Letter to Editor: An inquest into alpha-2 agonists as a better adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine

Letter to Editor

We appreciate the work by Chaudhary et al. (Choudhary et al. 2023) for throwing light on the enigma regarding suitable additives for intrathecal bupivacaine in gynecological surgery. The article is relevant in the current anesthesia practice and has pointed out the conundrum of choosing between dexmedetomidine and clonidine. However, certain salient points still need dialogue, especially before accepting the suggestions.

The authors’ conclusion and suggestion to choose clonidine over dexmedetomidine must be argued. The authors found the onset of sensory and motor effects as early in the dexmedetomidine group than in the clonidine group (Choudhary et al. 2023). Also, the duration of motor block and total duration of analgesia was more in the dexmedetomidine group. These findings were statistically significant, suggesting a more effective adjuvant property of dexmedetomidine. The authors’ findings also correlate with the study by Mahendru et al., who found better quality of analgesia for dexmedetomidine in their comparative study among groups receiving fentanyl, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant and bupivacaine alone (Mahendru et al. 2013).

While comparing the side effects of the two groups, authors found more need for rescue analgesia, pressor agents, bradycardia, and nausea and vomiting in the clonidine group compared to the dexmedetomidine group. Although these differences were not statistically significant, which might be due to the small sample size, clinical significance cannot be guaranteed or refuted based on statistical significance. While clonidine costs less than dexmedetomidine, such adverse events also impact the quality of recovery, length of stay, and cost (Ludbrook 2022).

Contemporary research and pharmacological profile also show some advantages of Dexmedetomidine over Clonidine. A meta-analysis also suggested that when used with local anesthetic as an adjuvant for blocks, dexmedetomidine provides better clinical efficacy than clonidine (Bajpai et al. 2022). Therefore, because dexmedetomidine, when used intrathecally, is more potent, provides early onset of sensory and motor effects, provides a longer duration of analgesia, a lesser need for rescue analgesia, and lesser side effects, clonidine cannot be recommended only weighing on the cost difference of 1–2 US dollar. Until we get better quality evidence from meta-analysis or randomized, multi-center studies with larger samples, the enigma of better adjuvant for intrathecal bupivacaine among the alpha-2 agonists continues. We would appreciate the author’s valuable comment on this aspect.

Not applicable.

• Bajpai V, Patel TK, Dwivedi P, Bajpai A, Gupta A, Gangwar P et al (2023) Dexmedetomidine versus clonidine as an adjuvant to local anaesthetic in brachial plexus blocks: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Braz J Anesthesiol 73(5):665–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2022.07.005

• Choudhary R, Pathania J, Sharma A, Sharma A, Sharma R (2023) Intrathecal bupivacaine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine as adjuvant in gynecological surgery: an enigma. Ain-Shams J Anesthesiol 15:1–7

  Article Google Scholar

• Ludbrook GL (2022) The hidden pandemic: the cost of postoperative complications. Curr Anesthesiol Rep 12:1–9

  Article PubMed Google Scholar

• Mahendru V, Tewari A, Katyal S, Grewal A, Singh MR, Katyal R (2013) A comparison of intrathecal dexmedetomidine, clonidine, and fentanyl as adjuvants to hyperbaric bupivacaine for lower limb surgery: a double blind controlled study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 29:496

  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Download references

Not applicable.

Nil.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Community Medicine, BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur, UP, India, 273013

   Imran Ahmed Khan

2. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deogarh, Jharkhand, India

   Habib Md R. Karim

Authors

1. Imran Ahmed KhanView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

2. Habib Md R. KarimView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both the authors contributed equally. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Imran Ahmed Khan.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Both authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Cite this article

Khan, I.A., Karim, H.M.R. Letter to Editor: An inquest into alpha-2 agonists as a better adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine. Ain-Shams J Anesthesiol 15, 78 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-023-00378-8

Download citation

• Received: 13 April 2023

• Accepted: 17 September 2023

• Published: 27 September 2023

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-023-00378-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative