ABSTRACT
Inhalant misuse is a growing concern among Americans. According to recent reports by the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the prevalence of teenage inhalant misuse is increasing. Of the many household items that are "huffed", refrigerant-based propellant cleaners or air dusters, are one of the most misused. Although commonly referred to as "compressed air", refrigerant-based propellant cleaners contain harmful fluorinated hydrocarbons, such as 1,1-difluoroethane, that have significant toxic effects when inhaled. While the central nervous system is primarily affected, there are case reports of cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, and musculoskeletal injury secondary to 1,1-difluoroethane toxicity. However, there are few cases that have presented 1,1-difluoroethane toxicity leading to multi-organ system failure in adults with a long history of inhalant misuse. We present a unique case of multi-system organ failure secondary to 1,1-difluoroethane toxicity in a middle-aged female that was "huffing" a refrigerant-based propellant aerosol duster for more than three months. This case stresses the importance of obtaining a detailed social history to identify inhalant misuse in patients that present with acute illness of unknown etiology. This case also highlights the importance of early communication with toxicology professionals for treatment and supportive care recommendations in patients presenting the life-threatening 1,1-difluoroethane toxicity. Furthermore, this case demonstrates that 1,1-difluoroethane toxicity in the setting of "huffing" air duster has the potential to cause multi-organ system failure.
Subject(s)
Hydrocarbons, Fluorinated , Administration, Inhalation , Adolescent , Adult , Aerosols , Female , Humans , Hydrocarbons, Fluorinated/adverse effects , Middle Aged , United StatesABSTRACT
Rationale: Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control).Measurements and Main Results: The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV1 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV1 responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (n = 113) or control (n = 59). Mean FEV1 showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups-between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060-0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048-0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax.Conclusions: In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).
