Mepivacaine
(Synonyms: 2-甲基-2,6-壬二烯-1-胺) 目录号 : GC41540
An Analytical Reference Standard
Cas No.:96-88-8
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >98.00%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
Mepivacaine is an analytical reference standard that is categorized as an anesthetic. This product is intended for research and forensic applications.
| Cas No. | 96-88-8 | SDF | |
| 别名 | 2-甲基-2,6-壬二烯-1-胺 | ||
| Canonical SMILES | CC1=C(NC(C2N(C)CCCC2)=O)C(C)=CC=C1 | ||
| 分子式 | C15H22N2O | 分子量 | 246.4 |
| 溶解度 | DMF: 30 mg/ml,DMSO: 25 mg/ml,Ethanol: 30 mg/ml,Ethanol:PBS(pH 7.2) (1:1): 0.5 mg/ml | 储存条件 | Store at -20°C |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 4.0584 mL | 20.2922 mL | 40.5844 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.8117 mL | 4.0584 mL | 8.1169 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.4058 mL | 2.0292 mL | 4.0584 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
Mepivacaine: a closer look at its properties and current utility
Gen Dent 2014 Nov-Dec;62(6):70-5; quiz 76.PMID:25369391doi
The use of Mepivacaine in dentistry has remained strong since its introduction in the 1960s. It has retained its place as a valuable local anesthetic, either as a primary agent or as an alternative to lidocaine or articaine. Mepivacaine is commonly used in medically compromised patients--for whom elevations in blood pressure or heart rate are not advisable--in a formulation with a vasoconstrictor, or in pediatric populations in a formulation without a vasoconstrictor. Pharmacologically, these are the 2 groups most susceptible to side effects and toxicity, thus Mepivacaine is commonly indicated. Most often the decision to use Mepivacaine is based on its vasoconstrictor effect or lack thereof (depending on the formulation). However, the pharmacokinetics of Mepivacaine are not well understood or assumed to be similar to that of other local anesthetics. It is important to understand the unique pharmacologic characteristics of Mepivacaine in order to minimize the potential for inadvertent toxicity.
Mepivacaine: update on an evergreen local anaesthetic
Minerva Anestesiol 2001 Sep;67(9 Suppl 1):5-8.PMID:11778086doi
Many local anaesthetics are presently available for clinical use. The choice of a particular agent for a particular regional anaesthetic is based mainly on its clinical and pharmacological features. Besides these, safety of drugs and the knowledge of side effects associated with their use can play a major role, since serious complications can be related to local anaesthetics administration. Pharmacologic features of Mepivacaine are: its amide structure (therefore it is not detoxified by circulating plasma esterases), its rapid metabolism, which take place into the liver, and its rapid excretion via the kidneys. Clinically, Mepivacaine shows: short onset time, very close to lidocaine, intermediate duration and low toxicity. Mepivacaine can be therefore considered as a first choice agent for peripheral nerve blocks, particularly in high cardiac risk patients.
Intratesticular Mepivacaine versus lidocaine in anaesthetised horses undergoing Henderson castration
Equine Vet J 2020 Nov;52(6):805-810.PMID:32090383DOI:10.1111/evj.13250.
Background: In horses undergoing castration, direct comparison of intratesticular lidocaine vs Mepivacaine as analgesic adjuncts has not yet been analysed. Objective: To compare the effects of intratesticular lidocaine and Mepivacaine during equine castration using the Henderson drill under total intravenous anesthesia. Study design: Randomised, double-blinded clinical study. Methods: Thirty-four stallions were anaesthetised using xylazine-ketamine and randomly selected to receive 10 mL either lidocaine or Mepivacaine injected into each testicle. Both surgeon and anaesthetist were blinded to the selected treatment. A total of 5 minutes were required to pass between injection and first incision. Routine castration using a Henderson drill was performed. Heart rate, respiratory rate and SpO2 were serially recorded. Total surgical time, time prior to clamping of each testicle and time to second incision were recorded. Cremaster muscle relaxation, surgical quality scores, number of additional ketamine boluses, recovery time and recovery quality were assessed between groups. Results: Cremaster relaxation scores were significantly better for the Mepivacaine group over the lidocaine group on a 1-3 scoring system (1 being most relaxed, 3 being least). The average cremaster relaxation score on both testicles treated with Mepivacaine was 1 compared to the lidocaine treatment averaging 2 [P = .03 first testicle; P = .04 second testicle]. The lidocaine group had an increased number of horses requiring additional ketamine (25% of horses) compared to the Mepivacaine group (16% of horses). No other significant differences were observed between the groups. Main limitations: The use of only one injection method and lack of post-operative pain scoring limit the conclusions that can be drawn from these results. Conclusion: Intratesticular Mepivacaine when compared with intratesticular lidocaine results in improved cremaster muscle relaxation when only waiting five min prior to the start of the procedure.
