Stock in Pacira Pharmaceuticals (PCRX)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
ARIL 20, 2018
Perineural Dexamethasone Not Worth Adding to Interscalene Block

Niagara Falls, Ontario—The addition of perineural dexamethasone may significantly prolong the duration of interscalene block over IV administration of the adjuvant, but this benefit likely is not enough to overcome the potential for adverse effects. Researchers found little difference between 4- and 8-mg doses of dexamethasone on block prolongation.

“Although interscalene block is known to provide effective analgesia for shoulder surgery, it has limited duration—often less than 12 hours,” said Darren W. Holland, MD, a resident at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, who worked under the guidance of lead author Thomas Mutter, MD. “Dexamethasone is known to prolong the analgesic duration of interscalene block by as much as twofold compared to local anesthetic alone, and these effects have been seen with both intravenous and perineural administration.

“The issue with perineural dexamethasone is that there is a theoretical risk of neurotoxicity,” Dr. Holland continued. “So with that downside in mind, novel routes and higher doses should certainly be justified by significant benefit in order to accept this risk.” Nevertheless, previous research on the topic has been insufficiently powered, a drawback that prevents researchers from making strong conclusions regarding the optimal dose and route of administration of dexamethasone used as an adjunct.

The investigators conducted the factorial, randomized superiority trial of 280 adult patients, all of whom were undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery at the institution between June 2015 and July 2016. After random assignment in a 1:1:1:1 fashion, all patients received preoperative ultrasound-guided interscalene block with 30 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine plus 4- or 8-mg dexamethasone via the perineural or IV route. Patients with diabetes mellitus, chronic opioid use, or contraindications to interscalene block or dexamethasone were excluded. All relevant parties were blinded to the intervention group.

“Care for these patients was at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist,” Dr. Holland said, “with a few exceptions. We required that dynamic ultrasound was used with an in-plane approach, the block solution could not be altered and dexamethasone could not be given other than as determined by randomization.”

Higher Incidence of Neurologic Symptoms

Patients were assessed at multiple time points, and the trial’s primary outcome was block duration. Secondary outcomes, including adverse effects, quality of recovery markers and postoperative neurologic symptoms, were assessed by telephone follow-up or chart review.

In presenting the study during the Residents’ Competition of the 2017 annual meeting of the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society (abstract 260987), Dr. Holland noted that the perineural route significantly prolonged block duration by 2.0 hours (95% CI, 0.4-3.5; P=0.01), representing less than 10% prolongation over the IV route, regardless of the dexamethasone dose. Moreover, 8 mg of dexamethasone did not significantly prolong block duration over 4 mg (1.3 hours; 95% CI, –0.3 to 2.9 hours; P=0.10), regardless of administration route.

No significant interaction and no remarkable differences in secondary outcomes between groups were observed. “The one thing that we did find that was unexpected was that the incidence of persistent neurological symptoms was higher than expected,” Dr. Holland said. “In our study it was 16%, where we would expect, based on previous literature, that the incidence would be between 10% and 12%.” These symptoms resolved by six months in all but five patients.

“So we conclude that perineural dexamethasone marginally prolongs block duration compared to IV administration,” Dr. Holland said. “What’s more, 8 mg of dexamethasone was not significantly different from 4 mg, regardless of the route. No other significant benefits of the perineural route were found. So our conclusion is that clinicians should strongly consider the risks of administered perineural dexamethasone given its limited analgesic benefit and theoretical risks of neurotoxicity.”

Dr. Holland’s audience raised several questions about the trial, beginning with dexamethasone dose. Stephan K.W. Schwarz, MD, PhD, a professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, and one of the competition’s judges, said, “Your results are consistent with those of previous studies that demonstrate prolongation of peripheral nerve blockade with systemic [IV] dexamethasone. Yet among the issues that this raises is that if there is a perineural site of action—as opposed to a systemic site of action—the possibility exists that the doses required perineurally for target tissue concentrations might be very small. Yet you used the same doses—4 mg and 8 mg—for both routes, and many clinicians may consider a perineural bolus of 4 mg or 8 mg to be high.”

