Extracorporeal treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

Ethylene glycol (EG) is metabolized into glycolate and oxalate and may cause metabolic acidemia, neurotoxicity, acute kidney injury (AKI), and death. Historically, treatment of EG toxicity included supportive care, correction of acid-base disturbances and antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole), and extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis. With the wider availability of fomepizole, the indications for ECTRs in EG poisoning are debated. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXTRIP methods to determine the utility of ECTRs in the management of EG toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, either strong ("we recommend") or weak/conditional ("we suggest"), were graded according to the GRADE approach. A total of 226 articles met inclusion criteria. EG was assessed as dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis (level of evidence = B) as was glycolate (Level of evidence = C). Clinical data were available for analysis on 446 patients, in whom overall mortality was 18.7%. In the subgroup of patients with a glycolate concentration ≤ 12 mmol/L (or anion gap ≤ 28 mmol/L), mortality was 3.6%; in this subgroup, outcomes in patients receiving ECTR were not better than in those who did not receive ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup made the following recommendations for the use of ECTR in addition to supportive care over supportive care alone in the management of EG poisoning (very low quality of evidence for all recommendations): i) Suggest ECTR if fomepizole is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or ii) Recommend ECTR if ethanol is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or iii) Recommend ECTR if glycolate concentration is > 12 mmol/L or anion gap > 27 mmol/L; or iv) Suggest ECTR if glycolate concentration 8-12 mmol/L or anion gap 23-27 mmol/L; or v) Recommend ECTR if there are severe clinical features (coma, seizures, or AKI). In most settings, the workgroup recommends using intermittent hemodialysis over other ECTRs. If intermittent hemodialysis is not available, CKRT is recommended over other types of ECTR. Cessation of ECTR is recommended once the anion gap is < 18 mmol/L or suggested if EG concentration is < 4 mmol/L. The dosage of antidotes (fomepizole or ethanol) needs to be adjusted during ECTR.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Gabapentin and Pregabalin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the EXTRIP Workgroup.

Toxicity from gabapentin and pregabalin overdose is commonly encountered. Treatment is supportive, and the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. The EXTRIP workgroup conducted systematic reviews of the literature and summarized findings following published methods. Thirty-three articles (30 patient reports and 3 pharmacokinetic studies) met the inclusion criteria. High gabapentinoid extracorporeal clearance (>150mL/min) and short elimination half-life (<5 hours) were reported with hemodialysis. The workgroup assessed gabapentin and pregabalin as "dialyzable" for patients with decreased kidney function (quality of the evidence grade as A and B, respectively). Limited clinical data were available (24 patients with gabapentin toxicity and 7 with pregabalin toxicity received ECTR). Severe toxicity, mortality, and sequelae were rare in cases receiving ECTR and in historical controls receiving standard care alone. No clear clinical benefit from ECTR could be identified although major knowledge gaps were acknowledged, as well as costs and harms of ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care rather than standard care alone (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for gabapentinoid poisoning in patients with normal kidney function. If decreased kidney function and coma requiring mechanical ventilation are present, the workgroup suggests performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Association between fentanyl treatment for acute pain in the emergency department and opioid use two weeks after discharge.

BACKGROUND: Analgesia with fentanyl can be associated with hyperalgesia (higher sensitivity to pain) and can contribute to escalating opioid use. Our objective was to assess the relationship between emergency department (ED) acute pain management with fentanyl compared to other opioids, and the quantity of opioids consumed two-week after discharge. We hypothesized that the quantity of opioids consumed would be higher for patients treated with fentanyl compared to those treated with other opioids. METHODS: Patients were selected from two prospective cohorts assessing opioids consumed after ED discharge. Patients ≥18 years treated with an opioid in the ED for an acute pain condition (≤2 weeks) and discharged with an opioid prescription were included. Patients completed a 14-day paper or electronic diary of pain medication use. Quantity of 5 mg morphine equivalent tablets consumed during a 14-day follow-up by patients treated with fentanyl compared to those treated with other opioids during their ED stay were analyzed using a multiple linear regression and propensity scores. RESULTS: We included 707 patients (mean age ± SD: 50 ± 15 years, 47% women) in this study. During follow-up, patients treated with fentanyl (N = 91) during their ED stay consumed a median (IQR) of 5.8 (14) 5 mg morphine equivalent pills compared to 7.0 (14) for those treated with other opioids (p = 0.05). Results were similar using propensity score sensitivity analysis. However, after adjusting for confounding variables, ED fentanyl treatment showed a trend, but not a statistically significant association with a decreased opioid consumption during the 14-day follow-up (B = -2.4; 95%CI = -5.3 to 0.4; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with fentanyl during ED stay did not consume more opioids after ED discharge, compared to those treated with other opioids. If fentanyl does cause more hyperalgesia compared to other opioids, it does not seem to have a significant impact on opioid consumption after ED discharge.

