Man Presenting After Hydrochloric Acid Ingestion.

Case Presentation: We describe a case of a man who developed severe caustic injury of his upper gastrointestinal tract after ingestion of a commercially available 9.5% hydrochloric acidic cleaning solution. He rapidly deteriorated and required endotracheal intubation. He underwent several imaging modalities demonstrating his injuries and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. Discussion: Acidic caustic ingestions may range in severity and uncommonly result in death. Diagnosis is most often achieved by esophagogastroduodenoscopy, although computed tomography may increasingly play a role in defining the extent of injury. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings are often assigned a Zargar grade, which guides management. Medical management of acidic caustic ingestion may include bowel rest, steroids, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors depending on the extent of injury, although surgery may be required if esophageal perforation occurs.

Cookie monster of a pediatric ingestion of zinc phosphide.

BACKGROUND: Zinc phosphide is a highly toxic rodenticide that reacts with hydrochloric acid in the stomach to form phosphine gas. Ingestion of zinc phosphide can result in consequential toxicity even when ingested in small quantities. Clear guidelines are lacking on appropriate personal protective equipment for providers to avoid additional exposure. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a four-year-old boy who suffered mild gastrointestinal symptoms after an unintentional ingestion of zinc phosphide. After discussion with the regional Poison Control Center, providers wore powered air-purifying respirators in a negative pressure room and experienced no symptoms of phosphine exposure. The patient was discharged the next day after a complete recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware of the potential clinical ramifications to patients who ingest zinc phosphide and the potential risks of caring for such patients. To prevent additional exposure, providers should don appropriate personal protective equipment and contact HAZMAT (or local health department) to safely remove additional zinc phosphide.

Abilifright: A Case Report of Massive Aripiprazole Overdose in a Toddler.

INTRODUCTION: Aripiprazole is an atypical antipsychotic with unique receptor-binding properties that has a favorable safety profile in therapeutic doses compared to other antipsychotics. Massive aripiprazole overdose in children, however, presents with profound lethargy and may have neurologic, hemodynamic, and cardiac effects, often requiring admission to a high level of care. CASE REPORT: We describe a case of a 21-month-old male with a reported 52-milligram aripiprazole ingestion. Initial vital signs were remarkable for tachycardia and hypertension, which rapidly resolved. The patient did not develop hypotension throughout hospitalization. He experienced 60 hours of lethargy. Irritability associated with upper extremity spasms and tremors occurred from 36-72 hours post ingestion, which resolved without intervention. The initial electrocardiogram demonstrated ST-segment depressions in the anteroseptal leads; further cardiac workup was normal. Concurrent medical workup was unrevealing. Aripiprazole and dehydro-aripiprazole serum concentrations sent 46 hours after reported exposure were 266.5 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) and 138.6 ng/mL, respectively. He returned to neurologic baseline and was discharged 72 hours after ingestion. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotics, including aripiprazole, should be considered as a potential toxicological cause of persistent central nervous system depression; ingestion of a single dose has the potential to cause significant toxicity.

A Case of Massive Diphenhydramine and Naproxen Overdose.

BACKGROUND: Diphenhydramine, a first generation H1 histamine receptor antagonist, is a commonly used nonprescription medication that is used for the treatment of allergy, as a sleep aid, or combined with cough and cold remedies. Naproxen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), is used commonly for analgesia. Although most cases of diphenhydramine or naproxen overdose require excellent supportive care only, meticulous attention should be given to cardiovascular and neurologic status. CASE REPORT: A 22-year-old woman presented with altered mental status secondary to intentional ingestion of 240 combination caplets of naproxen sodium 220 mg and diphenhydramine hydrochloride 25 mg. While in the emergency department, she manifested a wide-complex tachycardia in the setting of hypotension that required repeated administration of sodium bicarbonate to overcome the sodium channel blockade caused by diphenhydramine. Aggressive potassium repletion was performed simultaneously. Her clinical course was complicated by status-epilepticus that required intubation. Orogastric lavage was performed, which returned blue pill slurry consistent with the ingested caplets. The patient was extubated on hospital day 2 and transferred to psychiatry thereafter. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: In light of recent social media trends, such as the "Benadryl challenge" and its widespread availability, emergency providers should be familiar with diphenhydramine toxicity, especially the life-threatening neurologic consequences and risk of cardiovascular collapse. NSAIDs, such as naproxen, and other nonprescription analgesics are becoming more and more important in light of the current opioid crisis. There should be an emphasis on understanding these medications and their potential implications when taken in overdose.

Comparison of the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) and Paris criteria for neurotoxicity in lithium poisoned patients.

AIMS: Two guidelines for haemodialysis in lithium poisoning, one from the Extracorporeal TReatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup and a single centre retrospective one (Paris) differ. We compared outcomes in lithium poisoning based on these criteria with a primary outcome of worsening neurological symptoms in patients for whom EXTRIP and Paris criteria were discordant. METHODS: Poison centre data were queried for lithium poisoned patients for whom haemodialysis was either recommended or performed. Patients were categorized according to EXTRIP and Paris criteria and excluded if the peak lithium concentration was <1.2 mmol/L or if neurological follow-up was unavailable. Comparative analyses were only performed when both criteria could be assessed. RESULTS: In total, 219 patients were analysed. Paris criteria were met in 70 and EXTRIP criteria in 178. Forty two patients were excluded because Paris criteria could not be evaluated. When Paris and EXTRIP both supported haemodialysis, 50/57 (88%) of patients who received haemodialysis improved, as did all 3 who did not receive haemodialysis. When Paris and EXTRIP did not support haemodialysis, all nondialysed patients did well. Among the 86 patients for whom EXTRIP supported haemodialysis but Paris did not, 4/19 (21%) patients not dialysed deteriorated (P = .02; odds ratio = 8.7, 95% confidence interval = 1.5-51.8), 1 of whom died. All 8 patients for whom Paris criteria supported haemodialysis but EXTRIP did not were dialysed and improved. CONCLUSIONS: When the EXTRIP and Paris criteria are discordant, EXTRIP criteria outperforms the Paris criteria at identifying potentially ill patients who might benefit from haemodialysis.