The site of action of epidural fentanyl: what can be learned by studying the difference between infusion and bolus administration? The importance of history, one hopes.
L. Mather,M. Cousins
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000092951.32643.A6
2003-11-01
Abstract:I t is now approaching a quarter of a century since “selective spinal analgesia” was suggested as a goal for the spinal administration of opioids (1). In an ensuing study of epidural meperidine, each patient received the same bolus dose of meperidine (100 mg) IV and epidurally on separate occasions. This study permitted within-subject comparisons of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood meperidine concentrations after the two routes of administration, in parallel with analgetic response (2). The rigorous study design permitted a clear conclusion that, at early time points, part of the analgetic effect of meperidine was due to CSF-borne drug, presumably acting at the spinal cord. However, at later time points, blood-borne meperidine reached analgetic blood concentrations in some patients, presumably resulting in multimodal analgesia (3). The same group subsequently measured blood, as well as lumbar and cervical CSF concentrations of fentanyl after an epidural fentanyl bolus dose (100 g); fentanyl concentrations were found to be large in lumbar CSF, negligible in cervical CSF, and small in blood (4). This study, in patients with severe back pain, suggested that single bolus doses of fentanyl exerted a localized spinal analgetic effect. It is extraordinary that at this late stage there is no clear evidence as to whether epidural fentanyl bolus or infusion exert predominantly spinal or supraspinal analgesia. The studies by Ginosar et al. (5,6) in this issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia provide an inventive attempt to solve an often asked and still controversial question: Does epidurally administered fentanyl act locally, on spinal opioid receptors, or systemically, on supraspinal opioid receptors? While the authors have framed their paper, in many places, in terms of an either/or dichotomy, they have set out to test a milder hypothesis that the analgetic effect observed with two pain stimulus models in healthy volunteers after the epidural administration of fentanyl is predominantly mediated by a spinal mechanism if the drug is injected as a bolus, and by a supraspinal mechanism if infused. Indeed, the experimental results obtained support this hypothesis QED! Or do they? Some pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic reasoning is appropriately used by the authors in interpreting the results, hence some further background is relevant. It is sensible not to think of supraspinal and spinal mechanisms in terms of a dichotomy. Despite commentary about lipophilic drugs like fentanyl distributing into epidural fat, countless studies with epidurally injected opioids and local anesthetics (remember that fentanyl and bupivacaine have similar physicochemical properties) have demonstrated that systemically absorbed drug has a similar blood concentration profile to that after IM injection. The biphasic absorption patterns found can be interpreted as a “portion” of the dose being absorbed reasonably rapidly with a half-life of around 5 to 10 min, generating the “peak” arterial blood concentration at around 10 min after injection. The remaining “portion,” presumably that distributed into fatty tissues, is absorbed more slowly with a half-life of several hours, thereby sustaining the blood drug concentrations compared with IV drug administration. Blood-borne drug will thus be delivered to both supraspinal and spinal receptor sites in proportion to the distribution of cardiac output, in addition to drug delivered by local mechanisms of bulk flow and diffusion (3,4,7). Although the amount of blood-borne drug delivered supraspinally may be small after epidural compared with IV injection, one has to remember, as pointed out in the early days of spinal opioid pharmacology, that the dual Accepted for publication August 13, 2003. Address correspondence to Professor Laurence E. Mather, PhD, FANZCA, FRCA, Pain Management Research Institute, University of Sydney at Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia. Address e-mail to lmather@med.usyd.edu.au.