A retrospective study comparing postoperative opioid prescribing practices in an academic medical centre.

Background: In the midst of the North American opioid crisis, identifying and intervening on drivers of high-risk opioid prescriptions is an important step towards reducing iatrogenic harm. Objectives: We aimed to identify factors associated with variations in high-risk opioid discharge prescriptions, following select surgical procedures, to guide future quality improvement initiatives. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 1322 patients who underwent select open pelvic and open abdominal surgeries between January 1 and December 31, 2017, in a tertiary health care centre in Montreal. Results: Patients who underwent open abdominal surgeries were prescribed significantly higher daily doses of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) (45 mg; interquartile range, 30-60), than patients who underwent either a caesarean delivery (20 mg, 20-20) or a hysterectomy (30 mg, 22-30). After adjustment for multiple potential confounders, abdominal surgery was associated with 4 times the odds of receiving more than 50 MME at hospital discharge compared with pelvic surgeries (odds ratio, 3.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-11.97). The availability of postoperative preprinted order sets with fixed high doses of opioids was also highly associated with the outcome. Conclusion: In our institution, some surgeries were more likely to receive high-risk opioid prescriptions at discharge. Efforts to optimize safer prescribing practices should address the creation and/or updating of preprinted order sets to reflect current best practice guidelines. This initiative could be overseen by hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committees.

Recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup on extracorporeal treatment for baclofen poisoning.

Baclofen toxicity results from intentional self-poisoning (acute baclofen poisoning) or accumulation of therapeutic dose in the setting of impaired kidney function. Standard care includes baclofen discontinuation, respiratory support and seizure treatment. Use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. To clarify this, a comprehensive review of the literature on the effect of ECTRs in baclofen toxicity was performed and recommendations following EXTRIP methods were formulated based on 43 studies (1 comparative cohort, 1 aggregate results cohort, 1 pharmacokinetic modeling, and 40 patient reports or series). Toxicokinetic data were available for 20 patients. Baclofen's dialyzability is limited by a high endogenous clearance and a short half-life in patients with normal kidney function. The workgroup assessed baclofen as "Moderately dialyzable" by intermittent hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence C) and "Dialyzable" for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence C). Clinical data were available for 25 patients with acute baclofen poisoning and 46 patients with toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. No deaths or sequelae were reported. Mortality in historical controls was rare. No benefit of ECTR was identified in patients with acute baclofen poisoning. Indirect evidence suggests a benefit of ECTR in reducing the duration of toxic encephalopathy from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. These potential benefits were balanced against added costs and harms related to the insertion of a catheter, the procedure itself, and the potential of baclofen withdrawal. Thus, the EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care for acute baclofen poisoning and suggests performing ECTR in toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment, especially in the presence of coma requiring mechanical ventilation.

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.

Predicting mortality from acetaminophen poisoning shortly after hospital presentation.

AIMS: Early identification of patients likely to die after acetaminophen (APAP) poisoning remains challenging. We sought to compare the sensitivity and time to fulfilment (latency) of established prognostic criteria. METHODS: Three physician toxicologists independently classified every in-hospital death associated with APAP overdose from eight large Canadian cities over three decades using the Relative Contribution to Fatality scale from the American Association of Poison Control Centres. The sensitivity and latency were calculated for each of the following criteria: King's College Hospital (KCH), Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥33, lactate ≥3.5 mmol/L, phosphate ≥1.2 mmol/L 48+ hours post-ingestion, as well as combinations thereof. RESULTS: A total of 162 in-hospital deaths were classified with respect to APAP as follows: 26 Undoubtedly, 40 Probably, 27 Contributory, 14 Probably not, 25 Clearly not, and 30 Unknown. Cases from the first three classes (combined into n = 93 "APAP deaths") typically presented with supratherapeutic APAP concentrations, hepatotoxicity, acidaemia, coagulopathy and/or encephalopathy, and began antidotal treatment a median of 12 hours (IQR 3.4-30 h) from the end of ingestion. Among all patients deemed "APAP deaths", meeting either KCH or lactate criteria demonstrated the highest sensitivity (94%; 95% CI 86-98%), and the shortest latency from hospital arrival to criterion fulfilment (median 4.2 h; IQR 1.0-16 h). In comparison, the MELD criterion demonstrated a substantially lower sensitivity (55%; 43-66%) and longer latency (52 h; 4.4-∞ h, where "∞" denotes death prior to criterion becoming positive). CONCLUSIONS: Meeting either KCH or serum lactate criteria identifies most patients who die from acetaminophen poisoning at or shortly after hospital presentation.

Extracorporeal treatment for poisoning to beta-adrenergic antagonists: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

BACKGROUND: ß-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS: A total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: BAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.

Postpartum Analgesia in New Mothers (PAIN) Study: A Survey of Canadian Obstetricians' Post-Delivery Opioid-Prescribing Practices.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe opioid prescribing practices after obstetric delivery and to evaluate how these practices compare with national opioid prescribing guidelines. METHODS: A closed survey was developed, evaluated for validity and reliability, and distributed by email to obstetrician members of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) in December 2018. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize respondent demographics, pharmaceutical pain management strategies, and opioid prescribing practices. Logistic regression was used to measure associations between respondent characteristics and high-risk opioid prescribing practices (e.g., prescribing >50 mg morphine equivalent dose per day, prescribing >5 days, not screening for substance/opioid use disorder before prescribing). RESULTS: Our survey had high content validity (content validity index 0.89; 95% CI 0.78-1.00) and adequate reliability (Kappa 0.70; 95% CI 0.63-0.84 and intraclass correlation coefficient 0.70; 95% CI 0.67-0.81). Of the 1019 SOGC members reached, 243 initiated the survey (response rate, 24%). Among respondents, 235 (92%) completed the survey. Among opioid prescribers, 47% reported at least 1 high-risk opioid prescribing practice, the most frequent being a lack of substance/opioid use disorder screening. In the adjusted logistic regression model, being in practice more than 20 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.29-0.93) and practising in a non-central area of Canada (aOR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.84) reduced the odds of high-risk prescribing. CONCLUSION: Further research on barriers to screening are needed to support and enhance safer opioid prescribing practices among Canadian obstetricians.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, and Quinine Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup.

BACKGROUND: Although chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and quinine are used for a range of medical conditions, recent research suggested a potential role in treating COVID-19. The resultant increase in prescribing was accompanied by an increase in adverse events, including severe toxicity and death. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup sought to determine the effect of and indications for extracorporeal treatments in cases of poisoning with these drugs. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS: A total of 44 studies (three in vitro studies, two animal studies, 28 patient reports or patient series, and 11 pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of extracorporeal treatments. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 61 patients (13 chloroquine, three hydroxychloroquine, and 45 quinine). Clinical data were available for analysis from 38 patients, including 12 with chloroquine toxicity, one with hydroxychloroquine toxicity, and 25 with quinine toxicity. All three drugs were classified as non-dialyzable (not amenable to clinically significant removal by extracorporeal treatments). The available data do not support using extracorporeal treatments in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either chloroquine or quinine (strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Although hydroxychloroquine was assessed as being non-dialyzable, the clinical evidence was not sufficient to support a formal recommendation regarding the use of extracorporeal treatments for this drug. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our systematic review and analysis, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance elimination of these drugs in patients with severe chloroquine or quinine poisoning.

Antipsychotics for the treatment of sympathomimetic toxicity: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Benzodiazepines are often recommended first-line for management of cocaine and amphetamine toxicity while antipsychotic treatment is discouraged due to the potential for lowering seizure threshold, prolonging the QT interval, and decreasing heat dissipation. We performed a systematic review including animal and human studies to elucidate the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in managing sympathomimetic toxicity specifically evaluating the effect of treatment on mortality, seizures, hyperthermia, and cardiovascular effects. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL and gray literature from inception to 31 May 2017 to answer: Can antipsychotics be used safely and effectively to treat cocaine or amphetamine toxicity? Citations were screened by title and abstract. Additional citations were identified with citation tracking. Data were extracted from full-texts. RESULTS: 6539 citations were identified; 250 full-text articles were assessed. Citation tracking identified 2336 citations; 155 full texts were reviewed. Seventy-three papers were included in this review. In 96 subjects with cocaine toxicity treated with an antipsychotic, there were three deaths, two cardiac arrests, two seizures, and one episode of hyperthermia. In 330 subjects with amphetamine toxicity treated with an antipsychotic, there were two episodes of coma and QT prolongation and one episode of each: hypotension, NMS, cardiac arrest, and death. CONCLUSION: This systematic review represents an exhaustive compilation of the available evidence. There is neither a clear benefit of antipsychotics over benzodiazepines nor a definitive signal of harm noted. We encourage clinicians to adapt treatment based on specific circumstances and characteristics of their individual patients.

