在弹性透明质酸®注射剂中使用甲哌卡因作为麻醉剂对血管的益处

Jimmy Faivre, Romain Brusini, Jing Jing, Sabrina Walley, Lukas Roubenne, François Bourdon, Lee Walker, Bruno Le Grand and Conor J. Gallagher
{"title":"在弹性透明质酸®注射剂中使用甲哌卡因作为麻醉剂对血管的益处","authors":"Jimmy Faivre, Romain Brusini, Jing Jing, Sabrina Walley, Lukas Roubenne, François Bourdon, Lee Walker, Bruno Le Grand and Conor J. Gallagher","doi":"10.1039/D5PM00069F","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >The use of lidocaine (0.3% w/w) for pain management in hyaluronic acid-based soft-tissue injectables has been standard for two decades. Given lidocaine's well-known vasodilatory activity it may contribute to the incidence of post-treatment adverse events including bruising in patients. This study seeks to compare these vasodilatory properties of lidocaine with that of another anaesthetic candidate, mepivacaine. Rat aortic rings and human skin resistance arteries (diameter between 200–400 μm) were mounted on an isolated organ bath or myograph, respectively, and exposed to progressively increasing concentrations of lidocaine or mepivacaine from a solution or released from a gel. The concentration-dependent vascular response and kinetics were systematically compared in tissue originating from 3 biological donors. Additionally, tissue perfusion changes induced by 0.3% w/w anaesthetic solutions were assessed using laser Doppler imaging in rabbit ears. Systematically, lidocaine exhibited a greater vasodilatory activity than mepivacaine in clinically relevant concentration ranges in both animal and human models. In contrast to lidocaine, mepivacaine did not have a significant impact on blood vessel vasodilation. In clinical practice, formulation of hyaluronic acid (HA) injectables with mepivacaine may potentially reduce the risk of common adverse events. This characteristic highlights its potential advantages in the practice of hydrogel injections.</p>","PeriodicalId":101141,"journal":{"name":"RSC Pharmaceutics","volume":" 4","pages":" 814-823"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2025/pm/d5pm00069f?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vascular benefit of the use of mepivacaine as an anaesthetic in resilient hyaluronic acid® injectables\",\"authors\":\"Jimmy Faivre, Romain Brusini, Jing Jing, Sabrina Walley, Lukas Roubenne, François Bourdon, Lee Walker, Bruno Le Grand and Conor J. Gallagher\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D5PM00069F\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >The use of lidocaine (0.3% w/w) for pain management in hyaluronic acid-based soft-tissue injectables has been standard for two decades. Given lidocaine's well-known vasodilatory activity it may contribute to the incidence of post-treatment adverse events including bruising in patients. This study seeks to compare these vasodilatory properties of lidocaine with that of another anaesthetic candidate, mepivacaine. Rat aortic rings and human skin resistance arteries (diameter between 200–400 μm) were mounted on an isolated organ bath or myograph, respectively, and exposed to progressively increasing concentrations of lidocaine or mepivacaine from a solution or released from a gel. The concentration-dependent vascular response and kinetics were systematically compared in tissue originating from 3 biological donors. Additionally, tissue perfusion changes induced by 0.3% w/w anaesthetic solutions were assessed using laser Doppler imaging in rabbit ears. Systematically, lidocaine exhibited a greater vasodilatory activity than mepivacaine in clinically relevant concentration ranges in both animal and human models. In contrast to lidocaine, mepivacaine did not have a significant impact on blood vessel vasodilation. In clinical practice, formulation of hyaluronic acid (HA) injectables with mepivacaine may potentially reduce the risk of common adverse events. This characteristic highlights its potential advantages in the practice of hydrogel injections.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101141,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RSC Pharmaceutics\",\"volume\":\" 4\",\"pages\":\" 814-823\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2025/pm/d5pm00069f?page=search\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RSC Pharmaceutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/pm/d5pm00069f\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RSC Pharmaceutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/pm/d5pm00069f","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

二十年来,使用利多卡因(0.3% w/w)用于透明质酸基软组织注射剂的疼痛管理已成为标准。鉴于利多卡因众所周知的血管扩张活性,它可能导致治疗后不良事件的发生率,包括患者瘀伤。本研究旨在比较利多卡因与另一种麻醉剂甲哌卡因的这些血管扩张特性。将大鼠主动脉环和人皮肤阻力动脉(直径在200-400 μm之间)分别置于离体器官浴或肌图上,暴露于浓度逐渐增加的利多卡因或甲哌卡因溶液中或从凝胶中释放。系统比较了3种生物供体组织中血管反应和动力学的浓度依赖性。此外,采用激光多普勒成像技术评估0.3% w/w麻醉溶液对兔耳组织灌注的影响。系统地,在动物和人体模型中,利多卡因在临床相关浓度范围内比甲哌卡因表现出更大的血管扩张活性。与利多卡因相比,甲哌卡因对血管舒张无显著影响。在临床实践中,配制透明质酸(HA)注射剂与甲哌卡因可能潜在地降低常见不良事件的风险。这一特点突出了其在水凝胶注射实践中的潜在优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Vascular benefit of the use of mepivacaine as an anaesthetic in resilient hyaluronic acid® injectables

Vascular benefit of the use of mepivacaine as an anaesthetic in resilient hyaluronic acid® injectables

The use of lidocaine (0.3% w/w) for pain management in hyaluronic acid-based soft-tissue injectables has been standard for two decades. Given lidocaine's well-known vasodilatory activity it may contribute to the incidence of post-treatment adverse events including bruising in patients. This study seeks to compare these vasodilatory properties of lidocaine with that of another anaesthetic candidate, mepivacaine. Rat aortic rings and human skin resistance arteries (diameter between 200–400 μm) were mounted on an isolated organ bath or myograph, respectively, and exposed to progressively increasing concentrations of lidocaine or mepivacaine from a solution or released from a gel. The concentration-dependent vascular response and kinetics were systematically compared in tissue originating from 3 biological donors. Additionally, tissue perfusion changes induced by 0.3% w/w anaesthetic solutions were assessed using laser Doppler imaging in rabbit ears. Systematically, lidocaine exhibited a greater vasodilatory activity than mepivacaine in clinically relevant concentration ranges in both animal and human models. In contrast to lidocaine, mepivacaine did not have a significant impact on blood vessel vasodilation. In clinical practice, formulation of hyaluronic acid (HA) injectables with mepivacaine may potentially reduce the risk of common adverse events. This characteristic highlights its potential advantages in the practice of hydrogel injections.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信