“In its own way, we were using the IV route as the control, and wanted a similar dose for the perineural route,” Dr. Holland said. “We found that both 4 mg and 8 mg were the mo st commonly used perineural doses in the previous literature, going up to as much as 10 mg. So it wasn’t outside the realm of previous studies. And both 4 mg and 8 mg are commonly used intravenously as well.”

Given these results, Dr. Holland found little reason to continue research into the benefits of adjuvant perineural dexamethasone in these blocks. “Given this marginal benefit, I would hesitate suggesting that perineural dexamethasone administration should continue to be investigated, without question,” he concluded.

—Michael Vlessides

Members don't see this ad.
 
October 20, 2017
Low-Dose Perineural Dexamethasone Prolongs Effects of Brachial Plexus Nerve Block
shouldernerveplexussssu258_1312690.jpg
Female sex, increased age, and increased local anesthetic dose were all associated with longer duration of analgesia.

Low doses of perineural dexamethasone were shown to prolong the duration of ropivacaine brachial plexus nerve block analgesia in a study published in Pain Medicine.

In this retrospective cohort study, 1027 patients undergoing brachial plexus nerve block who received low-dose (2-4 mg; n=393), very low-dose (≤2 mg; n=537), or no (n=97) perineural dexamethasone were evaluated. Exclusion criteria included use of continuous catheter techniques, local anesthetics other than ropivacaine, and block locations with <15 participants.

Low-dose or very low-dose dexamethasone was used in 90.6% of ropivacaine brachial plexus nerve blocks (median dose, 2 mg). Perineural dexamethasone was associated with an increased mean block duration of 5.9 hours for low-dose and 4.9 hours for very low-dose (P <.001 for both).

When compared with very low-dose dexamethasone, low-dose dexamethasone was associated with an increase in block duration of 1 hour (P =.026). After adjustment, no difference was noted between the 2 dose groups for block duration (P =.420).

Female sex (P =.022), increased age (P =.048), and increased local anesthetic dose (P =.01) were all associated with longer duration of analgesia.



The study authors noted that "very low and low doses of perineural dexamethasone are associated with prolonged interscalene and supraclavicular brachial plexus block duration compared with ropivacaine alone." Given the lack of difference between dose groups, they concluded that "very low doses may be considered if dexamethasone is utilized as a perineural adjunct."


Reference
Schnepper GD, Kightlinger BI, Jiang Y, Wolf BJ, Bolin ED, Wilson SH. A retrospective study evaluating the effect of low doses of perineural dexamethasone on ropivacaine brachial plexus peripheral nerve block analgesic duration [published online September 23, 2017]. Pain Medicine. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnx205
 
Members don't see this ad :)
These days the only FDA approved option for long lasting single shot blocks is Exparel based.
Surely you're joking. There is absolutely ZERO evidence other than your own (which you really should publish!) that exparel is any longer acting then standard bupi for PNB, and none comparing it to current standard of care for long blocks (bupi/dex or bupi/clonidine or epi). Heck, even the study for ISB referenced by the FDA to approve it for ISB showed no difference in block duration.

We all know where you stand on Exparel, though given such little evidence for it, I have no clue why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
look at the many studies done by Brian Williams at Pitt. The local itself is neurotoxic. So use more adjuncts and less local.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Next, my decision to use it has to do with available evidence and personal experience. What I don’t understand is the apparent hostility towards the company and drug.
I wouldn’t consider myself completely hostile towards the company. But these pharmaceutical companies have figured out that they can control medicine with their monies. They pay off editors, researchers and the FDA. We are talking about mega millions of dollars here so they must get it approved whether it actually works better than the straight stuff or not. Who cares if it’s dangerous. We are talking about a lot of money.

So I’m not hostile towards them. I am frustrated though that we have allowed big pharm to take over medicine. I guess I’m niave since we also have let legislators, administrators and nurses take it over as well.

I guess my point is, that we as physicians need to scrutinize every new drug extremely carefully.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I guess my point is, that we as physicians need to scrutinize every new drug extremely carefully.
I agree but then isn't using it and making you own jugement better than taking advice from people that benefit from it's rise or fall?
 