Retrospective case review of combined local Mepivacaine and steroid injections into vaginal trigger points for the management of moderate-to-severe perineal pain after childbirth
Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019 Feb;299(2):501-505.PMID:30542792DOI:10.1007/s00404-018-5000-5.
Objective: After an obstetric trauma, a non-negligible number of postpartum women complain of perineal pain and dyspareunia. These symptoms clearly diminish their quality of life. Many treatment options have been suggested, such as oral analgesia, local anaesthetic, or steroid injections… Regretfully, none of these have yet demonstrated their efficacy with the validated trials. The objective of this review is to retrospectively evaluate the response to vaginal infiltrations into the trigger points (where the vaginal/perineal examination sets off the maximum intensity of pain) combining local anaesthetic and corticosteroids. Methods: Our goal is to detect women who complain of sexual disfunction and perineal pain 2 and 6 months after childbirth. All reviewed cases correspond to vaginal deliveries made between June 2016 and April 2017. Trigger points were detected through a vaginal examination. Patients with moderate-to-severe perineal pain were determined using a visual analogue score (VAS 0-10). We suggested a treatment of vaginal infiltration specifically into the trigger points. Patients underwent local injections with a combination of Mepivacaine hydrochloride 2% (8 ml) and betamethasone acetate (2 ml). Results: Twenty-seven women were treated with vaginal injections directly into the trigger points. Seven of them [7/27 (25.92%)] were treated 2 months after delivery and experienced complete recovery of their perineal pain 4 months after the treatment. Those who first chose conservative treatment [20/27 (74.08%)] were also assessed 6 months after giving birth. This group continued to suffer the same symptoms and they then subsequently underwent vaginal injections. As well as the first group, these women experienced complete recovery of their perineal pain after treatment. No side effects have been registered so far. Conclusion: Women treated with vaginal injection into the trigger points improved in a fast and effective way. It seems to be a well-tolerated and safe option for women with moderate-to-severe pain.
Intrathecal Mepivacaine after general anesthesia is an effective method of equine euthanasia when compared to intravenous pentobarbital
Am J Vet Res 2023 Mar 19;84(5):ajvr.22.11.0201.PMID:36921025DOI:10.2460/ajvr.22.11.0201.
Objectives: This study aims to assess intrathecal Mepivacaine for euthanasia in anesthetized horses and compare it to a traditional euthanasia method using a single intravenous injection of pentobarbital in sedated horses. Animals: Client-owned horses and horses requiring euthanasia due to involvement in concurrent research projects were used. Horses were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: intrathecal Mepivacaine after anesthesia or intravenous pentobarbital after sedation. All horses had normal vital parameters and no signs of infectious disease at the time of euthanasia. Procedures: The intrathecal Mepivacaine group was anesthetized before the intrathecal injection of Mepivacaine. The pentobarbital group was sedated, concurrently anesthetized and euthanized using intravenous pentobarbital, then received an intrathecal saline (0.9% NaCl) solution injection to a blind observer. Both groups were sedated with detomidine and the time from sedation to the cessation of vital parameters (respirations, pulse, corneal reflex, and ECG) was recorded. Euthanasias were recorded for review by a blinded anesthesiologist, using an independent scale to assess the quality of sedation, anesthesia induction, and lateral recumbency. Results: Time from detomidine administration to cessation of each vital parameter was significantly longer in the intrathecal Mepivacaine group. There was no statistically significant difference in qualitative scores between groups for sedation or induction, but lateral recumbency was subjectively superior in the anesthetized intrathecal Mepivacaine group. Clinical relevance: Intrathecal Mepivacaine provided a safe, effective, alternative method of euthanasia to intravenous pentobarbital and addresses concerns about barbiturate availability. This study also informs practitioners of what to expect (ie, longer cessation of vital parameters) when using the intrathecal Mepivacaine method.