Succinylcholine does not worsen bupivacaine-induced cardiotoxicity in pentobarbital-anaesthetized dogs

The intravascular injection of a large dose of bupivacaine induces electrophysiological cardiac impairment, mainly by slowing ventricular conduction velocity, and haemodynamic depression, by a decrease in myocardial contractility. When cardiotoxicity occurs, succinylcholine rapidly stops convulsions. However, the possible interactions between bupivacaine and succinylcholine on cardiac electrophysiology and haemodynamic status have never been investigated. Thus, we used an experimental electrophysiological model involving closed-chest dogs. Three groups (n = 6) of pentobarbital-anaesthetized dogs were given 0.2 mg.kg-1 atropine iv. Dogs in Group 1 were given saline. The others received 4 mg.kg-1 bupivacaine iv over ten seconds. Dogs in Group 2 were then given saline and those in Group 3 were then given 2 mg.kg-1 succinylcholine iv from one to two minutes after the administration of bupivacaine. The following electrophysiological variables were measured: heart rate represented by RR interval (RR), PR, atria-His (AH), and His-ventricle (HV) intervals, QRS duration, and QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc). The following haemodynamic variables were measured: mean aortic pressure (MAoP), the peak of the first derivative of left ventricular pressure (LV dP/dt max), and LV end diastolic pressure (LVEDP). Comparison between Groups 1 and 2 showed that bupivacaine induced more than 100% HV interval lengthening and QRS widening (P less than 0.01), prolonged QTc interval by more than 25% (P less than 0.01), and decreased LV dP/dt max by more than 50% (P less than 0.01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Clinical measurement, statistical analysis, and risk-benefit: controversies from trials of spinal injury

BACKGROUND: The National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Studies have been a series of trials assessing the role of pharmacologic agents in the prevention of secondary neuronal damage after acute spinal cord injury. METHODS: The trials were multicenter randomized, controlled studies. RESULTS: Two trials have demonstrated the efficacy of high-dose methylprednisolone in improving neurologic and functional recovery and have shown a reassuring safety profile. CONCLUSION: This study responds to a recent commentary on these trials and examines in particular the roles of clinical measurement, statistical analysis, and risk benefit in assembling evidence for or against innovative therapies.     

Large cleaved and immunoblastic lymphoma may represent two distinct clinicopathologic entities within the group of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas.

PURPOSE: The reliability of immunohistochemistry for subdividing diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) into germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) and non-GCB prognostic subgroups is debated. In this study we evaluated the prognostic significance of such subgrouping on a series of 153 DLBCL patients. Furthermore, we investigated whether both subgroups could comprise clinicopathologic entities recognized by their morphology and characterized by a distinct phenotype, specific genetic abnormalities, and clinical characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All samples from patients were reviewed and morphologically subdivided into large cleaved, immunoblastic, and not otherwise specified DLBCL. GCB and non-GCB immunohistochemical profiles were established. The presence of chromosomal translocations involving BCL2, BCL6, and MYC and/or rearrangements of these genes was investigated. RESULTS: Subdividing DLBCL with either a GCB or non-GCB immunophenotypic profile was not of prognostic significance. Nevertheless, CD10 expression was a predictor of favorable outcome, whereas high bcl-2 expression and BCL6 rearrangement were adverse predictors of disease-free survival. Interestingly, large cleaved DLBCL was clearly associated with a GCB immunophenotypic profile, CD10 expression, BCL2 rearrangement, age younger than 60 years, and low to low/intermediate International Prognostic Index risk, but was not of prognostic significance. In contrast, immunoblastic morphology was associated with a non-GCB profile and was a significant predictor of unfavorable DFS. CONCLUSION: Subdividing DLBCL into subgroups based on their immunohistochemical profile was not of prognostic significance. Nevertheless, it allowed the additional characterization of two lymphoma subgroups previously recognized in the Working Formulation. Both correspond to two distinct clinicopathologic entities within the DLBCL.