I agree but then isn't using it and making you own jugement better than taking advice from people that benefit from it's rise or fall?
Maybe but if it is dangerous, as may be the case with Exparel, then your plan isn’t looking so good to me at this point.
 
look at the many studies done by Brian Williams at Pitt. The local itself is neurotoxic. So use more adjuncts and less local.

The Author you are referencing does not advocate the use of high dose perineural dexamethasone for safety reasons. He is in the low dose/very low dose camp if adding dexamethasone to local anesthetic.

"In models of central nervous system ischemia, a-2 adrenoceptor agonists are neuroprotective, whereas clonidine was shown to decrease the response to nerve injury in animal models.15 As nerve injury is rare and likely secondary to needle trauma, no clinical trial has reported neurotoxicity; given the small sample size, it would require roughly 16,000 patients to show a doubling of the baseline complication rate of 0.4%.22 In animal models, Williams et al showed that ropivacaine was neurotoxic to sensory neurons, whereas high concentrations of adjuvants alone, including buprenorphine, clonidine, and dexamethasone, were significantly less toxic.

Additionally, buprenorphine and clonidine appear safe at estimated clinical concentrations when used in combination with ropivacaine, whereas dexamethasone may have a dose–related neurotoxicity, suggesting the lowest possible dose (1-2 mg per nerve block) should be used.29
 
Ok, what I said is still correct. The quote you posted restates my point that the local itself is by far more neurotoxic than adjuncts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It also states what everyone here talks about anecdotally. Regardless of local + adjuvant combo, you’re unlikely to cause harm unless you’re bad with needles. And exparel is worthless. Sorry there was no mention of that last part. Just a simple belief on my part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
'
It also states what everyone here talks about anecdotally. Regardless of local + adjuvant combo, you’re unlikely to cause harm unless you’re bad with needles. And exparel is worthless. Sorry there was no mention of that last part. Just a simple belief on my part.
\

"Exparel is Worthless" is based on your using the drug 100, 200 or 500 times? I've used it more than 1,000 times and it definitely works for more than 30 hours so "worthless" simply isn't true.

I typically use Rop or Bup with very low dose dexamethasone (plus IV dexamethasone) for most of my blocks; I have used multiple adjuvants with great success for TAP blocks as well.
 
'
\

"Exparel is Worthless" is based on your using the drug 100, 200 or 500 times? I've used it more than 1,000 times and it definitely works for more than 30 hours so "worthless" simply isn't true.

I typically use Rop or Bup with very low dose dexamethasone (plus IV dexamethasone) for most of my blocks; I have used multiple adjuvants with great success for TAP blocks as well.
I’m sorry but if I have to use a drug 1000 times to find any worth in it then I have a hard time believing it has any real worth.

This article may shed some light on the issue as well:
Benefit vs. social responsibility: a profound ethical dilemma in medicine today
Brilenta $13/day
Plavix $0.50/day
But the relative risk is 2%.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
'
\

"Exparel is Worthless" is based on your using the drug 100, 200 or 500 times? I've used it more than 1,000 times and it definitely works for more than 30 hours so "worthless" simply isn't true.

I typically use Rop or Bup with very low dose dexamethasone (plus IV dexamethasone) for most of my blocks; I have used multiple adjuvants with great success for TAP blocks as well.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...bupivacaine-formulation-2155-9627.1000189.pdf

Please read, come back, and let’s have a discussion regarding the evidence for or against Exparel. I have no conflicts of interest regarding Exparel. Do you?

It’s almost incomprehensible to me that you’ve used the drug 1000 times given what I’ve read and experienced (which is similar to the experience of other anesthesiologists here). You have a tendency to toss numbers around which you feel adds evidence to your anecdotal experience. For me, it just adds more questions.

Exparel, and many other drugs in various medical fields, provides more than anything a look at bias that comes in many forms in the medical literature and how physicians have been historically manipulated by larger entities not to help patients, but to drive up profits for industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...bupivacaine-formulation-2155-9627.1000189.pdf

Please read, come back, and let’s have a discussion regarding the evidence for or against Exparel. I have no conflicts of interest regarding Exparel. Do you?

It’s almost incomprehensible to me that you’ve used the drug 1000 times given what I’ve read and experienced (which is similar to the experience of other anesthesiologists here). You have a tendency to toss numbers around which you feel adds evidence to your anecdotal experience. For me, it just adds more questions.

Exparel, and many other drugs in various medical fields, provides more than anything a look at bias that comes in many forms in the medical literature and how physicians have been historically manipulated by larger entities not to help patients, but to drive up profits for industry.
Thanks for that study. Fascinating, though not surprising.
 
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...bupivacaine-formulation-2155-9627.1000189.pdf

Please read, come back, and let’s have a discussion regarding the evidence for or against Exparel. I have no conflicts of interest regarding Exparel. Do you?

It’s almost incomprehensible to me that you’ve used the drug 1000 times given what I’ve read and experienced (which is similar to the experience of other anesthesiologists here). You have a tendency to toss numbers around which you feel adds evidence to your anecdotal experience. For me, it just adds more questions.

Exparel, and many other drugs in various medical fields, provides more than anything a look at bias that comes in many forms in the medical literature and how physicians have been historically manipulated by larger entities not to help patients, but to drive up profits for industry.

Family, friends, VIPs, etc have all had "EXPAREL" blocks. They report excellent results without any complications. So, "worthless" is a false description of the drug. Is it worth $300 vs $6-$8 for the standard cocktail? I think it is.

The comment about Brilenta vs plavix is a good point about cost/efficacy but Brilenta isn't "worthless" either.

Finally, how about giving this FDA approved drug an actual chance to impress you (or not) before deciding it has no role in clinical practice. Since I've seen the efficacy over more than 6 years now I know it works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Family, friends, VIPs, etc have all had "EXPAREL" blocks. They report excellent results without any complications. So, "worthless" is a false description of the drug. Is it worth $300 vs $6-$8 for the standard cocktail? I think it is.

The comment about Brilenta vs plavix is a good point about cost/efficacy but Brilenta isn't "worthless" either.

Finally, how about giving this FDA approved drug an actual chance to impress you (or not) before deciding it has no role in clinical practice. Since I've seen the efficacy over more than 6 years now I know it works.

You’re quibbling over words. I’ve used it and my experience is in line with the available, unbiased results (or worse!). I’ve previously stated my general cocktail which is very reliable, cheap, and I’ll continue to use it.

I know all about the FDAs approval and what Exparel has been shown to and shown what not to do, and it’s not very impressive at all. It makes me wonder why you (and me!) even started using Exparel to begin with, other than company promotional material, which isn’t verified by the available evidence.
 
Finally, how about giving this FDA approved drug an actual chance to impress you (or not) before deciding it has no role in clinical practice.

Because there is absolutely no published evidence that it's any better than current standard therapy that has a TON of published data to support it. I'm supposed to start using Exparel because a guy on SDN told me it's awesome and because Pacira marketing implies that it lasts longer than anything else when there's no clinical evidence of that actually being true?!?

Yes, I think I'll pass until the studies are done and then when they prove Exparel superiority, we can revisit and discuss if the extra time Exparel (supposedly) lasts is worth an extra $250.
 
Family, friends, VIPs, etc have all had "EXPAREL" blocks. They report excellent results without any complications. So, "worthless" is a false description of the drug. Is it worth $300 vs $6-$8 for the standard cocktail? I think it is.

The comment about Brilenta vs plavix is a good point about cost/efficacy but Brilenta isn't "worthless" either.

Finally, how about giving this FDA approved drug an actual chance to impress you (or not) before deciding it has no role in clinical practice. Since I've seen the efficacy over more than 6 years now I know it works.
It's not worthless, it's just not any better than bupivacaine.

In the beginning I was excited about it because the prospect of 72-96 hour PNBs with single injections of Exparel raised the glorious possibility of making catheters obsolete.

But the reality is that Exparel rarely does anything much past 24 hours. Yes, it works fine for that first day. Yay?

Add low dose dexamethasone to bupivacaine and Exparel has nothing at all on it.

We're using Exparel for TAP blocks and it works OK for about a day. Two of our CT surgeons use it for intercostal blocks during VATS procedures, and it works OK for about a day.

