Bupivacaine 250mg/250ml (0.1%) / Fentanyl 1.25mg/250ml infusion bags
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Strict controls: safe custody, register required
Legal requirements and restrictions
These are medicines with high potential for misuse but with accepted medical uses. Subject to the strictest controls.
Legal requirements
- Must be stored in a locked controlled drugs cabinet
- Pharmacy must keep a controlled drugs register
- Prescriptions valid for 28 days only
- Prescriptions must include specific details (dose, form, strength, total quantity)
- Cannot be emergency supplied by pharmacists
Other medicines in this category
Morphine, Oxycodone, Fentanyl, Methylphenidate (Ritalin), Amphetamines
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
NICE clinical guidance(2)
The Epidrum for aiding access to the epidural space (MIB23)
Intrapartum care (NG235)
Source: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 11 · Randomised trials: 31 · 1988–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
A. Mullaji, Raj Kanna, G. Shetty, et al.
The Journal of arthroplasty, 2010
- Analgesics, Opioid
- Anesthetics, Local
- Bupivacaine
Boshoff J, Fourtounas M, Pegu K, et al.
2025
- Bupivacaine
- Dexmedetomidine
- Fentanyl
Wang J, Li T
2025
- Breast
- Nerve Block
- Thoracic Surgical Procedures
BackgroundSerratus anterior plane block (SAPB) and thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) are widely used regional anesthesia techniques for postoperative analgesia and are generally considered safe and effective. However, the comparative efficacy remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to evaluate the perioperative analgesic efficacy of SAPB versus TPVB in adult patients undergoing thoracic and breast surgeries.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrial.gov, and Google Scholar up to February 28, 2025. Primary outcomes included time to first analgesic request (TFAR), 24-h total analgesic consumption (TAC) postoperatively, and 24-h postoperative pain scores at rest. Secondary outcomes comprised pain scores at various postoperative timepoints, intraoperative fentanyl consumption, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction with analgesia, and incidence of complications. A random-effect model was applied for the meta-analysis.ResultsTwenty-eight 28 RCTs comprising 1796 patients were included. No significant differences were found between SAPB and TPVB in TFAR (mean difference [MD] = -0.68 h, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.55 to 0.18, P = 0.122), 24-h pain scores at rest (MD = 0.14, 95%CI: -0.14 to 0.42, P = 0.334), other postoperative pain scores, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction, or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (risk ratio [RR] = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.20, P = 0.310). Despite statistically significant, the difference of 24-h TAC comparing SAPB to TPVB (MD = 1.73 mg intravenous morphine equivalents, 95%CI: 0.54 to 2.92, P = 0.005) did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 10 mg. SAPB also resulted in greater intraoperative fentanyl consumption (MD = 13.85 mcg, 95%CI: 3.86 to 23.84, P = 0.007) but a significantly lower incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.76, P = 0.006). Subgroup analyses showed that TPVB provided superior, but non-clinically significant, opioid-sparing benefits in thoracic procedures (3.38 mg) and when compared to superficial SAPB (3.11 mg).ConclusionSAPB offers comparable analgesic efficacy to TPVB, with a more favorable safety profile but slightly higher opioid consumption. However, the increased opioid use does not exceed the MCID. Therefore, SAPB is a clinically effective and safe alternative to TPVB for perioperative regional analgesia in thoracic and breast surgeries.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Tadesse MA, Alemu EA, Allene MD, et al.
2025
- Bupivacaine
- Fentanyl
- Midazolam
Belli J, Messeha P, Weiderman G, et al.
2025
Liu S, Zhang C, Zhao J, et al.
2026
Han Y, Zhang X, Yao W, et al.
2025
- Shoulder
- Bupivacaine
- Anesthetics, Local
Jin H, Wang B
2026
S. Abate, A. Belihu
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 2019
Han JH, Yuk HD, Jeong SH, et al.
2026
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
- Anesthesia, Spinal
- Anesthesia, General
BackgroundThe effect of anesthesia methods on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recurrence post-resection remains uncertain. We aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA) in patients with NMIBC.MethodsThis prospective randomized controlled trial recruited 287 patients with clinical NMIBC at Seoul National University Hospital from 2018 to 2020. The patients underwent transurethral resection of the bladder tumor within 4 weeks of randomization. Intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%) and a mixture of propofol (1-2 mg/kg) and fentanyl (50-100 μg/kg) were used as induction agents in the SA and GA groups, respectively, with desflurane or sevoflurane used for maintaining anesthesia. The primary and secondary outcome measures were disease recurrence and disease progression, respectively, at 2 years after resection. Cumulative incidence of outcomes was compared between the two groups using time-to-event analyses.Results15 patients required alternative anesthesia owing to clinical needs such as SA failure or significant obturator reflex, resulting in a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population of 272 patients. Time-to-event analysis showed a significantly lower recurrence of NMIBC in the SA group than in the GA group, in both ITT (27.4% vs 39.8%) and modified ITT populations (26.8% vs 39.6%). Disease progression occurred more frequently in the GA than in the SA group (15.2% vs 7.8%), although the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionsA notable reduction in the 2-year recurrence rate was observed in patients who underwent SA than in those who underwent GA. Thus, SA may be considered the preferred anesthetic approach.Trial registration numberNCT03597087.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.