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.

Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.