Intravenous Lipid Emulsion for Levobupivacaine Intoxication in Acidotic and Hypoxaemic Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intravenous lipid emulsion is, in some countries, the recommended treatment for local anaesthetic toxicity. Systemic local anaesthetic toxicity results in hypoxaemia and acidosis, and whether this influences the effects of lipid therapy on drug concentrations and cardiovascular recovery is currently unknown. Twenty anaesthetised pigs were given a 3-mg/kg bolus of levobupivacaine followed by a five minute phase of hypoventilation and 1 mmol/kg of lactic acid in one minute. After lactic acid infusion, pigs were treated, in randomised order, with either 20% lipid emulsion or Ringer's acetate for 30 min: a 1.5-ml/kg bolus followed by a 0.25-ml/kg/minute infusion. Haemodynamic parameters were recorded and blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. There was no difference between the groups in the area under the plasma levobupivacaine concentration-time curve (AUC) or between that and AUC of unentrapped levobupivacaine in the Lipid group, or in the plasma half-lives. The cardiovascular outcome and normalisation of the electrocardiogram were similar in both groups. Five pigs developed marked hypotension: one in both groups died, while two in the Lipid group and one in the Ringer group needed adrenaline. Administration of lipid emulsion did not improve cardiovascular recovery from levobupivacaine toxicity exacerbated by acidosis and hypoxaemia. Lipid emulsion did not entrap levobupivacaine or affect levobupivacaine pharmacokinetics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".