L-bupivacaine Inhibition of Nociceptive Transmission in Rat Peripheral and Dorsal Horn Neurons.

BACKGROUND Although the widely used single L-enantiomers of local anesthetics have less toxic effects on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems, the mechanisms mediating their antinociceptive actions are not well understood. The authors hypothesized that significant differences in the ion channel blocking abilities of the enantiomers of bupivacaine would be identified. METHODS The authors performed electrophysiologic analysis on rat dorsal root ganglion neurons in vitro and on spinal transmissions in vivo. RESULTS In the dorsal root ganglion, these anesthetics decreased the amplitudes of action potentials. The half-maximum inhibitory concentrations of D-enantiomer D-bupivacaine were almost equal for Aβ (29.5 μM), Aδ (29.7μM), and C (29.8 μM) neurons. However, the half-maximum inhibitory concentrations of L-bupivacaine was lower for Aδ (19.35 μM) and C (19.5 μM) neurons than for A β (79.4 μM) neurons. Moreover, D-bupivacaine almost equally inhibited tetrodotoxin-resistant (mean ± SD: 15.8 ± 10.9% of the control, n = 14, P < 0.001) and tetrodotoxin-sensitive (15.4 ± 15.6% of the control, n = 11, P = 0.004) sodium currents. In contrast, L-bupivacaine suppressed tetrodotoxin-resistant sodium currents (26.1 ± 19.5% of the control, n = 18, P < 0.001) but not tetrodotoxin-sensitive sodium currents (74.5 ± 18.2% of the control, n = 11, P = 0.477). In the spinal dorsal horn, L-bupivacaine decreased the area of pinch-evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (39.4 ± 11.3% of the control, n = 7, P < 0.001) but not touch-evoked responses (84.2 ± 14.5% of the control, n = 6, P = 0.826). In contrast, D-bupivacaine equally decreased pinch- and touch-evoked responses (38.8 ± 9.5% of the control, n = 6, P = 0.001, 42.9 ± 11.8% of the control, n = 6, P = 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that the L-enantiomer of bupivacaine (L-bupivacaine) effectively inhibits noxious transmission to the spinal dorsal horn by blocking action potential conduction through C and Aδ afferent fibers. EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE