COMPARISON OF 1 MG/L VERSUS 2 MG/L ADRENALINE IN TUMESCENT SOLUTION: HEMODYNAMIC EFFECTS AND CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS DURING LIPOSUCTION - A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Vo Van Hien1,2, , Tran Phi Hung2
1 Le Huu Trac National Burn Hospital, Vietnam Military Medical University
2 Vietnam Military Medical University

Nội dung chính của bài viết

Tóm tắt

 Objectives: To compare the hemodynamic changes and cardiovascular adverse events associated with two adrenaline concentrations (1 mg/L vs. 2 mg/L) in tumescent solution for patients undergoing liposuction under general anesthesia. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted at Le Huu Trac National Burn Hospital (Hanoi, Vietnam) from January to August 2025. 132 ASA I - II patients undergoing elective liposuction were randomly assigned to receive tumescent solution containing either 1 mg/L (group 1, n = 66) or 2 mg/L (group 2, n = 66) adrenaline with lidocaine. Primary outcomes were changes in heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) recorded at baseline, 30, 60, 90 minutes, and procedure end. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of tachycardia, hypertension, and surgeon satisfaction scores. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Group 2 demonstrated significantly higher HR and MAP at all post-infiltration timepoints compared to group 1 (p < 0.05). Tachycardia incidence was markedly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (31.82% vs 10.61%, p < 0.05), consistent with a higher rate of hypertension (22.73% vs 6.06%, p < 0.05). Despite pronounced hemodynamic differences, surgeon satisfaction scores remained comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Increasing adrenaline concentration from 1 mg/L to 2 mg/L in tumescent solution is associated with a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular instability without improving surgical outcomes. These findings support the use of 1 mg/L adrenaline as the optimal concentration for tumescent anesthesia in liposuction under general anesthesia.

Chi tiết bài viết

Tài liệu tham khảo

1. Venkataram J. Tumescent liposuction: A review. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2008: 1(2): 49-57.
2. Uttamani RR, Venkataram A, Venkataram J and Mysore V. Tumescent anesthesia for dermatosurgical procedures other than liposuction. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2020; 13:275-282.
3. Ostad A, Kageyama N and Moy RL. Tumescent Anesthesia with a Lidocaine Dose of 55 mg/kg Is Safe for Liposuction. Dermatologic Surgery. 1996; 22 (11):921-927.
4. Dalal R and Grujic D. Epinephrine. [Updated 2024 Nov 23]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482160/.
5. Cueva Galárraga IM. Liposuction infiltration: The Quito formula - A new approach based on an old concept. Can J Plast Surg. 2011 Spring: 19 (1):17-21.
6. Rubin JP, Bierman C, Rosow CE, Arthur GR, Chang Y, Courtiss EH and May JW Jr. The tumescent technique: The effect of high tissue pressure and dilute epinephrine on absorption of lidocaine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999; 103 (3):990-996.
7. Ahmed M. Abosakaya, Neveen A. Kohaf, Mohamed S. Elmeligy, Ahmed M. Tohamy and Hany Bauiomy. Effect of adrenaline concentration in tumescence solution on intraoperative hemodynamics of liposuction patients: A randomized triple-blind trial. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2024; 40:1; 34-39.
8. Prasetyono TO and Lestari PA. The Onset and Duration of action of 0.2% Lidocaine in a one-per-mil tumescent solution for hand surgery. Arch Plast Surg. 2016; 43(3): 272-277.
9. Klein JA and Jeske DR. Estimated maximal safe dosages of tumescent lidocaine. Anesth Analg. 2016; 122 (5):1350-1359.