I actually didn't start actively disliking it until a couple weeks ago, when I had a patient who'd received a block with Exparel 48h previously. The effect was gone, but because of the 96-hour-no-more-local verbiage in the package insert, we wouldn't block him again, and the surgeon wouldn't inject local. So he got opioids and was miserable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So is everyone here looking for blocks that last >48 hrs?
Because I have had many blocks and they are annoying as ****. 24 hrs is my goal. If it’s the first case of the day then 30 hrs is good.
I believe we get caught up in the block talk and then we start to boast about blocks lasting great lengths of time.
I for one am happy if it doesn’t last forever.

And another thing, I have no data to support this but I believe that the longer a nerve is knocked out the greater the risk of damage. In other words, local anesthetics are toxic and the longer they are having an effect the greater the risk of injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
"In a third Phase III study submitted to the FDA as part of the new drug application, a 204-patient hemorrhoidectomy study conducted vs. bupivacaine, none of the 60 endpoints reviewed illustrated a beneficial effect over a single injection of unencapsulated bupivacaine. In fact, in this study a single injection of plain bupivacaine illustrated better results than Exparel. It is of interest as well that this study has never been published outside the medical review by the FDA."

Found that in the article Southpaw linked. I honestly never knew that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I've said this before - but it seems worth repeating.

The question people should be asking is - WHY doesn't it work longer (if it doesn't)?

The fact is - it certainly elutes bupivicaine for 72 hours - that is clear and indisputable. If that is the case - why doesn't it give efficacy over 72 hours?

Also, are there situations where it does work for 72 hours? situations where it makes no sense?

It seems to me all the arguments against Exparel are the same (sometimes ridiculous) arguments I have heard over the years about why people don't like BIS and think that is a worthless monitor (which I find very very strange).

The discussion HAS to go beyond "It works VS it doesn't work."
 
The discussion HAS to go beyond "It works VS it doesn't work."

Why? I don’t find it particularly relevant honestly because from two separate FDA releases (one in 2014 and one in 2018) it’s clear to me it doesn’t work. It often doesn’t even beat placebo. I’ve NEVER seen a good study of it beating even plain bupivacaine.

IF it worked as the company says it does (3-4 days of pain relief), which it clearly does not, I’d be intrigued enough to go and learn more about how it actually does what it does. But I won’t waste my time on that now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The question people should be asking is - WHY doesn't it work longer (if it doesn't)?

The fact is - it certainly elutes bupivicaine for 72 hours - that is clear and indisputable. If that is the case - why doesn't it give efficacy over 72 hours?

The "why" is a curiosity, but not really relevant to the use / don't use question.

But the simple answer is that it must not elute enough free bupivacaine to have a clinically relevant effect. It seems likely that the local concentration of the free bupivacaine just doesn't meet the threshold needed to block the nerves. It's totally plausible that the clearance of bupivacaine from that space meets or exceeds the rate at which the liposomes release it.
 
The "why" is a curiosity, but not really relevant to the use / don't use question.

But the simple answer is that it must not elute enough free bupivacaine to have a clinically relevant effect. It seems likely that the local concentration of the free bupivacaine just doesn't meet the threshold needed to block the nerves. It's totally plausible that the clearance of bupivacaine from that space meets or exceeds the rate at which the liposomes release it.
But that's the point.

Because for several blocks, it does meet the threshold.

Try a median nerve block - you'll get 4 days (as with ulnar and radial). Erector Spinae seems to give at least 2 days.

Why does it work for some people and not others?

It doesn't work for southpaw at all. I'd like to know his experience when he has placed it inbetween the split, within the fascial sheath of the sciatic nerve - because when I do that - it seems to last over two days. How come for him it doesn't work at all? Does he have trouble placing blocks or is it a function of were the drug is placed.

To say these questions aren't important is like saying there are no new patents that need issued because everything has been discovered.
 
I did a trigger point with it (upper thoracic - along medial scapular border into rhomboid) - and the patient said his face was numb for three days.

This drug doesn't work? Really?

There are a lot of questions to be asked by smart people. But you guys don't bother. Science isn't fun for everyone...I get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I did a trigger point with it (upper thoracic - along medial scapular border into rhomboid) - and the patient said his face was numb for three days.

