Challenges in the diagnosis of ethylene glycol poisoning.

Ethylene glycol poisoning, while uncommon, is clinically significant due to the associated risk of severe morbidity or lethality and it continues to occur in many countries around the world. The clinical presentation of ethylene glycol toxicity, while classically described in three phases, varies widely and when combined with the range of differential diagnoses that must be considered makes diagnosis challenging. Early and accurate detection is important in these patients, however, as there is a need to start antidotal treatment early to prevent serious harm. In this article, we will review the literature and provide guidance regarding the diagnosis of ethylene glycol poisoning. While gas chromatography is the gold standard, the usefulness of this test is hampered by delays in access due to availability. Consequently, there are several surrogate markers that can give an indication of ethylene glycol exposure but these must be interpreted with caution and within the clinical context. An in-depth review of these tests, particularly the detection of a raised osmolar gap or an raised anion gap acidosis, will form the main focus of this article.

Paracetamol toxicity: What would be the implications of a change in UK treatment guidelines?

BACKGROUND: Treatment of single-time-point ingestion acute paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is guided by plotting a timed plasma paracetamol concentration on established nomograms. Guidelines in the UK differ from those in the U.S. and Australasia by having two treatment lines on the nomogram. Patients deemed to be at 'normal' risk of hepatotoxicity are treated using the treatment line starting at 200 mg/L at 4 h post-ingestion; those at higher risk are treated using the 'high risk' treatment line starting at 100 mg/L at 4 h post-ingestion. AIM: To examine the effect on treatment numbers if UK guidelines were to adopt a single treatment line nomogram or lower, risk-stratified treatment lines. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective analysis of a series of acute single-time-point paracetamol poisonings presenting to our inner city emergency department. Treatment numbers and effect on treatment costs were modelled for three alternative scenarios: a 150 line-a combined single treatment line starting at a 4 h concentration of 150 mg/L, a 100 line-a combined single treatment line starting at a 4 h concentration of 100 mg/L, and a 150/75 line-a double treatment line at the lower concentrations of 150 mg/L for normal risk and 75 mg/L for high risk patients. RESULTS: A total of 1,214 cases were identified. Under current UK guidance, 133 (11.0%) high risk cases and 98 (8.1%) normal risk cases needed treatment (total 231, 19.0%). A 150 line would result in 87 (7.2%) high risk cases and 155 (12.8%) normal risk cases needing treatment (total 242, 19.9%). A 100 line would result in 133 (11.0%) high risk and 251 (20.7%) normal risk cases needing treatment (total 384, 31.6%). A 150/75 line would result in 153 (12.6%) high risk and 155 (12.8%) normal risk cases needing treatment (total 308, 25.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Both a 100 line and a 150/75 line would result in a large increase in the number of patients being treated and an associated increase in the costs of treatment. A single 150 mg/L treatment line would simplify treatment algorithms and lead to a similar number of patients being treated with NAC overall. A potential concern however is whether any of the high risk cases that would no longer be treated might develop significant hepatotoxicity. After consideration of the evidence for dual treatment lines, we feel that these risks are small and that it is worth reconsidering a change of treatment recommendations to a single 150 line.

Management of acute paracetamol (acetaminophen) toxicity: a standardised proforma improves risk assessment and overall risk stratification by emergency medicine doctors.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning is the most common toxicological presentation in the UK. Doctors managing patients with paracetamol poisoning need to assess the risk of their patient developing hepatotoxicity before determining appropriate treatment. Patients deemed to be at 'high risk' of hepatotoxicity have lower treatment thresholds than those deemed to be at 'normal risk'. Errors in this process can lead to harmful or potentially fatal under or over treatment. AIM: To determine how well treating doctors assess risk factor status and whether a standardised proforma is useful in the risk stratification process. METHODS: Retrospective 12-month case note review of all patients presenting with paracetamol poisoning to our large inner-city emergency department. Data were collected on the documentation of risk factors, the presence of a local hospital proforma and treatment outcomes. RESULTS: 249 presentations were analysed and only 59 (23.7%) had full documentation of all the risk factors required to make a complete risk assessment. 56 of the 59 (94.9%) had the local hospital proforma included in the notes; the remaining 3 (5.1%) had full documentation of risk factors despite the absence of a proforma. A local hospital proforma was more likely to be included in the emergency department notes in those with 'adequate documentation' (78 out of 120 (65%)) than for those with 'inadequate documentation' (16 out of 129 (12.4%)); X(2), p<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a low overall uptake of the proforma, use of a standardised proforma significantly increased the likelihood of documentation of the risk factors which increase risk for hepatotoxicity following paracetamol poisoning.