First Report of Survival in Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation After Dual-Axis Defibrillation and Esmolol Administration.

There is a subset of patients who suffer a witnessed ventricular fibrillation (VF) arrest and despite receiving reasonable care with medications (epinephrine and amiodarone) and multiple defibrillations (3+ attempts at 200 joules of biphasic current) remain in refractory VF (RVF), also known as electrical storm. The mortality for these patients is as high as 97%. We present the case of a patient who, with a novel approach, survived RVF to outpatient follow up.

Follow-up CT pulmonary angiograms in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

Computed tomographic (CT) angiography is associated with a non-negligible lifetime attributable risk of cancer. The risk is considerably greater for women and younger patients. Recognizing that there are risks from radiation, the purpose of this investigation was to assess the frequency of follow-up CT angiograms in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥18 years with acute pulmonary embolism seen in three emergency departments from January 2013 to December 2014. Records of all patients were reviewed for at least 14 months. Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed by CT angiography in 600 patients. At least one follow-up CT angiogram in 1 year was obtained in 141 of 600 (23.5 %). Two follow-ups in 1 year were obtained in 40 patients (6.7 %), 3 follow-ups were obtained in 15 patients (2.5 %), and 4 follow-ups were obtained in 3 patients (0.5 %). Among young women (aged ≤29 years) with pulmonary embolism, 10 of 21 (47.6 %) had at least 1 follow-up and 4 of 21 (19.0 %) had 2 or more follow-ups in 1 year. Among all patients, recurrent pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in 15 of 141 (10.6 %) on the first follow-up CT angiogram and in 6 of 40 (15.0 %) on the second follow-up. Follow-up CT angiograms were obtained in a significant proportion of patients with pulmonary embolism, including young women, the group with the highest risk. Alternative options might be considered to reduce the hazard of radiation-induced cancer, particularly in young women.

Home Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism in the Era of Novel Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient therapy of patients with acute pulmonary embolism has been shown to be safe in carefully selected patients. Problems related to the injection of low-molecular-weight heparin at home can be overcome by use of novel oral anticoagulants. The purpose of this investigation is to assess the prevalence of home treatment in the era of novel oral anticoagulants. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥18 years with acute pulmonary embolism seen in 5 emergency departments from January 2013 to December 2014. RESULTS: Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in 983 patients. Among these, 237 were considered ineligible for home treatment because of instability or hypoxia. Home treatment was selected for 13 of 746 (1.7%) patients who were potentially eligible. Anticoagulant treatment for those treated at home was low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin in 9 (69.2%) and novel oral anticoagulants in 4 (30.8%). Hospitalization was chosen for 733 of 746 (98.3%). Discharge in ≤2 days was in 119 patients (16.2%). Treatment of these patients was low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin in 76 (63.9%), novel oral anticoagulants in 34 (28.6%), and in 9 (7.6%), anticoagulants were not given because of metastatic cancer or treatment was not known. CONCLUSION: Even in the era of novel oral anticoagulants, the vast majority of patients with acute pulmonary embolism were hospitalized, and only a small proportion were discharged in ≤2 days. Although home treatment has been found to be safe in carefully selected patients, and scoring systems have been derived to identify those at low risk of adverse events, home treatment was infrequently selected.

Home treatment of deep venous thrombosis in the era of new oral anticoagulants.

This is a retrospective cohort study of adults with a primary diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) unaccompanied by pulmonary embolism (PE), seen in 4 emergency departments in 2013 and part of 2014. The purpose was to assess the prevalence of home treatment of DVT in the present era of new oral anticoagulants. Among 96 patients with DVT and no PE, 85 (88.5%) were hospitalized and 11 (11.5%) were discharged to home. Most of the patients discharged to home received low-molecular-weight heparin, 9 (81.8%) of 11. None were prescribed new oral anticoagulants. Early discharge in ≤2 days occurred 28 (32.9%) of 85 patients. Most (64.3%) received enoxaparin and/or warfarin at early discharge. Rivaroxaban was prescribed in 7 (25.0%) of those discharged in ≤2 days. We conclude that in some emergency departments, patients with DVT are uncommonly discharged to home even though new oral anticoagulants are available.

Impact of a new senior emergency department on emergency department recidivism, rate of hospital admission, and hospital length of stay.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Senior (geriatric) emergency departments (EDs) are an emerging phenomenon across the United States, designed to provide greater comfort for elders, screening for common morbidities, and selective contact with social workers. We hypothesize that the senior ED will reduce recidivism, rate of admission, and hospital length of stay. METHODS: This was a pre/postintervention observational study of seniors (≥65 years) before and after opening of a new senior ED in a large community hospital. Older nonseniors treated during the same periods were included to detect temporal trend bias. Outcomes included admission to the hospital, hospital length of stay, and ED return visits. Cox proportional hazards models, controlling for patient age, sex, triage level, insurance type, admission on the index visit, and hospital length of stay, were used to test association with time to return within 30 and 180 days. Multivariable regression modeling was used to determine whether the intervention was associated with admission on the index visit, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in time to return within 30 days (HR=1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.23), 180 days (HR=0.99; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08), or average hospital length of stay. Risk of being admitted on the index visit was lower for seniors treated in the senior ED compared with the regular ED (Relative Risk=0.93; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98). CONCLUSION: A new senior ED was not associated with reduced ED recidivism or hospital length of stay, but was associated with decreased rate of admission.

Relation of electrocardiographic changes in pulmonary embolism to right ventricular enlargement.

The electrocardiographic (ECG) findings in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and no previous cardiopulmonary disease are well documented; however, investigation of the relation of ECG abnormalities to right ventricular (RV) enlargement has been limited. The purpose of the present investigation was to assess further the relation of ECG changes in acute PE to RV cavity enlargement (dilation). The records of patients hospitalized from January 2009 to December 2012 with acute PE and no previous cardiopulmonary disease were reviewed. A total of 289 patients were included. RV cavity enlargement was present in 141 patients (49%). Normal ECG findings were less prevalent in patients with PE and RV enlargement than those with PE and no RV enlargement (35 of 141 [25%] vs 56 of 148 [38%]; p = 0.02). One or more of the traditional ECG manifestations of acute cor pulmonale (S1Q3T3, complete right bundle branch block, P pulmonale, or right axis deviation) was found in 18 of 141 patients (13%) with RV enlargement and 13 of 148 (8.8%) with a normal size RV (p = NS). None of the ECG abnormalities was sensitive for RV enlargement. The specificity of P and QRS abnormalities was high. The positive predictive values were ≤83% or had wide 95% confidence intervals. The negative predictive values ranged from 50% to 61%. In conclusion, ECG findings were not useful for the detection or exclusion of RV cavity enlargement in patients with acute PE.

Impact of vena cava filters on in-hospital case fatality rate from pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: The effects of vena cava filters on case fatality rate are not clear, although they are used increasingly in patients with pulmonary embolism. The purpose of this investigation is to determine categories of patients with pulmonary embolism in whom vena cava filters reduce in-hospital case fatality rate. METHODS: In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate according to the use of vena cava filters was determined in patients with pulmonary embolism discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. RESULTS: In-hospital case fatality rate was marginally lower in stable patients who received a vena cava filter: 21,420 of 297,700 (7.2%) versus 135,240 of 1,712,800 (7.9%) (P<.0001). Filters did not improve in-hospital case fatality rate if deep venous thrombosis was diagnosed in stable patients. A few stable patients (1.4%) received thrombolytic therapy. Such patients who received a vena cava filter had a lower case fatality rate than those who did not: 550 of 8550 (6.4%) versus 2950 of 19,050 (15%) (P<.0001). Unstable patients who received thrombolytic therapy had a lower in-hospital case fatality rate with vena cava filters than those who did not: 505 of 6630 (7.6%) versus 2600 of 14,760 (18%) (P<.0001). Unstable patients who did not receive thrombolytic therapy also had a lower in-hospital case fatality rate with a vena cava filter: 4260 of 12,850 (33%) versus 19,560 of 38,000 (51%) (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: At present, it seems prudent to consider a vena cava filter in patients with pulmonary embolism who are receiving thrombolytic therapy and in unstable patients who may not be candidates for thrombolytic therapy. Future prospective study is warranted to better define in which patients a filter is appropriate.