This drug doesn't work? Really?

There are a lot of questions to be asked by smart people. But you guys don't bother. Science isn't fun for everyone...I get it.

It isn't "anecdotal" when the University of Tennessee knows it works. Or, at my facility where over 1500 blocks have been performed with the drug. It works well beyond 24 hours if injected into the right location and not diluted beyond 0.44%. I'll admit there are patients who only get 24 hours from the drug but that is the exception not the rule.

Now, I like Bupivacaine with Dexamethasone and Precedex. I routinely get 26 hours of analgesia with that combo. In fact, 90% of my blocks are performed WITHOUT exparel because it isn't necessary or cost effective.

Exparel has a role in our clinical practice. With the recent FDA approval we will finally see the research to support its use.
 
There are a lot of questions to be asked by smart people. But you guys don't bother. Science isn't fun for everyone...I get it.

It’s not fair to say I don’t believe in science, when I’ve posted two reports from the FDA (covering 8 Pacira supported studies) showing the drug doesn’t work as Pacira says it does. It often doesn’t beat placebo. It got crushed by plain Bupiv. Even still, the FDA approved it initially for field block and expanded its indication this year.

And each and every time, in the face of science, Blade responds w anecdote. That seem fair, scientifically?

As to your question regarding the sciatic, my personal experience and those I’ve worked with over the years has been that almost every incidence of neuropraxia has involved a lower extremity block. I will never, ever put Exparel around the femoral or sciatic, and likely not in the adductor canal even if Pacira, in the future, shows it can beat Bupiv or Bupiv + Dex (of course, I’ve never seen it do that, scientifically, cough cough....).

I’m more than happy to stick with Bupiv + Dex for a consistent 18-26 hours, which I find EXTREMELY reliable and consistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
FDA Advisors Skeptical of Liposomal Bupivacaine for Regional Pain Control
Panel splits on whether to expand indications for Exparel by John Gever, Managing Editor, MedPage TodayFebruary 16, 2018


An effort to extend the approved indications for liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel) fell short at an FDA advisory committee meeting on Thursday.

With manufacturer Pacira Pharmaceuticals seeking to market the drug as a nerve block for post-surgical pain and regional anesthesia, only four members of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee voted in favor while six were opposed.


Split votes are usually viewed as negative, diminishing the chances of eventual FDA approval, although the agency is not obliged to follow its advisors' recommendations.

Liposomal bupivacaine is currently approved as an injectable local anesthetic. The panel heard testimony from physicians that the drug is already in widespread use off-label for the indications Pacira is seeking, and that they believe it is effective.

But FDA staff, in briefing documents and in presentations at the meeting, cast doubt on the drug's efficacy and safety -- noting, for example, trial data indicating excess deaths in patients receiving the agent. Also, the trial data were inconsistent on the effectiveness of regional anesthesia, showing strong efficacy in some parts of the body but not in others, with no clear reason for the differences.

Many panel members said additional studies are needed. The FDA had suggested to Pacira that its studies should include active comparators, but instead the company conducted only placebo-controlled trials, which did not help the firm's case
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
We are being asked to start placing catheters and On-Q pumps for a huge volume of procedures starting in the near future (RCRs, TSAs mainly). It would be much easier to do a single shot block with Exparel, which might appease the surgeons without the need for pt education/follow-up/after hour phone calls/etc for all of these catheters and the issues that are sure to arise (among them, a mixed amount of experience and competency among my partners with peripheral nerve catheters in general). There would also probably be a cost savings of SS PNB with Exparel vs. catheter/On-Q.

To date we have been doing SS blocks for these but one of the more vocal surgeons is claiming to the hospital CEO that send home catheters are “standard of care” for all shoulder surgery (extremely dubious IMO).
 
Last edited:
To date we have been doing SS blocks for these but one of the more vocal surgeons is claiming to the hospital CEO that send home catheters are “standard of care” for all shoulder surgery (extremely dubious IMO).
I’m curious as to why he cares so much?
 
