Comparative effects of levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine on excitotoxic neuronal death in culture and N-methyl-D-aspartate-induced seizures in mice

We compared the neurotoxic profile of racemic bupivacaine and levobupivacaine in: (i) a mouse model of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-induced seizures and (ii) in an in vitro model of excitotoxic cell death. When used at high doses (36 mg/kg) both bupivacaine and levobupivacaine reduced the latency to NMDA-induced seizures and increased seizure severity. However, levobupivacaine-treated animals underwent less severe seizures as compared with bupivacaine-treated animals. Lower doses of levobupivacaine and bupivacaine had opposite effects on NMDA-induced seizures. At doses of 5 mg/kg, levobupivacaine increased the latency to partial seizures and prevented the occurrence of generalized seizures, whereas bupivacaine decreased the latency to partial seizures and did not influence the development of generalized seizures. in in vitro experiments, we exposed primary cultures of mouse cortical cells, containing both neurons and astrocytes, to 100 mu M NMDA for 10 min for the induction of excitotoxic neuronal death. This treatment killed 70-80% of the neuronal population, as assessed 24 h after the excitotoxic pulse. In this particular model, both levobupivacaine and bupivacaine were neuroprotective against NMDA toxicity. However, neuroprotection by levobupivacaine was seen at lower concentrations (with respect to bupivacaine) and was maintained at concentrations of 3 mM, which are much higher than the plasma security threshold for the drug in vivo. In contrast, no protection against NMDA toxicity was detected when 3 mM concentrations of bupivacaine were applied to the cultures. Our data show a better neurotoxic profile of levobupivacaine as compared to racemic bupivacaine, and are indicative of a safer profile of levobupivacaine in clinical practice. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (>= 7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3-6.7)). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly