration seen with epinephrine. Neither α-adrenergic antagonist attenuated the extended duration of block with clonidine. ZD 7288 extended sensory blockade equivalent to the prolongation observed with clonidine. There was no additive effect when ZD 7288 and clonidine were combined, and a decreased duration of nerve block when either forskolin or 8-Br-cAMP preceded injection of lidocaine with clonidine.
Conclusions: The findings indicate that prolongation of duration of in vivo lidocaine nerve blockade by clonidine is not mediated by an α-adrenergic mechanism but likely involves the Ih current.
PERIPHERAL nerve blocks are being increasingly used to provide postoperative analgesia because of reduced concern regarding the risks of anticoagulation compared with other forms of regional analgesia.1 Clonidine is commonly injected with local anesthetics to extend the duration of peripheral nerve blocks,2–4 although the optimal dose of clonidine and the mechanism of this effect are not definitely known.4,5
Clonidine is an α-adrenoreceptor agonist with selectivity for α2-adrenoreceptors.6 Therefore, it is possible that α-adrenoreceptors (e.g., via local vasoconstriction) have a role in clonidine enhancement of peripheral nerve blockade.3 In a clinical study involving local anesthetic blockade of the terminal branch of the superficial peroneal nerve, the local tissue lidocaine concentration was increased over time when 10 μg clonidine was added to 1% lidocaine compared with lidocaine alone.7 This observation suggests that a pharmacokinetic mechanism, with some similarity to the effect of adding epinephrine, may be important in clonidine prolongation of lidocaine nerve blockade. However, clonidine enhancement of nerve block cannot be explained entirely by a pharmacokinetic mechanism because the tissue concentration of lidocaine at the time when sensation returned tended to be lower with the lidocaine plus clonidine combination in that study.7 Clonidine alone has local anesthetic properties. In desheathed rabbit vagus nerve, clonidine at doses of 500 μm or greater decreased the amplitude of the compound action potential.8 Similar results have been shown in desheathed rat sciatic nerve in which 450 μm clonidine decreased the C-fiber compound action potential.9 In comparison, when used clinically as an additive to lidocaine, clonidine extends block duration at much lower concentrations (10 μg/ml, 34 μm). Therefore, the clonidine concentration producing the reduction in compound action potential amplitude observed in these in vitro studies is much too high to explain the efficacy of clonidine in the clinical setting.
The exact mechanism by which clonidine potentiates local anesthetic peripheral nerve block has not been precisely elucidated.7,10 Clonidine alters hyperpolarizing afterpotentials of nonmyelinated nerve fibers in vitro.11,12 In desheathed rabbit vagus nerve 50 μm clonidine strongly enhanced both posttetanic and low-frequency hyperpolarization in C fibers.10 The 50% effective concentration for these effects was 8.7–9.6 μm (approximately 2 μg/ml) and therefore well within the range of clonidine’s clinical effectiveness. Interestingly, the same degree of hyperpolarization was achieved with 10 μm of ZD 7288, a specific blocker of the hyperpolarization-activated cation current (Ih).13 In addition, the combination of ZD 7288 plus clonidine did not further enhance the hyperpolarization observed with either agent individually. These results suggest that clonidine enhances activity-dependent hyperpolarizations by inhibiting Ih.10 A previous study had demonstrated that ZD 7288 blocks Ih channels in desheathed rat vagus nerves, leading to enhanced posttetanic hyperpolarization and slowing of conduction in C fibers.14 However, all of these studies are in vitro, and it is not known whether the same results with clonidine or ZD 7288 can be produced in the intact animal.
The aim of the current study is to interrogate the mechanism by which clonidine enhances lidocaine nerve block in an in vivo animal model, defining the clonidine dose–response curve and testing the relative role of α-adrenergic receptors or the hyperpolarization-activated cation current in clonidine prolongation of lidocaine-induced nerve block in intact animals. As a comparison, the epinephrine dose–response curve and the effect of α-adrenergic antagonists was also investigated in the same model.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Materials and Methods