We are being asked to start placing catheters and On-Q pumps for a huge volume of procedures starting in the near future (RCRs, TSAs mainly). It would be much easier to do a single shot block with Exparel, which might appease the surgeons without the need for pt education/follow-up/after hour phone calls/etc for all of these catheters and the issues that are sure to arise (among them, a mixed amount of experience and competency among my partners with peripheral nerve catheters in general). There would also probably be a cost savings of SS PNB with Exparel vs. catheter/On-Q.

To date we have been doing SS blocks for these but one of the more vocal surgeons is claiming to the hospital CEO that send home catheters are “standard of care” for all shoulder surgery (extremely dubious IMO).
Catheters are not standard of care, but there is no
evidence in the literature that Exparel is any better than bupi, and certaintly no evidence at all compared to bupi/dex.

You could argue that TSR would benefit from catheters but I've been at a few places where the surgeons are not catheter fans and patients do pretty well without.
 
You could argue that TSR would benefit from catheters but I've been at a few places where the surgeons are not catheter fans and patients do pretty well without.

It’s been my experience that RCR’s are more painful than TSA’s.
 
It’s been my experience that RCR’s are more painful than TSA’s.
This is absolutely true.
Plus the TSA pts are older and have been so damn uncomfortable for so long that they will trade that discomfort for some surgical pain gladly. They haven’t slept in months to years so they are hard to disappoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The study is a measly meta-analysis with only 88k patients, but maybe exparel infiltration for total joints is a load of ****?

Liposomal Bupivacaine Does Not Reduce Inpatient Opioid Prescription or Related Complications after Knee Arthroplasty:A Database Analysis | Anesthesiology | ASA Publications

The mounting evidence against it's main selling point (length of duration and superiority to plain bupivacaine), and yet it's increasing use just shows how a great marketing department can make a drug.
 
Yeah, the marketing and the fact that orthos and general surgeons (for hemorrhoids...) keep using it make me ashamed to be a physician.

Cue all the Exparel fanboys here....
 
The study is a measly meta-analysis with only 88k patients, but maybe exparel infiltration for total joints is a load of ****?

Liposomal Bupivacaine Does Not Reduce Inpatient Opioid Prescription or Related Complications after Knee Arthroplasty:A Database Analysis | Anesthesiology | ASA Publications

The mounting evidence against it's main selling point (length of duration and superiority to plain bupivacaine), and yet it's increasing use just shows how a great marketing department can make a drug.

I keep telling you that EXPAREL when diluted over a total volume greater than 60 mls (266 mg in 60+ ml volume) is NOT better than standard Bupivacaine. The dilutional effect makes the liposomal release of the bupivacaine MOOT in terms of analgesic efficacy.

That does not mean that 0.66% or 1.3% liposomal Bupivacaine is ineffective. At that concentration the drug works better than standard Bupivacaine. Now, how about Bup plus dexamethasone vs Liposomal Bupivacaine? Again, the efficacy of 0.66% Exparel is likely superior to the Bup plus Dexamethasone. At 1.3% (full concentration) the Liposomal Bupivacaine shows a clear superiority to the Bup plus decadron.

Now, this requires that you actually use the drug as I have posted above several times in order to see this for yourself. But, most want to TRASH Exparel because their hospital CEO is too cheap to spend an extra $300 for better pain control for certain patients.
 
I keep telling you that EXPAREL when diluted over a total volume greater than 60 mls (266 mg in 60+ ml volume) is NOT better than standard Bupivacaine. The dilutional effect makes the liposomal release of the bupivacaine MOOT in terms of analgesic efficacy.

That does not mean that 0.66% or 1.3% liposomal Bupivacaine is ineffective. At that concentration the drug works better than standard Bupivacaine. Now, how about Bup plus dexamethasone vs Liposomal Bupivacaine? Again, the efficacy of 0.66% Exparel is likely superior to the Bup plus Dexamethasone. At 1.3% (full concentration) the Liposomal Bupivacaine shows a clear superiority to the Bup plus decadron.

Now, this requires that you actually use the drug as I have posted above several times in order to see this for yourself. But, most want to TRASH Exparel because their hospital CEO is too cheap to spend an extra $300 for better pain control for certain patients.
Since you just know what you say is true, you should do a study proving it (I'm sure Pacira would thank you for it!).

