No abstract

No abstract

Lidocaine attenuates cell injury induced by ischemic-reperfusion and inflammation, although the protective mechanisms are not understood. We hypothesized that lidocaine and other amide local anesthetics protect against endothelial cell injury through activation of the mitochondrial adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium (mitoK(ATP)) channels. We determined the effects of amide local anesthetics (lidocaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine), ester local anesthetics (tetracaine and procaine), one amide analog (YWI), and two non-amide local anesthetic analogs (JDA and ICM) on viability of human microvascular endothelial cells after exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in the absence or presence of the mitoK(ATP) channel antagonist 5-hydroxydecaonate. Flavoprotein fluorescence was used to investigate the effects of local anesthetics on diazoxide-induced activation of mitoK(ATP) channels. Lidocaine, ropivacaine, bupivicaine, YWI, JDA, and ICM attenuated by 60% to 70% the decrease in cell viability caused by LPS. Amide local anesthetics and YWI protection was inhibited by 5-hydroxydecaonate, whereas the protection induced by JDA and ICM was not. Tetracaine and procaine did not protect against LPS-induced injury. The amide local anesthetics and the amide analog (YWI) enhanced diazoxide-induced flavoprotein fluorescence by 5% to 20%, whereas ester local anesthetics decreased diazoxide-induced flavoprotein fluorescence by 5% to 60% and the non-amide local anesthetic analogs had no effect. In conclusion, amide local anesthetics and the amide analog (YWI) attenuate LPS-induced cell injury, in part, through activation of mitoK(ATP) channels. In contrast, tetracaine and procaine had no protective effects and inhibited activation of mitoK(ATP) channels. The non-amide local anesthetic analogs induced protection but through mechanisms independent of mitoK(ATP) channels.

IntroductionSince hoverboards became available in 2015, 2.5 million have been sold in the US. An increasing number of injuries related to their use have been reported, with limited data on associated injury patterns. We describe a case series of emergency department (ED) visits for hoverboard-related injuries.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review on patients presenting to 10 EDs in southeastern Virginia from December 24, 2015, through June 30, 2016. We used a free-text search feature of the electronic medical record to identify patients documented to have the word “hoverboard” in the record. We reported descriptive statistics for patient demographics, types of injuries, body injury location, documented helmet use, injury severity score (ISS), length of stay in the ED, and ED charges.ResultsWe identified 83 patients in our study. The average age was 26 years old (18 months to 78 years). Of these patients, 53% were adults; the majority were female (61.4%) and African American (56.6%). The primary cause of injury was falls (91%), with an average ISS of 5.4 (0–10). The majority of injuries were contusions (37.3%) and fractures (36.1%). Pediatric patients tended to have more fractures than adults (46.2% vs 27.3%). Though 20% of patients had head injuries, only one patient reported using a helmet. The mean and median ED charges were $2,292.00 (SD $1,363.64) and $1,808.00, respectively. Head injuries resulted in a significantly higher cost when compared to other injuries; median cost was $2,846.00.ConclusionWhile the overall ISS was low, more pediatric patients suffered fractures compared to adults. Documented helmet use was low, yet 20% of our population had head injuries. Further investigation into proper protective gear and training is warranted.

No abstract