Mepivacaine 44mg/2.2ml / Adrenaline (base) 22micrograms/2.2ml (1 in 100,000) solution for injection cartridges
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.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
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: 12 · Randomised trials: 23 · 1963–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Alkandari M, Alshammari M, Ghaleb A, et al.
2024
Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) as an anesthetic strategy has shown conflicting results in terms of efficacy in the treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis. Mepivacaine and articaine are anesthetic agents commonly used in the IANB technique for pulpal anesthesia. This review aimed to compare mepivacaine and articaine regarding pain and success rate. We conducted a search on the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing mepivacaine versus articaine until September 2024. The primary outcome of interest was success rate, while the secondary outcomes were pain intensity assessed by a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and incidence of severe pain. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effect model using STATA. Five RCTs including 568 patients were included in the final analysis. While there was no significant difference between the two studied groups regarding the success rate (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.21, p=0.54), articaine significantly reduced the pain intensity compared to mepivacaine (MD: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.86], p<0.001). Moreover, no significant difference was observed regarding the incidence of severe pain. Articaine reduced the intensity of pain post-procedure, with comparable results regarding success rate and incidence of severe pain with mepivacaine. Further large-volume RCTs are warranted to study the differences between the two options in the long term.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Liyu Ran, Jinglun Liu, Hideharu Tanaka, et al.
Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease, 2020
A. Siddiqi, Y. Mahmoud, M. Secic, et al.
The Journal of arthroplasty, 2022
G. Perkins, Claire Kenna, Chen Ji, et al.
Intensive Care Medicine, 2020
G. Perkins, Claire Kenna, Chen Ji, et al.
Resuscitation, 2019
R Sripriya, T Sivashanmugam, Daniel Rajadurai, et al.
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, 2023
- Bupivacaine
- Brachial Plexus Block
- Anesthetics, Local
Naichuan Su, Yan Liu, Xianrui Yang, et al.
International Dental Journal, 2014
- Anesthesia, Dental
- Anesthetics, Local
- Epinephrine
Suzan Salem, Islam Saad, Ramy Elmoazen, et al.
BMC Oral Health, 2025
- Anesthesia, Dental
- Anesthetics, Local
- Bicuspid
Dhar M, Talawar P, Sharma S, et al.
2024
Background and aimThere is no consensus on the appropriate use of mixtures of local anaesthetic drugs in various combinations for nerve blocks. We intended to compare short-acting lignocaine and long-acting ropivacaine as a mixture versus undiluted sequential injections on block characteristics of ultrasound-guided (USG) supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb surgeries.MethodsA double-blinded randomised study was conducted on 64 adult patients scheduled for upper limb surgery who received 15 mL each of 2% lignocaine with adrenaline and 0.75% ropivacaine as a 1:1 mixture in the mixed group (Group M) or sequential injections in the sequential group (Group S) by using a USG technique. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with complete four nerve sensory blocks at 10 minutes post block injection. Secondary outcomes were sensory and motor block characteristics till 30 minutes, total duration of analgesia, sensory and motor block, and complications.ResultsDemographic characteristics and time taken for the procedure were similar. The percentage of participants with a complete four-nerve sensory block at 10 minutes was higher in Group S (69%) versus Group M (41%) (P = 0.04). Complete sensory and motor block rates were similar at 30 minutes. The block procedure time, total duration of analgesia, and sensory and motor block were similar in both groups. There were no major complications.ConclusionSequential lignocaine-ropivacaine, compared to the mixed injection technique, has a higher initial rate of sensory and motor block onset with a similar total block duration.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-SA
C. Wyles, M. Pagnano, R. Trousdale, et al.
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2020
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.