Use of extracorporeal treatments in the management of poisonings.

Historically, the clinical application of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis or hemoperfusion, was first intended for poisoned patients. With time, ECTRs were used almost indiscriminately to facilitate the elimination of many poisons, albeit with uncertain clinical benefit. To determine the precise role of ECTRs in poisoning situations, multiple variables need to be considered including a careful risk assessment, the poison's characteristics including toxicokinetics, alternative treatments, the patient's clinical status, and intricacies of available ECTRs, all of which are reviewed in this article. Recently, evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup were also published to help minimize the knowledge gap in this area.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Long-term Opioid Use in Elderly Trauma Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the incidence and risk factors of opioid use 1 year after injury in elderly trauma patients. BACKGROUND: The current epidemic of prescription opioid misuse and overdose observed in North America generally concerns young patients. Little is known on long-term opioid use among the elderly trauma population. METHODS: In a retrospective observational multicenter cohort study conducted on registry data, all patients 65 years and older admitted (hospital stay >2 days) for injury in 57 adult trauma centers in the province of Quebec (Canada) between 2004 and 2014 were included. We searched for filled opioid prescriptions in the year preceding the injury, up to 3 months and 1 year after the injury. RESULTS: In all, 39,833 patients were selected for analysis. Mean age was 79.3 years (±7.7), 69% were women, and 87% of the sample was opioid-naive. After the injury, 38% of the patients filled an opioid prescription within 3 months and 10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.6%-11.2%] filled an opioid prescription 1 year after trauma: 6.8% (95% CI 6.5%-7.1%) were opioid-naïve and 37.6% (95% CI 36.3%-38.9%) were opioid non-naive patients. Controlling for confounders, patients who filled 2 or more opioid prescriptions before the injury and those who filled an opioid prescription within 3 months after the injury were, respectively, 11.4 and 3 times more likely to use opioids 1 year after the injury compared with those who did not fill opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight that elderly trauma patients are at risk of long-term opioid use, especially if they had preinjury or early postinjury opioid consumption.

Recent opioid use and fall-related injury among older patients with trauma.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for an association between opioid use and risk of falls or fractures in older adults is inconsistent. We examine the association between recent opioid use and the risk, as well as the clinical outcomes, of fall-related injuries in a large trauma population of older adults. METHODS: In a retrospective, observational, multicentre cohort study conducted on registry data, we included all patients aged 65 years and older who were admitted (hospital stay > 2 d) for injury in 57 trauma centres in the province of Quebec, Canada, between 2004 and 2014. We looked at opioid prescriptions filled in the 2 weeks preceding the trauma in patients who sustained a fall, compared with those who sustained an injury through another mechanism. RESULTS: A total of 67 929 patients were retained for analysis. Mean age was 80.9 (± 8.0) years and 69% were women. The percentage of patients who had filled an opioid prescription in the 2 weeks preceding an injury was 4.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7%-5.1%) for patients who had had a fall, compared with 1.5% (95% CI 1.2%-1.8%) for those who had had an injury through another mechanism. After we controlled for confounding variables, patients who had filled an opioid prescription within 2 weeks before injury were 2.4 times more likely to have a fall rather than any other type of injury. For patients who had a fall-related injury, those who used opioids were at increased risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio 1.58; 95% CI 1.34-1.86). INTERPRETATION: Recent opioid use is associated with an increased risk of fall and an increased likelihood of death in older adults.

Experts Consensus Recommendations for the Management of Calcium Channel Blocker Poisoning in Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a management approach for adults with calcium channel blocker poisoning. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA EXTRACTION: Following the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II instrument, initial voting statements were constructed based on summaries outlining the evidence, risks, and benefits. DATA SYNTHESIS: We recommend 1) for asymptomatic patients, observation and consideration of decontamination following a potentially toxic calcium channel blocker ingestion (1D); 2) as first-line therapies (prioritized based on desired effect), IV calcium (1D), high-dose insulin therapy (1D-2D), and norepinephrine and/or epinephrine (1D). We also suggest dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock (2D) and atropine in the presence of symptomatic bradycardia or conduction disturbance (2D); 3) in patients refractory to the first-line treatments, we suggest incremental doses of high-dose insulin therapy if myocardial dysfunction is present (2D), IV lipid-emulsion therapy (2D), and using a pacemaker in the presence of unstable bradycardia or high-grade arteriovenous block without significant alteration in cardiac inotropism (2D); 4) in patients with refractory shock or who are periarrest, we recommend incremental doses of high-dose insulin (1D) and IV lipid-emulsion therapy (1D) if not already tried. We suggest venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, if available, when refractory shock has a significant cardiogenic component (2D), and using pacemaker in the presence of unstable bradycardia or high-grade arteriovenous block in the absence of myocardial dysfunction (2D) if not already tried; 5) in patients with cardiac arrest, we recommend IV calcium in addition to the standard advanced cardiac life-support (1D), lipid-emulsion therapy (1D), and we suggest venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation if available (2D). CONCLUSION: We offer recommendations for the stepwise management of calcium channel blocker toxicity. For all interventions, the level of evidence was very low.