Intracerebral hemorrhage with thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial hemorrhage is one of the dreaded complications of thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism. We identified patients with pulmonary embolism who may be at relatively high risk of intracerebral hemorrhage from those selected for thrombolytic therapy by their physicians and presumably thought to be of reasonable risk. METHODS: The number of patients discharged from short-stay hospitals in the United States from 1998 to 2008 with pulmonary embolism who received thrombolytic therapy and the proportion with intracerebral hemorrhage were determined from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2008, 2,237,600 patients were discharged with a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Among patients who received thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism, the prevalence of intracerebral hemorrhage was 430 of 49,500 (0.9%). The prevalence increased linearly with age more than 10 years. Intracerebral hemorrhage was less frequent in those with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (250/39,300 [0.6%]) than in those with a secondary diagnosis (180/10,300 [1.7%], P<.0001). The prevalence of intracerebral hemorrhage was lower in patients aged 65 years or less with no kidney disease (90/16,900 [0.5%]) than in patients aged more than 65 years or with kidney disease (290/20,900 [1.4%], P<.0001). The prevalence remained lower in those with a primary diagnosis (90/23,000 [0.4%] than in those with a secondary diagnosis (50/5700 [0.9%], P<.0001). CONCLUSION: The cause of intracerebral hemorrhage in patients with pulmonary embolism who receive thrombolytic therapy seems to be multifactorial and related to comorbidity and age.

Reliability of history of acetaminophen ingestion in intentional drug overdose patients.

The objective of this study was to determine the reliability of denial of acetaminophen ingestion in intentional drug overdose patients. All intentional drug overdose patients admitted to an emergency department who were able to provide a history were included. A detailed history was obtained on names, timing and number of medications ingested, and serum acetaminophen was assayed. Multidrug ingestion was defined as the reporting of ≥2 medications. Patients were considered 'reliable' if they reported acetaminophen ingestion and had detectable acetaminophen levels or the other way around. Validity parameters of acetaminophen history were assessed by sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values. A total of 154 patients were included. History was significantly more reliable in patients who denied ingestion of acetaminophen (n = 107) compared with patients who reported it (n = 47; 95.3% vs 65.9%, respectively; p < 0.0001, 95% CI of the difference 17.5%-41.2%). No suicidal patient who denied both acetaminophen and multidrug ingestions had a detectable acetaminophen level (negative predictive value 1, 95% CI 0.93-1.0). It is suggested that denial of both acetaminophen and multidrug ingestions by intentional drug overdose patients after a thorough history taking can be considered reliable for acetaminophen history. In facilities with limited resources, these patients may not require routine acetaminophen screening.

Ethylene glycol ingestion treated only with fomepizole.

INTRODUCTION: Ethylene glycol is a widely used chemical that is capable of causing significant injury if ingested. Treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning typically includes basic supportive care, alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition, and hemodialysis. Recent data have suggested that hemodialysis may not be necessary for cases of ethylene glycol poisoning that can be treated with fomepizole as blocking therapy before acidosis or renal dysfunction develops. CASE REPORT: A 33-year-old man presented to the emergency department 1 hour after drinking approximately 1/2 gallon of ethylene glycol antifreeze and an unknown quantity of beer. On arrival he was mildly inebriated but otherwise displayed no other features of ethylene glycol poisoning. Fomepizole therapy was initiated and initial laboratory studies later revealed an osmol gap of 157 mOsm and an ethylene glycol concentration of 706 mg/dL. Nephrology and toxicology services were consulted. Over the next 3 days, fomepizole therapy was continued while the patient's acid-base status and renal function were closely monitored. No evidence of acid-base abnormalities or renal impairment was ever observed and the patient was discharged to psychiatric care on the fourth hospital day. DISCUSSION: This report describes the case of a patient who presented soon after a massive ingestion of ethylene glycol with very high serum concentrations. He was successfully treated using fomepizole and basic supportive care. Our patient developed neither renal insufficiency nor metabolic acidosis. His concomitant ethanol consumption, early presentation, and treatment likely contributed to his favorable outcome. This case report underscores the effectiveness of supportive care and fomepizole in the treatment of ethylene glycol poisoning.

Camphor Poisoning: an evidence-based practice guideline for out-of-hospital management.

A review of national poison center data from 1990 through 2003 showed approximately 10,000 annual ingestion exposures to camphor-containing products. A guideline that determines the threshold dose for emergency department referral and need for pre-hospital decontamination could potentially avoid unnecessary emergency department visits, reduce health care costs, optimize patient outcome, and reduce life disruption for patients and caregivers. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create the guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft of the guideline was created by the primary author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes based on the secondary review comments. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with suspected exposures to camphor-containing products by 1) describing the manner in which an exposure to camphor might be managed, 2) identifying the key decision elements in managing cases of camphor exposure, 3) providing clear and practical recommendations that reflect the current state of knowledge, and 4) identifying needs for research. This guideline applies to camphor exposure alone. Co-ingestion of additional substances, such as in commercial products of camphor combined with other ingredients, could require different referral and management recommendations depending on the combined toxicities of the substances. This guideline is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline, and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. This guideline does not substitute for clinical judgment. Recommendations are in chronological order of likely clinical use. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses. 1) Patients with stated or suspected self-harm or who are the recipients of malicious administration of a camphor-containing product should be referred to an emergency department immediately, regardless of the amount ingested (Grade D). 2) Patients who have ingested more than 30 mg/kg of a camphor-containing product or who are exhibiting symptoms of moderate to severe toxicity (e.g., convulsions, lethargy, ataxia, severe nausea and vomiting) by any route of exposure should be referred to an emergency department for observation and treatment (Grade D). 3) Patients exhibiting convulsions following a camphor exposure should be transported to an emergency department by pre-hospital emergency medical care providers (Grade D). A benzodiazepine should be used to control convulsions (Grade C). 4) Patients who have been exposed to a camphor product and who remain asymptomatic after 4 hours can be safely observed at home (Grade C). 5) Induction of emesis with ipecac syrup should not be performed in patients who have ingested camphor products (Grade C). 6) Activated charcoal administration should not be used for the ingestion of camphor products. However, it could be considered if there are other ingredients in the product that are effectively adsorbed by activated charcoal or if other substances have been co-ingested. (Grade C). 7) For asymptomatic patients with topical exposures to camphor products, the skin should be thoroughly washed with soap and water and the patient can be observed at home for development of symptoms (Grade C). 8) For patients with topical splash exposures of camphor to the eye(s), the eye(s) should be irrigated in accordance with usual poison center procedures and that referral take place based on the presence and severity of symptoms (Grade D). 9) Patients with camphor inhalation exposures should be moved to a fresh air environment and referred for medical care based on the presence and severity of symptoms. It is unlikely that symptoms will progress once the patient is removed from the exposure environment (Grade D).

Diphenhydramine and dimenhydrinate poisoning: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

In 2003, there were 28,092 human exposures to diphenhydramine reported to poison centers in the US. A related drug, dimenhydrinate, is a less frequent cause of poisonings. Between January 2000 and June 2004, there were 2,534 reported dimenhydrinate ingestions in children less than 6 years of age. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft was created by the primary author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes based on the secondary review comments. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with a suspected ingestion of diphenhydramine or dimenhydrinate, or a dermal exposure to diphenhydramine. This guideline is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. This guideline does not substitute for clinical judgment. The panel's recommendations for dermal or oral exposures to diphenhydramine or oral exposures to dimenhydrinate follow. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses: 1) All patients with suicidal intent, intentional abuse, or in cases in which a malicious intent is suspected (e.g., child abuse or neglect) should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 2) In patients without evidence of self-harm, abuse, or malicious intent, poison center personnel should elicit additional information including the time of the ingestion or dermal exposure, determination of the precise dose ingested, and the presence of co-ingestants (Grade D). 3) Patients experiencing any changes in behavior other than mild drowsiness or mild stimulation should be referred to an emergency department. Examples of moderate to severe symptoms that warrant referral include agitation, staring spells, inconsolable crying, hallucinations, abnormal muscle movements, loss of consciousness, seizures, or respiratory depression (Grade D). 4) For patients referred to the emergency department, transportation via ambulance should be considered based on several factors including the condition of the patient and the length of time it will take the patient to arrive at the emergency department (Grade D). 5) If the patient has no symptoms, and more than 4 hours have elapsed between the time of diphenhydramine ingestion and the call to the poison center, referral to an emergency department is not recommended. For dermal exposures to diphenhydramine, if the patient has no symptoms and it has been more than 8 hours since the diphenhydramine was thoroughly removed from the skin, referral to an emergency department is not recommended (Grade D). 6) Patients with acute ingestions of less than a toxic dose of diphenhydramine, or chronic exposures to diphenhydramine and no or mild symptoms, can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center back if symptoms develop or worsen. The poison center should consider making a follow-up call at approximately 4 hours after ingestion (Grade D). 7) Children less than 6 years of age who ingest at least 7.5 mg/kg of diphenhydramine should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 8) Patients 6 years of age and older who ingest at least 7.5 mg/kg or 300 mg of diphenhydramine (whichever is less), should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 9) If the patient has no symptoms, and more than 6 hours have elapsed between the time of dimenhydrinate ingestion and the call to the poison center, referral to an emergency department is not recommended (Grade D). 10) Patients with acute ingestions of less than a toxic dose of dimenhydrinate, or chronic exposures to dimenhydrinate and no or mild symptoms, can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center back if symptoms develop or worsen. The poison center should consider making a follow-up call at approximately 6 hours after ingestion (Grade D). 11) Children less than 6 years of age ingesting at least 7.5 mg/kg of dimenhydrinate should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 12) Patients 6 years of age and older ingesting at least 7.5 mg/kg or 300 mg of dimenhydrinate (whichever is less), should be referred to an emergency department for evaluation (Grade D). 13) Following oral exposures of diphenhydramine or dimenhydrinate, do not induce emesis. Because of the potential for diphenhydramine or dimenhydrinate to cause loss of consciousness or seizures, activated charcoal should not be administered en route to an emergency department (Grade D). 14) For chronic dermal exposures of diphenhydramine, skin decontamination (with water or soap and water) should be attempted prior to transporting a patient to an emergency department unless moderate to severe symptoms are already present. In this circumstance, transportation should not be delayed, and EMS personnel should attempt skin decontamination en route to the emergency department (Grade D). 15) Intravenous sodium bicarbonate may be administered by EMS personnel if QRS widening (QRS >0.10 msec) is present and if authorized by EMS medical direction (Grade D). 16) Physostigmine should be reserved for administration in a hospital (Grade D). 17) Benzodiazepines may be administered by EMS personnel if agitation or seizures are present, and if authorized by EMS medical direction (Grade D).