Sciatic Nerve Block Technique
After Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval, experiments were performed on 168 male Sprague-Dawley rats (350–400 g; Sasco, Wilmington, MA). Sciatic nerve block was performed using methods similar to Thalhammer et al.15 Animals were briefly anesthetized with 1.2% isoflurane in oxygen and placed in lateral recumbency. A 16 mm long 25-gauge hypodermic needle, with a prefilled 1 ml tuberculin syringe attached, was inserted percutaneously into the sciatic notch between the greater trochanter and the ischial tuberosity, pointing toward the ischium. Stimulating pulses (0.3 v, 2 ms, 2 Hz, negative polarity) were delivered via a clip lead attached to the top of the needle, and the syringe/needle was advanced until a vigorous ipsilateral hindleg kick was observed. Then, 0.5 ml test drug solution was injected over 5 s and the needle was removed after an additional 5 s.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Criteria For Nerve Block
Before drug injection, animals were placed on a metal grid and sensory response was evaluated by observation of foot withdrawal when a pin was applied to the plantar midline surface of the ipsilateral hind paw (tibial nerve distribution). Any foot withdrawal, whether sciatic or femoral nerve mediated, was considered a response. Motor response was evaluated by observation of the toe-spreading reflex (sciatic nerve motor fibers), a vestibular reflex induced by lifting the rat and generating a response with the toes extended and spread. For both tests, responses were rated as present or absent.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Drug Injection Protocols
For the single injection studies, baseline sensory (pin) and motor (toe spread) responses were recorded and 0.5 ml drug was injected into the sciatic notch. Animals were then reevaluated at 10-min intervals for the absence or presence of sensory and motor responses. Because the animals are anesthetized for injection, the initial 10-min evaluation cannot be a precise indicator of the actual onset time, and so the duration of nerve block is calculated as the latency from the end of the injection to the return of response. Drug solutions consisted of 1% lidocaine (commercial preservative-free solution intended for nerve block; Xylocaine-MPF, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) with or without added clonidine hydrochloride or epinephrine hydrochloride at concentrations of 0–25 μg/ml. In control experiments, clonidine or epinephrine alone at 25 μg/ml was injected into the sciatic notch. Animals were also monitored for overt sedation at 30 min postinjection by testing ability to ambulate on a rotating rod (10 rpm, 180 s). Clonidine or epinephrine were also injected intraperitoneally in 0.5 ml volume, 5 min before the sciatic notch injection of lidocaine in some experiments, to determine if clonidine or epinephrine were acting at a distal site (in addition to the sciatic nerve site) reached by systemic absorption. The selective α1-adrenergic antagonist prazosin (1 or 2 mg/kg) or the selective α2-adrenergic antagonist yohimbine (1, 2, or 4 mg/kg) were injected intraperitoneally 5 min before the sciatic notch injection of lidocaine plus 2.5 μg/ml clonidine to ascertain if receptors outside of the sciatic nerve bed contribute to clonidine modulation of lidocaine nerve block. The drug solutions were prepared by one of the investigators (J.S.K.), and the personnel (D.R.B., J.E.T., D.E.W.) performing the drug injections, behavioral assessments, data recording, and group statistics were blinded to the drug identities.
For adrenoreceptor antagonist studies, animals were first injected into the sciatic notch (0.5 ml) with prazosin hydrochloride (up to 40 μg/ml) or yohimbine hydrochloride (up to 100 μg/ml). The second sciatic notch injection of lidocaine with clonidine or epinephrine was administered 10 min later. In one additional experiment, the time between the first and second injections was increased to 60 min. All lidocaine alone animals for these experiments had a saline preinjection. In control experiments, prazosin 40 μg/ml or yohimbine 100 μg/ml alone was injected into the sciatic notch.
For Ih channel studies, the Ih blocker ZD 7288 (14, 56, 280, or 650 μg/ml) was first injected into the sciatic notch (0.5 ml), and 60 min later the second sciatic notch injection of lidocaine with or without clonidine was performed to determine the role of Ih channel blockade in extending the duration of nerve block. A 60-min delay was chosen between the first and second injections because even with desheathed nerve preparations at least 20 min of perfusion for ZD 7288 is required to effect Ih and the duration of action can be 2 or more hours.10,14 As the adenylyl cyclase activator forskolin and the cell-permeable cAMP analog 8-Br-cAMP have been shown to enhance Ih in nerve cells in vitro,16 forskolin (21 or 63 μg/ml) or 8-Br-cAMP (1.28 or 4.3 mg/ml) were injected into the sciatic notch and 10 min later the second sciatic notch injection of lidocaine with or without clonidine was performed to determine if Ih enhancement could decrease the duration of nerve block.
For all multiple injection experiments, duration of nerve block was timed to the end of the second injection. ZD 7288 was obtained from Tocris (Ballwin, MO) and all other drugs were from Sigma (St. Louis, MO). All drugs were directly dissolved in 0.9% sodium chloride injection, except forskolin, which was initially solubilized in dimethylsulfoxide, and then diluted in saline (final dimethylsulfoxide concentration 2%).
Animals received drug injections on either side at 5–7 day intervals, alternating between the left and right leg on different days. Multiple injections administered days apart were allowed because a previous study had demonstrated that a second lidocaine injection onto the sciatic nerve 24 h after the first injection produces an identical functional block.17 In addition, in a previous study in which 1% lidocaine was infused into a silicone rubber cuff surrounding the rat sciatic nerve three times a day for 3 days, we found no nerve fiber degeneration, no damage to underlying muscle, and no loss of motor function.18
Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical Analysis
In the dose–response studies, duration of nerve block at different added clonidine or epinephrine doses was compared by analysis of variance with post hoc comparison to the lidocaine alone group with Dunnett’s test. Student t test was used for comparison of nerve block duration after sciatic notch injection of added clonidine or epinephrine with duration after systemic injection of the same dose. In the receptor antagonist and Ih modulator experiments, the sensory block durations attributable to different drug combinations were compared by analysis of variance, followed by post hoc comparison with the Tukey-B test. All data in figures are shown as mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis was performed by one investigator (J.S.K.).
Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Clonidine and Epinephrine Dose Response
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Image Tools
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Image Tools
The dose response curve for duration of nerve block with clonidine added to 1% lidocaine is shown in figure 1. In these experiments, the duration of sensory block for 1% lidocaine alone was 69 ± 2 min, and the duration of motor block was 72 ± 2 min. For comparative purposes, the dose–response curve for duration of nerve block with epinephrine added to 1% lidocaine is shown in figure 2. In these experiments, the duration of sensory (pinprick withdrawal) block for 1% lidocaine alone was 68 ± 3 min, and the duration of motor (toe-spreading reflex) block was 71 ± 2 min. With either drug the dose–response curve is monotonic, with the higher dose always producing a longer duration of blockade. None of the drug combinations affected the toe-spreading reflex in the contralateral limb. Because there was no difference between the duration of block using the pinprick test versus the toe-spreading reflex, for either lidocaine/clonidine (fig. 1) or lidocaine/epinephrine (fig. 2), only pinprick testing results are subsequently displayed for the α-adrenoreceptor and the Ih modulator studies.
Sciatic notch injection of clonidine or epinephrine alone at 25 μg/ml did not produce measurable sensory or motor blockade, nor did either produce overt sedation (rotating rod test). Systemic injection (intraperitoneal) of 25 μg/ml epinephrine before lidocaine injection did not extend the duration of sensory or motor block. However, systemic clonidine injection at the 25 μg/ml dose extended the duration of motor block by 14 min. At lower doses (15 μg/ml or less) there was no extended motor block with systemic clonidine preinjection. At the 25 μg/ml dose, systemic clonidine injection demonstrated a trend toward increased duration of sensory block (10 min increase, P = 0.067), and at lower doses (15 μg/ml or less) there was no increased duration of sensory block compared with lidocaine alone (intraperitoneal saline preinjection).
Systemic preinjection of prazosin, 1 mg/kg intraperitoneal, did not alter the duration of sensory block of lidocaine plus 2.5 μg/ml clonidine. Preinjection of prazosin, 2 mg/kg intraperitoneal, increased the duration of sensory block (114 ± 6 min with prazosin versus 92 ± 2 min with saline preinjection). Prazosin, 4 mg/kg intraperitoneal, was not tested because that dose decreased ambulation time on the rotating rod. Systemic preinjection of yohimbine, 1, 2, or 4 mg/kg intraperitoneal, did not alter the duration of sensory block of lidocaine plus 2.5 μg/ml clonidine. At 4 mg/kg yohimbine intraperitoneal, the block duration was 99 ± 6 min versus 101 ± 5 min with saline preinjection.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Antagonist Studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Image Tools
Epinephrine at 1.6 μg/ml increased the sensory block duration by approximately 50% of the maximum effect (seen at the 25 μg/ml dose). Using this intermediate 1.6 μg/ml dose, the α-adrenergic antagonists prazosin or yohimbine were given before the lidocaine/epinephrine combination. Prazosin at 10 μg/ml reduced the duration of sensory block of the lidocaine/epinephrine combination to that of lidocaine alone (fig. 3). Yohimbine at 40 μg/ml had no effect on the duration of the lidocaine/epinephrine induced sensory block.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Image Tools
Clonidine at 2.5 μg/ml increased the sensory block duration by approximately 50% of the maximum effect (seen at the 25 μg/ml dose). Using this intermediate 2.5 μg/ml dose, the α-adrenergic antagonists prazosin or yohimbine were given before the lidocaine/epinephrine combination. Neither prazosin at 40 μg/ml nor yohimbine up to 100 μg/ml altered the duration of the sensory block of the lidocaine/clonidine combination (fig. 4). The same result was obtained when the time between the first and second injections was increased to 60 min or with a 15 μg/ml dose of clonidine. Sciatic notch injection of prazosin or yohimbine alone at these same doses did not produce any sensory or motor blockade, nor did either produce overt sedation.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Image Tools
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Image Tools
When the Ih blocker ZD 7288 was injected into the sciatic notch at 650 μg/ml, the duration of lidocaine sensory block increased by 39 min (fig. 5). A similar increase in block (35 min) could be obtained with the addition of 15 μg/ml clonidine to lidocaine. Preinjection of ZD 7288 before that same lidocaine/clonidine combination did not produce any additional prolongation of sensory block duration compared with the lidocaine/clonidine combination alone. A lower dose of ZD 7288 (280 μg/ml) followed by lidocaine produced a smaller increase in lidocaine sensory block (20 min). The lowest doses of ZD 7288 (14 or 56 μg/ml) did not prolong lidocaine nerve block duration. Preinjection of forskolin at 63 μg/ml (150 μm) decreased the duration of lidocaine sensory nerve block by 19 min (fig. 6A). When forskolin at 63 μg/ml was given before the combination of lidocaine and 15 μg/ml clonidine, the duration of sensory nerve block was decreased by 54 min. A lower dose of forskolin (21 μg/ml) followed by lidocaine also reduced the duration of sensory block (13 min). Preinjection of 8-Br-cAMP at 4.3 mg/ml (10 mm) decreased the duration of lidocaine sensory block by 22 min (fig. 6B). When 8-Br-cAMP at 4.3 mg/ml was given before the combination of lidocaine and 15 μg/ml clonidine, the duration of sensory nerve block was decreased by 34 min. A lower dose of 8-Br-cAMP (1.28 mg/ml) followed by lidocaine did not reduce the duration of lidocaine sensory block, although that dose still decreased the duration of lidocaine/clonidine block by 34 min.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

Clonidine and Epinephrine Dose Response
In the animal model, the dose response curve for clonidine or epinephrine added to 1% lidocaine did not demonstrate any U-shaped characteristics in which higher doses would be less effective than lower doses in producing nerve block. Both dose–response curves represent monotonic functions. Our animal study does not provide an explanation for the reported finding that lower doses of clonidine added to lidocaine could be more effective in patients than higher doses of clonidine under certain conditions.4,5
Although epinephrine is slightly more potent than clonidine, no direct comparison is made between the two curves, as our study demonstrated that the two compounds act by different mechanisms. Notably, however, the epinephrine dose–response curve is similar to that measured in humans when 1% lidocaine was infiltrated subcutaneously with epinephrine in four doses from 0.3–20 μg/ml, and the half-maximum response (pinprick) was observed at a concentration of about 1.25 μg/ml.19
Sciatic nerve injections of 25 μg/ml clonidine alone did not produce sensory or motor block. This is consistent with in vitro experiments that demonstrate a local anesthetic effect of clonidine only at high doses (500 μm = 134 μg/ml)8,9 and an in vivo sciatic notch injection experiment showing that 1000 μm clonidine alone did not cause detectable nerve block using the hot plate test.20 One clinical study also showed that local application of clonidine alone (150 μg in 15 ml) onto the brachial plexus did not produce a local anesthetic effect.21 Although 25 μg/ml clonidine alone did not produce overt sedation, it may still have effects in the central nervous system related to systemic absorption. This is evidenced by the increased duration of motor block and the slight increase in sensory block with intraperitoneal clonidine combined with lidocaine, at the highest dose. The toe-spreading reflex is initiated by vestibular input, and higher doses of clonidine may have sedative effects in the brain.6,22 In patients, doses of 150 μg or greater in nerve block mixtures produce significant sedation.2,4 Therefore, the effects of large doses of clonidine on nerve block can be attributable to both local and central actions. Because systemic doses of clonidine 15 μg/ml or lower did not extend the duration of lidocaine nerve block, central nervous system inhibition does not appear to be an important factor over most of the useful clonidine dose range. This is supported by antagonist experiments showing that systemically administered α-adrenoreceptor antagonists did not reduce clonidine prolongation of lidocaine nerve block. The increase in lidocaine/clonidine sensory nerve block duration with 2 mg/kg prazosin preinjection may be attributable to mild sedation or motor impairment at that prazosin dose because other rodent studies have shown that prazosin, 2 mg/kg, decreases locomotion,23 and our 4 mg/kg dose caused impairment on the rotating rod. In the dose–response curves, there was no ambiguity with epinephrine at higher doses, as intraperitoneal epinephrine at 25 μg/ml did not extend the duration of lidocaine sensory or motor block.
Back to Top | Article Outline
α-Adrenergic Receptors Do Not Contribute to Clonidine Prolongation of Nerve Blockade
It is widely believed that the effect of epinephrine on extending the duration of lidocaine nerve block is the result of vasoconstriction,24,25 and our study is in accord with that mechanism. The α1-adrenergic antagonist prazosin completely blocked the increased duration of analgesia and motor block obtained when epinephrine was added to lidocaine in the local injection mixture. Interestingly, the α2-adrenergic antagonist yohimbine was without measurable effect, although α2-adrenergic receptors are mediators of vasoconstriction in some blood vessels.26,27
Although clonidine could have local vasoconstrictive effects that might slow absorption of lidocaine, one clinical study did not show any prolongation of plasma lidocaine concentration when a clonidine/lidocaine admixture was used for brachial plexus block, whereas the epinephrine/lidocaine combination did produce this effect.2 However, in another study with blockade of the human dorsal cutaneous nerves, the tissue lidocaine concentration was increased when 10 μg/ml clonidine was added to 1% lidocaine compared to lidocaine alone, suggesting that the prolongation of nerve block was at least partially pharmacokinetically mediated.7 Nevertheless, we did not find any clonidine-induced prolongation of nerve block that could be attributed to α-adrenergic receptors. Although we did not examine the complete displacement of the dose–response curves with the α-adrenergic antagonists, the absence of any effect at an intermediate dose (2.5 μg/ml) or a high dose (15 μg/ml) makes it unlikely that our methodology was insufficiently sensitive to detect α-adrenergic interaction. It is possible that the deep sciatic nerve site in the animal study differs from the superficial tissue bed of human cutaneous nerves with respect to blood vessels subject to vasoconstriction24 or that there may be a species difference in α-adrenoreceptor distribution. Another consideration is that peripheral nerve block involves a balance between the amount of drug outside the peripheral nerve and that within the perineurial space,28 and this balance may also vary among different injection sites.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Role of the Hyperpolarization-activated Cationic Current
In vitro studies with desheathed peripheral nerve suggest that Ih currents, which are among the determinants of nerve after-potentials, may explain how clonidine potentiates local anesthetic action. The Ih blocker ZD 7288 produces slowing of conduction in rat C-fibers.14 When ZD 7288 at 10 μm (3 μg/ml) is applied to the isolated vagus nerve, activity-dependent hyperpolarization is enhanced, presumably by blocking the depolarizing effect of Ih.10 Clonidine 50 μm (13 μg/ml) produces a similar enhancement of activity-dependent hyperpolarization. However, combining the two drugs did not produce any additional hyperpolarization, implying that clonidine enhances this hyperpolarization by inhibiting Ih.10 We obtained the same combination of effects with the in vivo animal model. The only quantitative difference was that the concentration of ZD 7288 used in our study was 650 μg/ml. The likely reason for this difference is that ZD 7288 is a relatively hydrophilic compound,13 and therefore a much higher concentration is required to allow penetration through the perineurium and access to nerve fibers, unlike the in vitro experiments with desheathed nerve. The 15 μg/ml clonidine dose was used in this experiment, rather than a 25 μg/ml dose, as the systemic injection experiments showed that at the higher dose, part of the effect of clonidine may be attributable to central effects not directly related to the peripheral nerve activity. Compounds that stimulate adenylyl cyclase (forskolin) or are cAMP analogs (8-Br-cAMP) have been shown in vitro to enhance Ih in neurons16,29 or in dorsal root ganglion cells.30 It is not known if these compounds have the same effect in vitro on peripheral nerve. The decreased duration of nerve block seen in our experiments when either compound was injected before lidocaine/clonidine is consistent with the hypothesis that in vivo nerve blockade is modulated via Ih channel activity. Further confirmation of these results with electrophysiological studies would reinforce this hypothesis.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusions

The exact doses of clonidine used in the dose–response part of our rat study cannot be precisely compared with those used in clinical studies because the injection volume and site and amount of perfused tissue are different. However, the amount of added clonidine (2.5 μg/ml) required to produce a moderate enhancement of sensory nerve block duration is consistent with the sensitivity seen in clinical studies.2,4,5,31 One limitation of our study is that animals received more than one sciatic nerve injection (5–7 days apart), and so it is possible that there was some carryover effect of lidocaine or clonidine not anticipated by the authors. Also, as a result of the use of electrical stimulation for nerve location, the animals had to be briefly (<2 min) anesthetized during performance of the nerve block procedure. However, it has been shown that there is no difference in duration of sciatic nerve blockade performed under brief general anesthesia versus when awake, in animals injected with a local anesthetic (bupivacaine).32 Clonidine also binds to imidazoline receptors in the brainstem and has antagonist actions at the I1 receptor subtype.33 However, no I1 selective antagonists are available.34 When such compounds become available, it would be worthwhile to perform additional antagonist studies to examine if the I1 receptor can also mediate lidocaine/clonidine analgesia in a manner similar to the imidazoline receptor mediated antihypertensive effect.33
Our study is also in accord with clinical studies showing no advantage to using clonidine instead of epinephrine in lidocaine admixtures with respect to duration of nerve block.2,35 However, in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or hyperthyroidism,2 or where there is concern about local ischemia as a result of vasoconstriction, clonidine can be an effective alternative to epinephrine.
In conclusion, our results suggest that Ih channel blockade, and not α-adrenoreceptor activity, contributes to clonidine enhancement of in vivo lidocaine block of the sciatic nerve.
Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1.Liu SS, Salinas FV: Continuous plexus and peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative analgesia. Anesth Analg 2003; 96:263–72

2.Gaumann D, Forster A, Griessen M, Habre W, Poinsot O, Della Santa D: Comparison between clonidine and epinephrine admixture to lidocaine in brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg 1992; 74:69–74

3.Eisenach JC, De Koch M, Klimscha W: α2-adrenergic agonists for regional anesthesia: A clinical review of clonidine (1984–1995). Anesthesiology 1996; 85:655–74

4.Bernard JM, Macaire P: Dose-range effects of clonidine added to lidocaine for brachial plexus block. Anesthesiology 1997; 87:277–84

5.Reinhart DJ, Wang W, Stagg KS, Walker KG, Bailey PL, Walker EB, Zaugg SE: Postoperative analgesia after peripheral nerve block for podiatric surgery: Clinical efficacy and chemical stability of lidocaine alone versus lidocaine plus clonidine. Anesth Analg 1996; 83:760–5

6.Maze M, Tranquilli W: Alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonists: Defining the role in clinical anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1991; 74:581–605

7.Kopacz DJ, Bernards CM: Effect of clonidine on lidocaine clearance in vivo. Anesthesiology 2001; 95:1371–6

8.Gaumann DM, Brunet PC, Jirounek P: Clonidine enhances the effects of lidocaine on C-fiber action potential. Anesth Analg 1992; 74:719–25

9.Butterworth JF, Strichartz GR: The alpha 2-adrenergic agonists clonidine and guanfacine produce tonic and phasic block of conduction in rat sciatic nerve fibers. Anesth Analg 1993; 76:295–301

10.Dalle C, Schneider M, Clergue F, Bretton C, Jirounek P: Inhibition of the Ih current in isolated peripheral nerve: A novel mode of peripheral antinociception? Muscle Nerve 2001; 24:254–61

11.Gaumann DM, Brunet PC, Jirounek P: Hyperpolarizing afterpotentials in C fibers and local anesthetic effects of clonidine and lidocaine. Pharmacology 1994; 48:21–9

12.Erne-Brand F, Jirounek P, Drewe J: Mechanism of antinociceptive action of clonidine in nonmyelinated nerve fibres. Eur J Pharmacol 1999; 383:1–8

13.Harris NC, Constanti A: Mechanism of block by ZD 7288 of the hyperpolarization-activated inward rectifying current in guinea pig substantia nigra neurons in vitro. J Neurophysiol 1995; 74:2366–78

14.Takigawa T, Alzheimer C, Quasthoff S, Grafe P: A specific blocker reveals the presence and function of the hyperpolarization-activated cation current Ih in peripheral mammalian nerve fibres. Neuroscience 1998; 82:631–4

15.Thalhammer JG, Vladimirova M, Bershadsky B, Strichartz GR: Neurologic evaluation of the rat during sciatic nerve block with lidocaine. Anesthesiology 1995; 82:1013–25

16.Pape HC: Adenosine promotes burst activity in guinea pig geniculocortical neurons through two different ionic mechanisms. J Physiol 1992; 447:729–53

17.Sinnott CJ, Strichartz GR: Levobupivacaine versus ropivacaine for sciatic nerve block in the rat. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003; 28:294–303

18.Kroin JS, Penn RD, Levy FE, Kerns JM: The effect of repetitive lidocaine infusion on peripheral nerve. Exp Neurol 1986; 94:166–73

19.Liu S, Carpenter RL, Chiu AA, McGill TJ, Mantell SA: Epinephrine prolongs duration of subcutaneous infiltration of local anesthesia in a dose-related manner: Correlation with magnitude of vasoconstriction. Reg Anesth 1995; 20:378–84

20.Kohane DS, Lu NT, Cairns BE, Berde CB: Effects of adrenergic agonists and antagonists on tetrodotoxin-induced nerve block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001; 26:239–45

21.Sia S, Lepri A: Clonidine administered as an axillary block does not affect postoperative pain when given as the sole analgesic. Anesth Analg 1999; 8:1109–12

22.Drew GM, Gower AJ, Marriott AS: Alpha 2-adrenoceptors mediate clonidine-induced sedation in the rat. Br J Pharmacol 1979; 67:133–41

23.Stone EA, Quartermain D: Alpha-1-noradrenergic neurotransmission, corticosterone, and behavior depression. Biol Psychiatry 1999; 46:1287–300

24.Tucker GT, Mather LE: Properties, absorption, and disposition of local anesthetic agents, Neural Blockage in Clinical Anesthesia and Management of Pain. Edited by Cousins MJ, Bridenbaugh PO. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1988, p 72

25.Bernards CM, Kopacz DJ: Effect of epinephrine on lidocaine clearance in vivo: A microdialysis study in humans. Anesthesiology 1999; 91:1962–8

26.Jie K, van Brummelen P, Vermey P, Timmermans PB, van Zwieten PA: Identification of vascular postsynaptic alpha 1- and alpha 2-adrenoceptors in man. Circ Res 1984; 54:447–52

27.Giessler C, Wangemann T, Silber RE, Dhein S, Brodde OE: Noradrenaline-induced contraction of human saphenous vein and human internal mammary artery: involvement of different α-adrenoceptor subtypes. Naunyn-Schmeideberg’s Arch Pharmacol 2002; 366:104–9

28.Sinnott CJ, Cogswell III LP, Johnson A, Strichartz GR: On the mechanism by which epinephrine potentiates lidocaine’s peripheral nerve block. Anesthesiology 2003; 98:181–8

29.Banks MI, Pearce RA, Smith PH: Hyperpolarization-activated cation current (Ih) in neurons of the medial nucleus of the trapezoidal body: Voltage-clamp analysis and enhancement by norepinephrine and cAMP suggest a modulatory mechanism in the auditory brainstem. J Neurophysiol 1993; 70:1420–32

30.Cardenas CG, Mar LP, Vysokanov AV, Arnold PB, Cardenas LM, Surmeier DJ, Scroggs RS: Serotonergic modulation of hyperpolarization-activated current in acutely isolated dorsal root ganglion neurons. J Physiol 1999; 518:507–23

31.Madan R, Bharti N, Shende D, Khokhar SK, Kaul HL: A dose response study of clonidine with local anesthetic mixture for peribulbar block: A comparison of three doses. Anesth Analg 2001; 93:1593–7

32.Hu D, Hu R, Berde CB: Neurologic evaluation of infant and adult rats before and after sciatic nerve blockade. Anesthesiology 1997; 86:957–65

33.Buccafusco JJ, Lapp CA, Westbrooks KL, Ernsberger P: Role of medullary I1 imidazoline and α2-adrenergic receptors in the antihypertensive responses evoked by central administration of clonidine analogs in conscious spontaneously hypertensive rats. JPET 1995; 273:1162–71

34.Szabo B: Imidazoline antihypertensive drugs: A critical review on their mechanism of action. Pharmacol Therapeutics 2002; 93:1–35

35.Molnar RR, Davies MJ, Scott DA, Silbert BS, Mooney PH: Comparison of clonidine and epinephrine in lidocaine for cervical plexus block. Reg Anesth 1997; 22:137–42

Cited By:

This article has been cited 15 time(s).

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
Perioperative Interventions to Reduce Chronic Postsurgical Pain
Carroll, I; Hah, J; Mackey, S; Ottestad, E; Kong, JT; Lahidji, S; Tawfik, V; Younger, J; Curtin, C
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, 29(4): 213-222.
10.1055/s-0032-1329921
CrossRef
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
Preventing the development of chronic pain after orthopaedic surgery with preventive multimodal analgesic techniques
Reuben, SS; Buvanendran, A
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 89A(6): 1343-1358.

Biophysical Journal
Dual stretch responses of mHCN2 pacemaker channels: Accelerated activation, accelerated deactivation
Lin, W; Laitko, U; Juranka, PF; Morris, CE
Biophysical Journal, 92(5): 1559-1572.
10.1529/biophysj.106.092478
CrossRef
Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia
The effects of medetomidine on radial nerve blockade with mepivacaine in dogs
Lamont, LA; Lemke, KA
Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, 35(1): 62-68.
10.1111/j.1467-2995.2007.00349.x
CrossRef
Neuroscience
Hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channel mRNA and protein expression in large versus small diameter dorsal root ganglion neurons: correlation with hyperpolarization-activated current gating
Kouranova, EV; Strassle, BW; Ring, RH; Bowlby, MR; Vasilyev, DV
Neuroscience, 153(4): 1008-1019.
10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.03.032
CrossRef
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
Case report: postoperative analgesia and preserved motor function with clonidine and buprenorphine via a sciatic perineural catheter
Whiting, DJ; Williams, BA; Orebaugh, SL; Toshok, RR
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 21(4): 297-299.
10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.08.027
CrossRef
Current Pharmaceutical Design
Hyperpolarization-Activated Cyclic Nucleotide-Gated (HCN) Channels and Pain
Dunlop, J; Vasilyev, D; Lu, P; Cummons, T; Bowlby, MR
Current Pharmaceutical Design, 15(): 1767-1772.

Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Future Considerations for Pharmacologic Adjuvants in Single-Injection Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Patients With Diabetes Mellitus
Williams, BA; Murinson, BB; Grable, BR; Orebaugh, SL
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 34(5): 445-457.
10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ac9e42
CrossRef
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Analgesic efficacy of bilateral superficial cervical plexus block administered before thyroid surgery under general anaesthesia
Andrieu, G; Amrouni, R; Robin, E; Carnaille, B; Wattier, JM; Pattou, F; Vallet, B; Lebuffe, G
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 99(4): 561-566.
10.1093/bja/aem230
CrossRef
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Lidocaine plus clonidine for maxillary infiltration anaesthesia: parameters of anaesthesia and vascular effects
Brkovic, B; Gardasevic, M; Roganovic, J; Jovic, N; Todorovic, L; Stojic, D
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 37(2): 149-155.
10.1016/j.ijom.2007.07.019
CrossRef
Neurochemical Research
Characteristics of HCN channels and their participation in neuropathic pain
Jiang, YQ; Sun, Q; Tu, HY; Wan, Y
Neurochemical Research, 33(): 1979-1989.
10.1007/s11064-008-9717-6
CrossRef
Neuroscience
Role of peripheral hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-modulated channel pacemaker channels in acute and chronic pain models in the rat
Luo, L; Chang, L; Brown, SM; Ao, H; Lee, DH; Higuera, ES; Dubin, AE; Chaplan, SR
Neuroscience, 144(4): 1477-1485.
10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.10.048
CrossRef
Anesthesiology
Perineural Administration of Dexmedetomidine in Combination with Bupivacaine Enhances Sensory and Motor Blockade in Sciatic Nerve Block without Inducing Neurotoxicity in Rat
Brummett, CM; Norat, MA; Palmisano, JM; Lydic, R
Anesthesiology, 109(3): 502-511.
10.1097/ALN.0b013e318182c26b
PDF (1917) | CrossRef
Anesthesiology
“Above All, Do No Harm”: Hippocrates
Gerner, P
Anesthesiology, 111(5): 938-939.
10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181bbcd2c
PDF (86) | CrossRef
European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA)
Effects of a continuous low-dose clonidine epidural regimen on pain, satisfaction and adverse events during labour: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Wallet, F; Clement, HJ; Bouret, C; Lopez, F; Broisin, F; Pignal, C; Schoeffler, M; Derre, E; Charpiat, B; Huissoud, C; Aubrun, F; Viale, JP
European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA), 27(5): 441-447.
10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283365944
PDF (197) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline

© 2004 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.

Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.
Login

Article Tools

Images

Share