As for actual evidence, here's the interscalene exparel study. No difference in opioid consumption or in duration of block, and that's for 10ml 133mg exparel and 5ml bupi vs 15 ml bupi (so greater than 0.66%) and still not superior to STANDARD bupi, forget about bupi/dex.

Addition of Liposome Bupivacaine to Bupivacaine HCl Versus Bupivacaine HCl Alone for Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block in Patients Having Major Shoulder Surgery.
 
But, most want to TRASH Exparel because their hospital CEO is too cheap to spend an extra $300 for better pain control for certain patients.

This hasn’t been my experience. If anything I’ve seen it increase in use bt ortho and gen surg, certainly due to marketing. If I WERE a hospital CEO I would not allow this expensive drug on formulary. There is MOUNTING evidence it doesn’t work as advertised. There is solid evidence it doesn’t beat plain bupivacine. The studies used for FDA approval show no increase efficacy over bupivacine. But, c’est la vie in American medicine.
 
This hasn’t been my experience. If anything I’ve seen it increase in use bt ortho and gen surg, certainly due to marketing. If I WERE a hospital CEO I would not allow this expensive drug on formulary. There is MOUNTING evidence it doesn’t work as advertised. There is solid evidence it doesn’t beat plain bupivacine. The studies used for FDA approval show no increase efficacy over bupivacine. But, c’est la vie in American medicine.
We have it on formulary in my health system but it is being eliminated for off-label use in the near future, based on the evidence. Rightly so.
 
Since you just know what you say is true, you should do a study proving it (I'm sure Pacira would thank you for it!).

As for actual evidence, here's the interscalene exparel study. No difference in opioid consumption or in duration of block, and that's for 10ml 133mg exparel and 5ml bupi vs 15 ml bupi (so greater than 0.66%) and still not superior to STANDARD bupi, forget about bupi/dex.

Addition of Liposome Bupivacaine to Bupivacaine HCl Versus Bupivacaine HCl Alone for Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block in Patients Having Major Shoulder Surgery.

Here is the conclusion from the Study's Authors which is EXACTLY in agreement with me:

CONCLUSIONS: Liposome bupivacaine added to standard bupivacaine may lower pain and enhance patient's satisfaction in the first postoperative week even in the setting of multimodal analgesia for major shoulder surgery.

https://www.anesthesiologynews.com/...ds-Analgesia-for-Brachial-Plexus-Blocks/38168
 
Last edited:
Here is the conclusion from the Study's Authors which is EXACTLY in agreement with me:

CONCLUSIONS: Liposome bupivacaine added to standard bupivacaine may lower pain and enhance patient's satisfaction in the first postoperative week even in the setting of multimodal analgesia for major shoulder surgery.
Except their data doesn't show that. Opioid consumption was the same for both groups as was duration of block. Also, they actually used 0.25%, not 0.5% bupi.

Higher conc will give you a denser, longer lasting block. If you're trying to study how long Exparel lasts vs bupi, why not use 0.5% bupi?

It's hilarious that they try to give Exparel every possible advantage and it still doesn't "win".
 
Except their data doesn't show that. Opioid consumption was the same for both groups as was duration of block. Also, they actually used 0.25%, not 0.5% bupi.

Higher conc will give you a denser, longer lasting block. If you're trying to study how long Exparel lasts vs bupi, why not use 0.5% bupi?

It's hilarious that they try to give Exparel every possible advantage and it still doesn't "win".

1. Watch the Video- I posted the link

2. Now that the FDA has approved Exparel for Nerve Blocks the studies will be forthcoming and published in our Journals. I remain open to the data whatever the outcome but I'm pretty certain you will be proved wrong here especially with the 266 mg dosages in 20 mls.
 
I don't need to watch a video, I can read the actual study. Why did they use 0.25%? Why not 0.5%?

Did you notice that there's no actual difference in opioid consumption? Why is that?

Did you look at the complications table, btw?

Oh... btw, the study is funded by Pacira and designed by Hadzic who receives consulting fees from Pacira. I'm sure there's no bias here.

The paper posted earlier on this thread looking at the immense bias in publication bias for Exparel is a must read.
 
Top