Acetaminophen poisoning: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with suspected ingestions of acetaminophen. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. This guideline applies to ingestion of acetaminophen alone and is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care. The panel's recommendations follow. These recommendations are provided in chronological order of likely clinical use. The grade of recommendation is provided in parentheses. 1) The initial history obtained by the specialist in poison information should include the patient's age and intent (Grade B), the specific formulation and dose of acetaminophen, the ingestion pattern (single or multiple), duration of ingestion (Grade B), and concomitant medications that might have been ingested (Grade D). 2) Any patient with stated or suspected self-harm or who is the recipient of a potentially malicious administration of acetaminophen should be referred to an emergency department immediately regardless of the amount ingested. This referral should be guided by local poison center procedures (Grade D). 3) Activated charcoal can be considered if local poison center policies support its prehospital use, a toxic dose of acetaminophen has been taken, and fewer than 2 hours have elapsed since the ingestion (Grade A). Gastrointestinal decontamination could be particularly important if acetylcysteine cannot be administered within 8 hours of ingestion. Acute, single, unintentional ingestion of acetaminophen: 1) Any patient with signs consistent with acetaminophen poisoning (e.g., repeated vomiting, abdominal tenderness in the right upper quadrant or mental status changes) should be referred to an emergency department for evaluation (Grade D). 2) Patients less than 6 years of age should be referred to an emergency department if the estimated acute ingestion amount is unknown or is 200 mg/kg or more. Patients can be observed at home if the dose ingested is less than 200 mg/kg (Grade B). 3) Patients 6 years of age or older should be referred to an emergency department if they have ingested at least 10 g or 200 mg/kg (whichever is lower) or when the amount ingested is unknown (Grade D). 4) Patients referred to an emergency department should arrive in time to have a stat serum acetaminophen concentration determined at 4 hours after ingestion or as soon as possible thereafter. If the time of ingestion is unknown, the patient should be referred to an emergency department immediately (Grade D). 5) If the initial contact with the poison center occurs more than 36 hours after the ingestion and the patient is well, the patient does not require further evaluation for acetaminophen toxicity (Grade D). Repeated supratherapeutic ingestion of acetaminophen (RSTI): 1) Patients under 6 years of age should be referred to an emergency department immediately if they have ingested: a) 200 mg/kg or more over a single 24-hour period, or b) 150 mg/kg or more per 24-hour period for the preceding 48 hours, or c) 100 mg/kg or more per 24-hour period for the preceding 72 hours or longer (Grade C). 2) Patients 6 years of age or older should be referred to an emergency department if they have ingested: a) at least 10 g or 200 mg/kg (whichever is less) over a single 24-hour period, or b) at least 6 g or 150 mg/kg (whichever is less) per 24-hour period for the preceding 48 hours or longer. In patients with conditions purported to increase susceptibility to acetaminophen toxicity (alcoholism, isoniazid use, prolonged fasting), the dose of acetaminophen considered as RSTI should be greater than 4 g or 100 mg/kg (whichever is less) per day (Grade D). 3) Gastrointestinal decontamination is not needed (Grade D). Other recommendations: 1) The out-of-hospital management of extended-release acetaminophen or multi-drug combination products containing acetaminophen is the same as an ingestion of acetaminophen alone (Grade D). However, the effects of other drugs might require referral to an emergency department in accordance with the poison center's normal triage criteria. 2) The use of cimetidine as an antidote is not recommended (Grade A).

Iron ingestion: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

From 1983 to 1991, iron caused over 30% of the deaths from accidental ingestion of drug products by children. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft of the guideline was created by the primary author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before its distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes in response to comments received. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with suspected ingestions of iron by 1) describing the manner in which an ingestion of iron might be managed, 2) identifying the key decision elements in managing cases of iron ingestion, 3) providing clear and practical recommendations that reflect the current state of knowledge, and 4) identifying needs for research. This guideline applies to ingestion of iron alone and is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. The panel's recommendations follow; the grade of recommendation is in parentheses. 1) Patients with stated or suspected self-harm or who are victims of malicious administration of an iron product should be referred to an acute care medical facility immediately. This activity should be guided by local poison center procedures. In general, this should occur regardless of the amount ingested (Grade D). 2) Pediatric or adult patients with a known ingestion of 40 mg/kg or greater of elemental iron in the form of adult ferrous salt formulations or who have severe or persistent symptoms related to iron ingestion should be referred to a healthcare facility for medical evaluation. Patients who have ingested less than 40 mg/kg of elemental iron and who are having mild symptoms can be observed at home. Mild symptoms such as vomiting and diarrhea occur frequently. These mild symptoms should not necessarily prompt referral to a healthcare facility. Patients with more serious symptoms, such as persistent vomiting and diarrhea, alterations in level of consciousness, hematemesis, and bloody diarrhea require referral. The same dose threshold should be used for pregnant women, however, when calculating the mg/kg dose ingested, the pre-pregnancy weight of the woman should be used (Grade C). 3) Patients with ingestions of children's chewable vitamins plus iron should be observed at home with appropriate follow-up. The presence of diarrhea should not be the sole indicator for referral as these products are often sweetened with sorbitol. Children may need referral for the management of dehydration if vomiting or diarrhea is severe or prolonged (Grade C). 4) Patients with unintentional ingestions of carbonyl iron or polysaccharide-iron complex formulations should be observed at home with appropriate follow-up (Grade C). 5) Ipecac syrup, activated charcoal, cathartics, or oral complexing agents, such as bicarbonate or phosphate solutions, should not be used in the out-of-hospital management of iron ingestions (Grade C). 6) Asymptomatic patients are unlikely to develop symptoms if the interval between ingestion and the call to the poison center is greater than 6 hours. These patients should not need referral or prolonged observation. Depending on the specific circumstances, follow-up calls might be indicated (Grade C).

Ethylene glycol exposure: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

In 2002, poison centers in the US reported 5816 human exposures to ethylene glycol. A guideline that effectively determines the threshold dose for emergency department referral and need for pre-hospital decontamination could potentially avoid unnecessary emergency department visits, reduce health care costs, optimize patient outcome, and reduce life disruption for patients and caregivers. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft of the guideline was created by the primary author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes based on the secondary review comments. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with a suspected exposure to ethylene glycol by (1) describing the process by which the exposure might be evaluated, (2) identifying the key decision elements in managing the case, (3) providing clear and practical recommendations that reflect the current state of knowledge, and (4) identifying needs for research. This guideline is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. Recommendations are in chronological order of likely clinical use. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses. (1) A patient with exposure due to suspected self-harm, misuse, or potentially malicious administration should be referred to an emergency department immediately regardless of the dose reported (Grade D). (2) Patients with inhalation exposures will not develop systemic toxicity and can be managed out-of-hospital if asymptomatic (Grade B). Patients with clinically significant mucous membrane irritation should be referred for evaluation (Grade D). (3) Decontamination of dermal exposures should include routine cleansing with mild soap and water. Removal of contact lenses and immediate irrigation with room temperature tap water is recommended for ocular exposures. All patients with symptoms of eye injury should be referred for an ophthalmologic exam (Grade D). (4) Patients with symptoms of ethylene glycol poisoning should be referred immediately for evaluation regardless of the reported dose (Grade C). (5) The absence of symptoms shortly after ingestion does not exclude a potentially toxic dose and should not be used as a triage criterion (Grade C). (6) Adults who ingest a "swallow" (10-30 mL), children who ingest more than a witnessed taste or lick, or if the amount is unknown of most ethylene glycol products should be referred immediately for evaluation. The potential toxic volume of dilute solutions (e.g., concentration <20%) is larger and can be estimated by a formula in the text (Grade C). (7) A witnessed taste or lick only by a child, or an adult who unintentionally drinks and then expectorates the product without swallowing, does not need referral (Grade C). (8) Referral is not needed if it has been >24 hours since a potentially toxic unintentional exposure, the patient has been asymptomatic, and no alcohol was co-ingested (Grade D). (9) Gastrointestinal decontamination with ipecac syrup, gastric lavage or activated charcoal is not recommended. Transportation to an emergency department should not be delayed for any decontamination procedures (Grade D). (10) Patients meeting referral criteria should be evaluated at a hospital emergency department rather than a clinic. A facility that can quickly obtain an ethylene glycol serum concentration and has alcohol or fomepizole therapy available is preferred. This referral should be guided by local poison center procedures and community resources (Grade D). (11) The administration of alcohol, fomepizole, thiamine, or pyridoxine is not recommended in the out-of-hospital setting (Grade D).

beta-blocker ingestion: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

In 2003, US poison centers were contacted regarding ingestion of beta-blockers by 15,350 patients including 3766 (25%) under 6 years of age; 7415 (48%) were evaluated in healthcare facilities and 33 died. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft of the guideline was created by the primary author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before its distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes in response to comments received. The objective of this guideline is to assist US poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and management of patients with suspected ingestions of beta-blockers by describing the process by which a beta-blocker ingestion might be managed, identifying the key decision elements in managing cases of beta-blocker ingestion, providing clear and practical recommendations that reflect the current state of knowledge, and identifying needs for research. This guideline applies to ingestion of beta-blockers alone and is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. Recommendations are in chronological order of likely clinical use; the grade of recommendation is in parentheses. 1) Patients with stated or suspected self-harm or who are the victims of a potentially malicious administration of beta-blocker should be referred to an emergency department immediately. In general, this should occur regardless of the dose reported (Grade D). 2) Patients without evidence of self-harm should have further evaluation, including determination of the precise dose ingested, history of other medical conditions, and the presence of co-ingestants. Ingestion of either an amount that exceeds the usual maximum single therapeutic dose or an amount equal to or greater than the lowest reported toxic dose (whichever is lower) warrants consideration of referral to an emergency department. Ingestion of any excess dose of any beta-blocker in combination with a calcium channel blocker or the ingestion of any excess dose by an individual with serious underlying cardiovascular disease also warrants referral to an emergency department (Grade C). 3) Do not induce emesis. Consider the oral administration of activated charcoal if it is available and no contraindications are present but do not delay transportation to administer charcoal (Grade A). 4) Asymptomatic patients who ingest more than the referral dose should be sent to an emergency department if the ingestion occurred within 6 hours of contacting the poison center for an immediate-release product other than sotalol, within 8 hours of contacting the poison center for a sustained-release product, and 12 hours if they took sotalol (Grade C). 5) Ambulance transportation is recommended for patients who are referred to emergency departments because of the potential for life-threatening complications of beta-blocker overdose. Provide usual supportive care en route to the hospital, including intravenous fluids for hypotension (Grade D). 6) Follow-up calls should be made to determine outcome at appropriate intervals for up to 12-24 hours based on the judgment of the poison center staff (Grade D). 7) Asymptomatic patients who are referred to healthcare facilities should be monitored for at least 6 hours after ingestion if they took an immediate-release preparation other than sotalol, 8 hours if they took a sustained-release preparation, and 12 hours if they took sotalol. Routine 24-hour admission of an asymptomatic patient who has unintentionally ingested a sustained-release preparation is not warranted (Grade D).

Calcium channel blocker ingestion: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

In 2003, U.S. poison control centers were consulted after 9650 ingestions of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), including 57 deaths. This represents more than one-third of the deaths reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System database that were associated with cardiovascular drugs and emphasizes the importance of developing a guideline for the out-of-hospital management of calcium channel blocker poisoning. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with suspected ingestions of calcium channel blockers. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. This guideline applies to ingestion of calcium channel blockers alone and is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. The panel's recommendations follow. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses. 1) All patients with stated or suspected self-harm or the recipient of a potentially malicious administration of a CCB should be referred to an emergency department immediately regardless of the amount ingested (Grade D). 2) Asymptomatic patients are unlikely to develop symptoms if the interval between the ingestion and the call is greater than 6 hours for immediate-release products, 18 hours for modified-release products other than verapamil, and 24 hours for modified-release verapamil. These patients do not need referral or prolonged observation (Grade D). 3) Patients without evidence of self-harm should have further evaluation, including determination of the precise dose ingested, history of other medical conditions, and the presence of co-ingestants. Ingestion of either an amount that exceeds the usual maximum single therapeutic dose or an amount equal to or greater than the lowest reported toxic dose, whichever is lower (see Table 5), would warrant consideration of referral to an emergency department (Grade D). 4) Do not induce emesis (Grade D). 5) Consider the administration of activated charcoal orally if available and no contraindications are present. However, do not delay transportation in order to administer charcoal (Grade D). 6) For patients who merit evaluation in an emergency department, ambulance transportation is recommended because of the potential for life-threatening complications. Provide usual supportive care en route to the hospital, including intravenous fluids for hypotension. Consider use of intravenous calcium, glucagon, and epinephrine for severe hypotension during transport, if available (Grade D). 7) Depending on the specific circumstances, follow-up calls should be made to determine outcome at appropriate intervals based on the clinical judgment of the poison center staff (Grade D).

Intentional bupropion overdoses.

Bupropion is an antidepressant that has recently seen increased usage in smoking cessation. This increased usage, along with its potential for causing seizures, has renewed interest among clinicians about the effects of this drug. The purpose of this study is to describe the clinical course of intentional bupropion overdoses in adults and adolescents. This study is a retrospective review of intentional bupropion overdoses reported to regional poison centers over a 2-year period. Our review included 385 cases. Women accounted for 63% of cases and ages ranged from 12 to 57 years. Significant clinical effects were noted in 26% of cases. Seizures were reported in 11% of patients. Seizures occurred within 6 h in most patients. Other prominent effects included tachycardia, agitation, and hallucinations. In conclusion, after a bupropion overdose, patients frequently display agitation, tachycardia, hallucinations and seizures. Seizures commonly occur within 6 h of the ingestion. However, seizures may occur beyond this time frame, particularly if persistent tachycardia, agitation, or hallucinations are noted.