Massive Atenolol, Lisinopril, and Chlorthalidone Overdose Treated with Endoscopic Decontamination, Hemodialysis, Impella Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device, and ECMO

Extracorporeal treatment for poisoning to beta-adrenergic antagonists: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

β-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning.

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods.

RESULTS

A total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

BAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.

Use of a Porcine Model to Evaluate the Risks and Benefits of Vasopressors in Propranolol Poisoning

INTRODUCTION

Vasopressors are a commonly used treatment in beta-blocker poisoning despite evidence they may be ineffective or harmful. The primary objective of the present study is to use previously collected data from two prior studies (high-dose insulin (HDI) versus vasopressin + epinephrine and a placebo-controlled HDI study) to compare survival between vasopressin + epinephrine and placebo. Secondary outcomes included a comparison with HDI as well as comparisons with hemodynamic parameters, including mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), heart rate (HR), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR).

METHODS

Cardiogenic shock was induced in healthy pigs with a bolus of 0.5 mg/kg of intravenous propranolol followed by an infusion of 0.25 mg/kg/minute until the point of toxicity, defined as (0.75 × initial HR × initial MAP), at which point the infusion was reduced to 0.125 mg/kg/minute for 240 (vasopressin + epinephrine or HDI) or 360 minutes (placebo) or until death.

RESULTS

Survival was significantly lower in pigs receiving vasopressin + epinephrine (0%, 0/5) than in pigs receiving placebo (50%, 2/4) (p < 0.01). Survival was significantly higher with HDI compared with both groups (100%, 5/5) (p < 0.01). All vasopressin + epinephrine pigs died within 100 minutes after reaching toxicity. Over the course of the resuscitation, we observed a statistically significant steady decrease in CO and HR in the vasopressin + epinephrine group compared with placebo (p < 0.01). In contrast, we observed a statistically significant change in MAP and SVR that followed a parabolic arc, with MAP and SVR rising significantly initially in the vasopressin + epinephrine group then rapidly falling until death (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality was higher with vasopressors compared with placebo in this porcine model of propranolol poisoning. Further studies are warranted to define the optimal timing and role of vasopressors in beta-blocker poisoning.

Cardiac arrest induced by the intentional ingestion of boric acid and mirtazapine treated by percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass: a case report

Background

Mirtazapine has a good tolerability and safety profile that demonstrates several benefits over other antidepressants and it is associated with few fatalities. Boric acid is an odorless white powder that is generally not recognized as a poisonous substance. We report a case of cardiac arrest induced by the intentional ingestion of mirtazapine, boric acid, and sennosides, by a patient who required percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass.

Case presentation

Our patient was a 49-year-old Japanese woman with a history of depression; she was found in an unconscious state after ingesting boric acid (unknown amount), mirtazapine (1950 mg), and sennosides (780 mg). On arrival, she was in a deep coma with marked hypotension induced by atrial fibrillation, tachycardia, and diffuse hypokinetic cardiac motion. She had systemic diffuse erythema. Her serum concentrations of boric acid and mirtazapine on arrival were 560.49 mg/L and 1270 ng/mL, respectively. She experienced repeated cardiac arrest, and was therefore treated with tracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, and continuous hemodialysis filtration. Stable circulation and respiration and a normal kidney function were finally obtained and she was transferred to a local medical facility in a persistent unconscious state.

Conclusions

This is the first case of a return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest induced by the intentional ingestion of boric acid and mirtazapine, requiring percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass for survival. To maintain cerebral perfusion during percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, even in a prolonged state of cardiac arrest induced by overdose, is medically, ethically, and economically challenging.