Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (4): CD005490, 2006 Oct 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17054261

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cardenolides are naturally occurring plant toxins which act primarily on the heart. While poisoning with the digitalis cardenolides (digoxin and digitoxin) are reported worldwide, cardiotoxicity from other cardenolides such as the yellow oleander are also a major problem, with tens of thousands of cases of poisoning each year in South Asia. Because cardenolides from these plants are structurally similar, acute poisonings are managed using similar treatments. The benefit of these treatments is of interest, particularly in the context of cost since most poisonings occur in developing countries where resources are very limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of antidotes for the treatment of acute cardenolide poisoning, in particular atropine, isoprenaline (isoproterenol), multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC), fructose-1,6-diphosphate, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium, phenytoin and anti-digoxin Fab antitoxin. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Controlled Trials Register of the Cochrane Collaboration, Current Awareness in Clinical Toxicology, Info Trac, www.google.com.au, and Science Citation Index of studies identified by the previous searches. We manually searched the bibliographies of identified articles and personally contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where antidotes were administered to patients with acute symptomatic cardenolide poisoning were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently extracted data on study design, including the method of randomisation, participant characteristics, type of intervention and outcomes from each study. We independently assessed methodological quality of the included studies. A pooled analysis was not appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials were identified, both were conducted in patients with yellow oleander poisoning. One trial investigated the effect of MDAC on mortality, the relative risk (RR) was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.83) indicating a beneficial effect. The second study found a beneficial effect of anti-digoxin Fab antitoxin on the presence of cardiac dysrhythmias at two hours post-administration; the RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.81). Other benefits were also noted in both studies and serious adverse effects were minimal. Studies assessing the effect of antidotes on other cardenolides were not identified. One ongoing study investigating the activated charcoal for acute yellow oleander self-poisoning was also identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that MDAC and anti-digoxin Fab antitoxin may be effective treatments for yellow oleander poisoning. However, the efficacy and indications of these interventions for the treatment of acute digitalis poisoning is uncertain due to the lack of good quality controlled clinical trials. Given pharmacokinetic differences between individual cardenolides, the effect of antidotes administered to patients with yellow oleander poisoning cannot be readily translated to those of other cardenolides. Unfortunately cost limits the use of antidotes such as anti-digoxin Fab antitoxin in developing countries where cardenolide poisonings are frequent. More research is required using relatively cheap antidotes which may also be effective.


Assuntos
Antídotos/uso terapêutico , Cardenolídeos/intoxicação , Carvão Vegetal/uso terapêutico , Thevetia/intoxicação , Doença Aguda , Cardenolídeos/uso terapêutico , Glicosídeos Cardíacos/intoxicação , Humanos , Fitoterapia , Intoxicação/tratamento farmacológico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (1): CD002041, 2005 Jan 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15674890

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Poisoning with carbon monoxide (CO) remains an important cause of accidental and intentional injury worldwide. Several unblinded non-randomized trials have suggested that the use of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) prevents the development of neurological sequelae. This has led to the widespread use of HBO in the management of patients with carbon monoxide poisoning. OBJECTIVES: To examine randomized trials of the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) compared to normobaric oxygen (NBO) for the prevention of neurologic sequelae in patients with acute carbon monoxide poisoning. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966-present), EMBASE (1980-present), and the Controlled Trials Register of the Cochrane Collaboration, supplemented by a manual review of bibliographies of identified articles and discussion with recognized content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials involving non-pregnant adults acutely poisoned with carbon monoxide (regardless of severity), with adequate or unclear allocation concealment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted from each trial information on: the number of randomized patients, types of participants, the dose and duration of the intervention, and the prevalence of neurologic symptoms at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials of varying quality were identified; one was excluded because it did not evaluate clinical outcomes. Of the six remaining trials, two represent incomplete publications (one interim analysis, one abstract). Of these six trials, four found no benefit of HBO for the reduction of neurologic sequelae, while two others did. Although pooled analysis does not suggest a benefit from HBOT (OR for neurological deficits 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.12, p=0.18), significant methodologic and statistical heterogeneity was apparent among the trials, and this result should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, design or analysis flaws were evident in all trials. Importantly, the conclusions of one positive trial may have been influenced by failure to adjust for multiple hypothesis testing, while interpretation of the other positive trial is hampered by apparent changes in the primary outcome during the course of the trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing randomized trials do not establish whether the administration of HBO to patients with carbon monoxide poisoning reduces the incidence of adverse neurologic outcomes. Additional research is needed to better define the role, if any, of HBO in the treatment of patients with carbon monoxide poisoning. This research question is ideally suited to a multi-center randomized controlled trial.


Assuntos
Intoxicação por Monóxido de Carbono/terapia , Oxigenoterapia Hiperbárica , Humanos , Oxigenoterapia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA