The low-density-lipoprotein receptors represent a family of pleiotropic cell surface receptors involved in lipid homeostasis, cell migration, proliferation and differentiation. The family shares common structural features but also has significant differences mainly due to tissue-specific interactors and to peculiar proteolytic processing. Among the receptors in the family, recent studies place low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 8 (LRP8) at the center of both neurodegenerative and cancer-related pathways. From one side, its overexpression has been highlighted in many types of cancer including breast, gastric, prostate, lung and melanoma; from the other side, LRP8 has a potential role in neurodegeneration as apolipoprotein E (ApoE) and reelin receptor, which are, respectively, the major risk factor for developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and the main driver of neuronal migration, and as a γ-secretase substrate, the main enzyme responsible for amyloid formation in AD. The present review analyzes the contributions of LDL receptors, specifically of LRP8, in both cancer and neurodegeneration, pointing out that depending on various interactions and peculiar processing, the receptor can contribute to both proliferative and neurodegenerative processes.

Background and Objectives: Sugammadex is a modified γ-cyclodextrin largely used to prevent postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade induced by neuromuscular aminosteroid blocking agents. Although Sugammadex is considered more efficacious and safer than other drugs, such as Neostigmine, significant and serious complications after its administration, such as hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and, more recently, severe cardiac events, are reported. Case presentation: In this report, we describe the case of an 80-year-old male with no medical history of cardiovascular disease who was scheduled for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy under general anesthesia. The intraoperative course was uneventful; however, the patient developed a rapid and severe hypotension, asystole and cardiac arrest after Sugammadex administration. Spontaneous cardiac activity and hemodynamic stability was restored with pharmacological therapy and chest compression. The patient was stabilized and discharged uneventfully on postoperative day 10. Conclusions: The potential causes of cardiac arrest after Sugammadex administration have been carefully considered, yet all indications point to Sugammadex as the direct causative agent. On the basis of laboratory and clinical tests, we can exclude among the cause of bradycardia, Kounis syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, coronary spasm and other arrhythmias, but not anaphylaxis. Although Sugammadex is considered an increasingly important option in the prevention of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade, anesthesiologists should consider it a causative agent of cardiac arrest during surgery. This case highlights the necessity of increased pharmacovigilance and further studies to examine Sugammadex safety and mechanism through which it may cause severe bradycardia, hypotension and cardiac arrest.

We thank Dr. Sagliocco and Dr. Betelli for their comments