Lithium Poisoning.

Lithium is a commonly prescribed treatment for bipolar affective disorder. However, treatment is complicated by lithium's narrow therapeutic index and the influence of kidney function, both of which increase the risk of toxicity. Therefore, careful attention to dosing, monitoring, and titration is required. The cause of lithium poisoning influences treatment and 3 patterns are described: acute, acute-on-chronic, and chronic. Chronic poisoning is the most common etiology, is usually unintentional, and results from lithium intake exceeding elimination. This is most commonly due to impaired kidney function caused by volume depletion from lithium-induced nephrogenic diabetes insipidus or intercurrent illnesses and is also drug-induced. Lithium poisoning can affect multiple organs; however, the primary site of toxicity is the central nervous system and clinical manifestations vary from asymptomatic supratherapeutic drug concentrations to clinical toxicity such as confusion, ataxia, or seizures. Lithium poisoning has a low mortality rate; however, chronic lithium poisoning can require a prolonged hospital length of stay from impaired mobility and cognition and associated nosocomial complications. Persistent neurological deficits, in particular cerebellar, are described and the incidence and risk factors for its development are poorly understood, but it appears to be uncommon in uncomplicated acute poisoning. Lithium is readily dialyzable, and rationale support extracorporeal treatments to reduce the risk or the duration of toxicity in high-risk exposures. There is disagreement in the literature regarding factors that define patients most likely to benefit from treatments that enhance lithium elimination, including specific plasma lithium concentration thresholds. In the case of extracorporeal treatments, there are observational data in its favor, without evidence from randomized controlled trials (none have been performed), which may lead to conservative practices and potentially unnecessary interventions in some circumstances. More data are required to define the risk-benefit of extracorporeal treatments and their use (modality, duration) in the management of lithium poisoning.

Lipid resuscitation in acute poisoning: after a decade of publications, what have we really learned?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The decision to provide intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) therapy as a treatment modality for the reversal of various drug toxicity was discovered in the last decade. Numerous publications, in both humans and animals attest to its clinical use, but current supporting evidence is inconsistent. RECENT FINDINGS: A recent systematic review reported evidence for benefit of ILE in bupivacaine toxicity. Human randomized trials, large observational studies as well as animal models of orogastric poisoning failed to report a clear benefit of ILE for nonlocal anesthetics poisoning. SUMMARY: ILE can be used to resuscitate local anesthetics especially bupivacaine. The impact of ILE on oral overdoses is controversial and clear evidence on benefit is lacking. A thorough risk benefit assessment with consideration of alternative options is warranted to minimize the risk of adverse effects. Evidence supports using bolus doses of ILE, while infusion rates are still debatable.

Extracorporeal Treatment in Phenytoin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning) Workgroup.

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup conducted a systematic literature review using a standardized process to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in patients with phenytoin poisoning. The authors reviewed all articles, extracted data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A 2-round modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. 51 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only case reports, case series, and pharmacokinetic studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence. Clinical data from 31 patients and toxicokinetic grading from 46 patients were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that phenytoin is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = C) despite its high protein binding and made the following recommendations. ECTR would be reasonable in select cases of severe phenytoin poisoning (neutral recommendation, 3D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma is present or expected (graded 2D) and it would be reasonable if prolonged incapacitating ataxia is present or expected (graded 3D). If ECTR is used, it should be discontinued when clinical improvement is apparent (graded 1D). The preferred ECTR modality in phenytoin poisoning is intermittent hemodialysis (graded 1D), but hemoperfusion is an acceptable alternative if hemodialysis is not available (graded 1D). In summary, phenytoin appears to be amenable to extracorporeal removal. However, because of the low incidence of irreversible tissue injury or death related to phenytoin poisoning and the relatively limited effect of ECTR on phenytoin removal, the workgroup proposed the use of ECTR only in very select patients with severe phenytoin poisoning.