A response to a previously published article or letter can be submitted to the Online Correspondence section at http://www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com. A selection of this correspondence is published several times a year in Anaesthesia. All correspondence intended for publication in Anaesthesia should be addressed to Dr David Bogod, Editor-in-Chief, and submitted as an e-mail attachment to email@example.com. For multi-author letters, a covering letter signed by all authors must be submitted either by post, fax (44 (0) 115 962 7670) or by e-mail as a scanned document before correspondence can be published. Alternatively, letters may be submitted typewritten on one side of paper, double spaced with wide margins to Anaesthesia, 1st Floor, Maternity Unit, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. All paper submissions must include a signed covering letter, a disc or CD-ROM with a Word for Windows or .rtf version of the letter and an email address for the corresponding author. Copy should be prepared in the usual style of the Correspondence section. Authors must follow the advice about references and other matters contained in the Author Guidelines at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ana/submiss.htm. Correspondence presented in any other style or format will be returned to the author for revision.
In defence of lipid resuscitation
Article first published online: 6 JUL 2006
Volume 61, Issue 8, pages 807–808, August 2006
How to Cite
Weinberg, G. L. (2006), In defence of lipid resuscitation. Anaesthesia, 61: 807–808. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04723.x
- Issue published online: 6 JUL 2006
- Article first published online: 6 JUL 2006
I would like to commend the Editor for providing in recent issues of Anaesthesia a forum for the lively and compelling interchange of opinions on the use of lipid emulsion for treating severe local anaesthetic toxicity. I was pleased to read the initial letter from Dalgleish and Kathawaroo , which cited our work [2, 3] and sought to raise awareness of the efficacy of lipid infusion in treating bupivacaine-induced asystole in animal models of local anaesthetic toxicity. The letter  and subsequent editorial  from Picard and Meek endorsed clinical translation of this method by suggesting anaesthesiologists begin to stock lipid emulsions where regional anaesthesia is performed and by publishing a refinement of my previous recommendations for dosing. I support this position whole-heartedly for two reasons.
Firstly, I am convinced that severe systemic toxicity from local anaesthetics occurs with far greater frequency than indicated in the medical literature. Data collection in large cohort studies of regional anaesthesia is subject to errors of ascertainment, misclassification or misdiagnosis and other causes of under-reporting. I am aware of a dozen near-miss and fatal cardiac arrests involving bupivacaine, ropivacaine and even mepivacaine over the past 5 years. Only one of these was reported in a study of complications in regional anaesthesia. Many of them occurred in a private practice setting and in half the drug was administered by a non-anaesthesiologist. This suggests that the patterns and context of local anaesthetic toxicity are changing and further implies that epidemiologic studies of anaesthesia practices are unlikely to capture many of these cases.
Second is the fact of having watched a large number of rodents and dogs with large and otherwise fatal overdoses of bupivacaine rapidly regain normal haemodynamics after a bolus of lipid emulsion. Nothing provides a more convincing testimony than seeing the return of cardiac function shortly after the lipid washes through the subject's coronary circulatory bed.
The counter-point to this optimistic position was expressed in Professor Wildsmith's cautionary reply to Picard and Meek which warned of ‘their somewhat over enthusiastic advocacy of Weinberg’s untested proposals' . I join Picard and Meek in their support of Wildsmith's suggestion to remain mindful of the need to prevent anaesthetic complications . However, I am hopeful that this viewpoint will not prevent physicians from infusing lipid emulsion in a patient unresponsive to standard resuscitative measures who, for all intents and purposes, is dead.
Moore et al.  provided a balanced position by reporting that they have begun stocking Intralipid in their operating suites, while also pointing out potential complications of large dose lipid infusion. This letter underscores the need for further studies to define an optimal and safe method for lipid infusion in local anaesthetic toxicity.
Even conservative estimates link peripheral nerve block to a rate of severe, systemic toxicity that is nearly an order of magnitude greater than that for malignant hyperthermia . My hope is that lipid infusion could play the same role for local anaesthetic toxicity that dantrolene does for malignant hyperthermia. Such an ‘over-enthusiastic’ position will be far easier to defend if there is a published case report of the successful application of lipid infusion in saving a patient from severe local anaesthetic toxicity. All of us await that report.*
Editor's note A report of the use of lipid emulsion in the sucessful resuscitation of a patient in cardiac arrest due to local anaesthetic toxicity is published elsewhere in this issue of Anaesthesia.