Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open ; 5(4): e13235, 2024 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39161754

RESUMEN

Background: United States drug overdose deaths are being driven by the increasing prevalence of fentanyl, but whether patients are knowingly using fentanyl is unclear. We examined the analytical confirmation of fentanyl in emergency department (ED) patients with documented heroin overdose. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that the proportion of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs would be higher than that of confirmed heroin. Methods: This is a subgroup analysis from a prospective multicenter consecutive cohort of ED patients age 18+ with opioid overdose presenting to 10 US sites within the Toxicology Investigators Consortium from 2020 to 2021. Toxicology analysis was performed using liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. De-identified toxicology results were paired with the clinical database. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with fentanyl analytes detected in their serum. Results: Of 1006 patients screened, 406 were eligible, and of 168 patients who reported that they had taken heroin or had a documented heroin overdose, 88% (n = 147) were in fact found to have fentanyl and/or a fentanyl analog present on serum analysis (p < 0.0001). In contrast, only 46 of the 168 patients with reported or documented heroin overdose (27%) were found to have heroin biomarkers present. Conclusion: The prevalence of confirmed fentanyl in ED patients with suspected heroin overdose was extremely high, while the prevalence of heroin was very low. There was a high degree of mismatch between the opioids believed to be the overdose agent versus the actual opioids identified on serum toxicology. Clinicians in the United States should presume that fentanyl is involved in all illicit opioid overdoses and should counsel patients on harm reduction measures.

2.
Drug Alcohol Depend Rep ; 10: 100223, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38463635

RESUMEN

Introduction: In 2019, there were over 16,000 deaths from psychostimulant overdose with 53.5% also involving an opioid. Given the substantial mortality stemming from opioid and psychostimulant co-exposure, evaluation of clinical management in this population is critical but remains understudied. This study aims to characterize and compare clinical management and outcomes in emergency department (ED) overdose patients with analytically confirmed exposure to both opioids and psychostimulants with those exposed to opioids alone. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective consecutive cohort of ED patients age 18+ with opioid overdose at 9 hospital sites from September 21, 2020 to August 17, 2021. Toxicologic analysis was performed using liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Patients were divided into opioid-only (OO) and opioid plus psychostimulants (OS) groups. The primary outcome was total naloxone bolus dose administered. Secondary outcomes included endotracheal intubation, cardiac arrest, troponin elevation, and abnormal presenting vital signs. We employed t-tests, chi-squared analyses and multivariable regression models to compare outcomes between OO and OS groups. Results: Of 378 enrollees with confirmed opioid overdose, 207 (54.8%) had psychostimulants present. OO patients were significantly older (mean 45.2 versus 40.6 years, p < 0.01). OS patients had significantly higher total naloxone requirements (mean total dose 2.79 mg versus 2.12 mg, p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Approximately half of ED patients with confirmed opioid exposures were also positive for psychostimulants. Patients in the OS group required significantly higher naloxone doses, suggesting potential greater overdose severity.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA