Search

Background: Little is known about the pharmacodynamic characteristics of liposomal bupivacaine. Hypothesizing that they would not identify pharmacodynamic differences from plain bupivacaine during the initial period after administration, but would find better long-term pharmacodynamic characteristics, the authors designed a randomized, controlled, triple-blinded, single-center study in volunteers., Methods: Volunteers aged 18 to 55 yr (body mass index, 18 to 35 kg/m2) received two ulnar nerve blocks under ultrasound guidance. Using a crossover design with a washout phase of 36 days or more, one block was performed with liposomal and one with plain bupivacaine. Which came first was determined by randomization. Sensory data were collected by pinprick testing and motor data by thumb adduction, either way in comparison with the contralateral arm. Endpoints included success, time to onset, and duration of blockade. Residual efficacy was assessed by the volunteers keeping a diary. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon signed-rank and exact McNemar's tests, as well as a generalized estimation equation model., Results: Successful sensory blockade was noted in 8 of 25 volunteers (32%) after liposomal and in 25 of 25 (100%) after plain bupivacaine (P < 0.0001). Significant differences emerged for time to onset, defined as 0% response to pinpricking in four of five hypothenar supply areas (P < 0.0001), and for time from onset to 80% or 20% in one of five areas (P < 0.001; P < 0.001). Carryover effects due to the randomized sequencing were unlikely (estimate, -0.6286; sequence effect, 0.8772; P = 0.474). Self-assessment greater than 3.5 days did reveal, for liposomal bupivacaine only, intermittent but unpredictable episodes of residual sensory blockade., Conclusions: The results show that liposomal bupivacaine is not a suitable "sole" drug for intraoperative regional anesthesia. Findings of its limited long-term efficacy add to existing evidence that a moderate effect, at best, should be expected on postoperative pain therapy., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc., on behalf of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.)

Purpose: To determine risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers (HCWs), characterize symptoms, and evaluate preventive measures against SARS-CoV-2 spread in hospitals., Methods: In a cross-sectional study conducted between May 27 and August 12, 2020, after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we obtained serological, epidemiological, occupational as well as COVID-19-related data at a quaternary care, multicenter hospital in Munich, Germany., Results: 7554 HCWs participated, 2.2% of whom tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Multivariate analysis revealed increased COVID-19 risk for nurses (3.1% seropositivity, 95% CI 2.5-3.9%, p = 0.012), staff working on COVID-19 units (4.6% seropositivity, 95% CI 3.2-6.5%, p = 0.032), males (2.4% seropositivity, 95% CI 1.8-3.2%, p = 0.019), and HCWs reporting high-risk exposures to infected patients (5.5% seropositivity, 95% CI 4.0-7.5%, p = 0.0022) or outside of work (12.0% seropositivity, 95% CI 8.0-17.4%, p < 0.0001). Smoking was a protective factor (1.1% seropositivity, 95% CI 0.7-1.8% p = 0.00018) and the symptom taste disorder was strongly associated with COVID-19 (29.8% seropositivity, 95% CI 24.3-35.8%, p < 0.0001). An unbiased decision tree identified subgroups with different risk profiles. Working from home as a preventive measure did not protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection. A PCR-testing strategy focused on symptoms and high-risk exposures detected all larger COVID-19 outbreaks., Conclusion: Awareness of the identified COVID-19 risk factors and successful surveillance strategies are key to protecting HCWs against SARS-CoV-2, especially in settings with limited vaccination capacities or reduced vaccine efficacy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)