Prospective evaluation of gastric emptying in the self-poisoned patient

Systematic review on the use of activated charcoal for gastrointestinal decontamination following acute oral overdose

INTRODUCTION

The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements on the use of single-dose and multiple-dose activated charcoal by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the routine use of activated charcoal declined. Over subsequent years, many new pharmaceuticals became available in modified or alternative-release formulations and additional data on gastric emptying time in poisoning was published, challenging previous assumptions about absorption kinetics. The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology founded the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative to create a framework for evidence-based recommendations for the management of poisoned patients. The activated charcoal workgroup of the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was tasked with reviewing systematically the evidence pertaining to the use of activated charcoal in poisoning in order to update the previous recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was: Does oral activated charcoal given to adults or children prevent toxicity or improve clinical outcome and survival of poisoned patients compared to those who do not receive charcoal?  Secondary objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetic outcomes, the role of cathartics, and adverse events to charcoal administration. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of activated charcoal.

METHODS

A medical librarian created a systematic search strategy for Medline (Ovid), subsequently translated for Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), BIOSIS Previews (via Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library/DARE. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2019. There were no language limitations.  One author screened all citations identified in the search based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Excluded citations were confirmed by an additional author and remaining articles were obtained in full text and evaluated by at least two authors for inclusion. All authors cross-referenced full-text articles to identify articles missed in the searches. Data from included articles were extracted by the authors on a standardized spreadsheet and two authors used the GRADE methodology to independently assess the quality and risk of bias of each included study.

RESULTS

From 22,950 titles originally identified, the final data set consisted of 296 human studies, 118 animal studies, and 145 in vitro studies. Also included were 71 human and two animal studies that reported adverse events. The quality was judged to have a Low or Very Low GRADE in 469 (83%) of the studies. Ninety studies were judged to be of Moderate or High GRADE. The higher GRADE studies reported on the following drugs: paracetamol (acetaminophen), phenobarbital, carbamazepine, cardiac glycosides (digoxin and oleander), ethanol, iron, salicylates, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, and valproate. Data on newer pharmaceuticals not reviewed in the previous American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists statements such as quetiapine, olanzapine, citalopram, and Factor Xa inhibitors were included. No studies on the optimal dosing for either single-dose or multiple-dose activated charcoal were found. In the reviewed clinical data, the time of administration of the first dose of charcoal was beyond one hour in 97% (n = 1006 individuals), beyond two hours in 36% (n = 491 individuals), and beyond 12 h in 4% (n = 43 individuals) whereas the timing of the first dose in controlled studies was within one hour of ingestion in 48% (n = 2359 individuals) and beyond two hours in 36% (n = 484) of individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found heterogenous data. The higher GRADE data was focused on a few select poisonings, while studies that addressed patients with unknown and or mixed ingestions were hampered by low rates of clinically meaningful toxicity or death.  Despite these limitations, they reported a benefit of activated charcoal beyond one hour in many clinical scenarios.

The Individualized Management Approach for Acute Poisoning

Acute poisoning is a widespread emergency that mandates early management decisions for optimal outcomes. An individualized approach is an ideal way to provide those outcomes. Promoting awareness among healthcare professionals managing acute poisoning about the importance of incorporating the pharmacokinetics and following certain criteria to consider interventions such as activated charcoal, antidote, or specific investigations may improve their risk assessment strategies and management plans. To address the main aspects that should be considered to develop a customized poisoning management plan, we conducted this review based on relevant publications recovered by a careful search in PubMed. Our opinions as experts from the King Saud University (KSU) Drug and Poison Information Center (DPIC) were considered in the review.

The Use of Activated Charcoal to Treat Intoxications

BACKGROUND

In 2016, according to the German Federal Statistical Office, 178 425 cases of intoxication (poisoning) were treated in German hospitals. The poison control centers in the German-speaking countries gave advice in a total of 268 787 instances of poisoning in that year, and use of activated charcoal was recommended in 4.37% of cases. The application of activated charcoal plays a major role in both primary and secondary detoxification. This article serves as an overview of the mechanism of action, indications, contraindications, modes of application, and dosing of activated charcoal.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed. The opinions of experts from the poison control centers in the German-speaking countries were considered in the interpretation of the data.

RESULTS

The administration of activated charcoal is indicated to treat moderately severe to life-threatening intoxication. It should be carried out as soon as possible, within the first hour of the ingestion; timed-release preparations can be given up to 6 hours after the ingestion. An important contraindication is impaired consciousness with the danger of aspiration in a patient whose air- way has not yet been secured. Activated charcoal is ineffective or inadequately effective in cases of poisoning with acids or bases, alcohols, organic solvents, inorganic salts, or metals. The proper dosage consists of an amount that is 10 to 40 times as much as that of the intoxicating substance, or else 0.5-1 g/kg body weight in children or 50 g in adults. Repeated application is indicated for intoxications with agents that persist for a longer time in the stomach and for intoxications with timed-release drugs or drugs with a marked enterohepatic or entero-enteric circulation. The routine combination of activated charcoal with a laxative is not recommended.

CONCLUSION

Even though intoxications are common, there is still no internationally valid guideline concerning the administration of activated charcoal. A precise analysis of the risks and benefits is needed for each administration, and a poison control center should be consulted for this purpose.

First aid interventions by laypeople for acute oral poisoning

BACKGROUND

Oral poisoning is a major cause of mortality and disability worldwide, with estimates of over 100,000 deaths due to unintentional poisoning each year and an overrepresentation of children below five years of age. Any effective intervention that laypeople can apply to limit or delay uptake or to evacuate, dilute or neutralize the poison before professional help arrives may limit toxicity and save lives.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pre-hospital interventions (alone or in combination) for treating acute oral poisoning, available to and feasible for laypeople before the arrival of professional help.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and three clinical trials registries to 11 May 2017, and we also carried out reference checking and citation searching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing interventions (alone or in combination) that are feasible in a pre-hospital setting for treating acute oral poisoning patients, including but potentially not limited to activated charcoal (AC), emetics, cathartics, diluents, neutralizing agents and body positioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data collection and assessment. Primary outcomes of this review were incidence of mortality and adverse events, plus incidence and severity of symptoms of poisoning. Secondary outcomes were duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, and incidence of hospitalization and ICU admission.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials involving 7099 participants. Using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, we assessed no study as being at low risk of bias for all domains. Many studies were poorly reported, so the risk of selection and detection biases were often unclear. Most studies reported important outcomes incompletely, and we judged them to be at high risk of reporting bias.All but one study enrolled oral poisoning patients in an emergency department; the remaining study was conducted in a pre-hospital setting. Fourteen studies included multiple toxic syndromes or did not specify, while the other studies specifically investigated paracetamol (2 studies), carbamazepine (2 studies), tricyclic antidepressant (2 studies), yellow oleander (2 studies), benzodiazepine (1 study), or toxic berry intoxication (1 study). Eighteen trials investigated the effects of activated charcoal (AC), administered as a single dose (SDAC) or in multiple doses (MDAC), alone or in combination with other first aid interventions (a cathartic) and/or hospital treatments. Six studies investigated syrup of ipecac plus other first aid interventions (SDAC + cathartic) versus ipecac alone. The collected evidence was mostly of low to very low certainty, often downgraded for indirectness, risk of bias or imprecision due to low numbers of events.First aid interventions that limit or delay the absorption of the poison in the bodyWe are uncertain about the effect of SDAC compared to no intervention on the incidence of adverse events in general (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) or vomiting specifically (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 57.26, 1 study, 25 participants), ICU admission (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 0.15 to 391.93, 1 study, 451 participants) and clinical deterioration (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) in participants with mixed types or paracetamol poisoning, as all evidence for these outcomes was of very low certainty. No studies assessed SDAC for mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption or hospitalization.Only one study compared SDAC to syrup of ipecac in participants with mixed types of poisoning, providing very low-certainty evidence. Therefore we are uncertain about the effects on Glasgow Coma Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, 1 study, 34 participants) or incidence of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.83, 1 study, 34 participants). No information was available concerning mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission.This review also considered the added value of SDAC or MDAC to hospital interventions, which mostly included gastric lavage. No included studies investigated the use of body positioning in oral poisoning patients.First aid interventions that evacuate the poison from the gastrointestinal tractWe found one study comparing ipecac versus no intervention in toxic berry ingestion in a pre-hospital setting. Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be an increase in the incidence of adverse events, but the study did not report incidence of mortality, incidence or duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission (103 participants).In addition, we also considered the added value of syrup of ipecac to SDAC plus a cathartic and the added value of a cathartic to SDAC.No studies used cathartics as an individual intervention.First aid interventions that neutralize or dilute the poison No included studies investigated the neutralization or dilution of the poison in oral poisoning patients.The review also considered combinations of different first aid interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review provided mostly low- or very low-certainty evidence about the use of first aid interventions for acute oral poisoning. A key limitation was the fact that only one included study actually took place in a pre-hospital setting, which undermines our confidence in the applicability of these results to this setting. Thus, the amount of evidence collected was insufficient to draw any conclusions.

Gastrointestinal decontamination

Why has ipecac syrup become less popular in emergency management of poisoning and overdose? When should gastric lavage, activated charcoal, cathartics, or a combination of methods be used? Which patients are candidates for whole-bowel irrigation with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution? Drs Harris and Kingston answer these questions and present their recommendations for each of the available management options.

A retrospective review of the prehospital use of activated charcoal

OBJECTIVE

We studied the complications and timing implications of prehospital activated charcoal (PAC). Appropriateness of PAC administration was also evaluated.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed prehospital records over 32 months for overdose cases, where PAC was administered. Cases were assessed for amount and type of ingestant, clinical findings, timing of PAC, timing of transport and arrival into the emergency department (ED), and complications. Encounter duration in cases of PAC was compared with that, for all cases during the study period, where an overdose patient who did not receive activated charcoal was transported.

RESULTS

Two thousand eight hundred forty-five total cases were identified. In 441 cases, PAC was given; and complications could be assessed. Two hundred eighty-one of these had complete information regarding timing of ingestion, activated charcoal administration, and transport. The average time between overdose and PAC was 49.8 minutes (range, 7-199 minutes; median, 41.0 minutes; SD, 30.4 minutes). Complications included emesis (7%), declining mental status (4%), declining blood pressure (0.4%), and declining oxygen saturation (0.4%). Four hundred seventeen cases of PAC had documentation of timing of emergency medical service (EMS) arrival on scene and arrival at the ED. Average EMS encounter time was 29 minutes (range, 10-53 minutes; median, 27.9 minutes). Two thousand forty-four poisoning patients were transported who did not receive PAC. The average EMS encounter time for this group was 28.1 minutes (range, 4-82 minutes; median, 27.3 minutes), not significantly different (P =.114).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital activated charcoal did not appear to markedly delay transport or arrival of overdose patients into the ED and was generally safe.

Indications for single-dose activated charcoal administration in acute overdose

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastrointestinal decontamination in overdose patients remains a controversial problem in emergency medicine. There has been a significant decrease in the use of single-dose activated charcoal (SDAC) in recent years based on little new evidence and possibly because the overall mortality in overdose patients is low.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human volunteer studies suggest SDAC is effective and this effect occurs for up to 4 h after ingestion, but the magnitude of the reduction in area under the curve (AUC) decreases over time. Two randomized controlled trials including one recent large study did not find SDAC to be beneficial. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of specific drugs in overdose suggest that for most drugs SDAC decreases drug exposure, but this does not translate to clinical benefit in all cases. The administration of SDAC is a low-risk intervention.

SUMMARY

Although SDAC is unlikely to be beneficial in many overdose patients, for some subgroups with severe poisoning, the benefits will outweigh the low risk of administration. The use of SDAC should be based on the potential toxicity of the drug ingested and the potential benefit of SDAC balanced against the willingness of the patient to take SDAC and the low risk of administration.

Does prearrival communication from a poison center to an emergency department decrease time to activated charcoal for pediatric poisoning?

OBJECTIVE

A poison center plays an important role in directing appropriate care, which is critical in reducing morbidity due to poisoning. Activated charcoal (AC) is one intervention for some poisonings. This study examined whether children with a poisoning who were preannounced by a poison center received AC earlier than patients without a referral.

METHODS

A retrospective review of AC administration in children aged 0 to 18 years in a pediatric emergency department (ED) from 2000 to 2006 was performed. Abstracted covariates were poison center referral status, age, sex, acuity, disposition, transportation mode, triage time, and time of AC administration. Analysis of variance controlling for covariates tested the equality of mean time intervals between the groups with and without a poison center referral.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-one cases met the inclusion criteria. One hundred thirty-five (39%) were male. Eighty cases (23%) had a poison center referral. Time from triage to charcoal administration for patients with a poison center referral was a mean of 59 (SD, 34) minutes. Time for the group without a referral was a mean of 71 (SD, 43) minutes (P = 0.0036).

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced communication from a poison center was associated with earlier administration of AC in the ED for this population. Nevertheless, the duration to charcoal administration was frequently suboptimal. Triage and prehospital practices should be reexamined to improve timeliness of AC when indicated and consider exclusion of administration if beyond an appropriate time frame. Advanced notification should be the paradigm for all poison centers, and early response protocols for poison center referrals should be used by EDs.

Gastrointestinal decontamination in the acutely poisoned patient

Objective

To define the role of gastrointestinal (GI) decontamination of the poisoned patient.

Data Sources

A computer-based PubMed/MEDLINE search of the literature on GI decontamination in the poisoned patient with cross referencing of sources.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Clinical, animal and in vitro studies were reviewed for clinical relevance to GI decontamination of the poisoned patient.

Data Synthesis

The literature suggests that previously, widely used, aggressive approaches including the use of ipecac syrup, gastric lavage, and cathartics are now rarely recommended. Whole bowel irrigation is still often recommended for slow-release drugs, metals, and patients who "pack" or "stuff" foreign bodies filled with drugs of abuse, but with little quality data to support it. Activated charcoal (AC), single or multiple doses, was also a previous mainstay of GI decontamination, but the utility of AC is now recognized to be limited and more time dependent than previously practiced. These recommendations have resulted in several treatment guidelines that are mostly based on retrospective analysis, animal studies or small case series, and rarely based on randomized clinical trials.

Conclusions

The current literature supports limited use of GI decontamination of the poisoned patient.

Trends in emergency department use of gastric lavage for poisoning events in the United States, 1993–2003

OBJECTIVE

To determine current trends in the use of gastric decontamination for the emergency department (ED) treatment of overdose patients.

METHODS

In the National Health Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), a weighted sampling of U.S. EDs, overdose-related visits were examined using ICD-9 CM E codes and NHAMCS' "reason-for-visit" classification.

RESULTS

From 1993 to 2003 there were an estimated 11.68 million ED-treated poisoning events. Some 13.7% of those treated were lavaged. Rates fell significantly, from an annual average of 18.7% of cases during 1993-97 to 10.3% during 1998-2003 (p < 0.001). Controlling for year, urgency, and admission status in multivariate logistic modeling, lavage was significantly and positively associated with private insurance payor status, younger age (<30), female gender, white race, 8 PM-8 AM presentation, and intentional rather than unintentional overdose.

CONCLUSION

ED use of gastric lavage in poisoned patients has decreased significantly over the past decade but varies by demographic and non-clinical factors.

The poisoned child in the pediatric intensive care unit

Acutely poisoned children remain a common problem facing pediatricians working in acute care medicine in the United States and worldwide. The management of such children continues to be challenging, and their care has evolved throughout the years. The concept of gastric decontamination in acute poisoning has significantly changed over the past 10 years, and many of the previously used techniques have been abandoned or fallen out of favor for lack of evidence to their benefit or unacceptable serious risks and side effects. Supportive care continues to be the cornerstone in managing most poisoned children. Only a few patients benefit from antidotes or specific interventions.

Gastrointestinal decontamination of the poisoned patient

Gastrointestinal decontamination has been a historically accepted modality in the emergency management of oral intoxicants. Theoretically, gastric and whole-bowel emptying procedures hinder absorption, remove toxic substances, prevent clinical deterioration, and hasten recovery. This article presents a current overview of gastrointestinal decontamination. It challenges the accepted precepts of gut decontamination and assesses the utility of syrup of ipecac-induced emesis, orogastric lavage, single-dose-activated charcoal, cathartics, and whole-bowel irrigation.

The approach to the patient with an unknown overdose

Toxic overdose can present with various clinical signs and symptoms. These may be the only clues to diagnosis when the cause of toxicity is unknown at the time of initial assessment. The prognosis and clinical course of recovery of a patient poisoned by a specific agent depends largely on the quality of care delivered within the first few hours in the emergency setting. Usually the drug or toxin can be quickly identified by a careful history, a directed physical examination, and commonly available laboratory tests. Once the patient has been stabilized, the physician must consider how to minimize the bioavailability of toxin not yet absorbed, which antidotes (if any) to administer, and if other measures to enhance elimination are necessary.

A risk assessment based approach to the management of acute poisoning

Early assessment and management of poisoning constitutes a core emergency medicine competency. Medical and psychiatric emergencies coexist; the acute poisoning is a dynamic medical illness that represents an acute exacerbation of a chronic underlying psychosocial disorder. The emergency physician must use an approach that ensures early decisions address potentially time critical interventions, while allowing management to be tailored to the individual patient's needs in that particular medical setting. This article outlines a rationale approach to the management of the poisoned patient that emphasises the importance of early risk assessment. Ideally, this approach should be used in the setting of a health system designed to optimise the medical and psychosocial care of the poisoned patient.

The Changing Indications of Gastrointestinal Decontamination in Poisonings

Gastrointestinal (GI) decontamination is commonly used in the treatment of the poisoned patient. Although the practice is widely accepted, the science behind the recommendations is limited. This article describes commonly used techniques for GI decontamination and critically reviews the studies evaluating these treatments.

Diagnosis and management of the poisoned child

Pediatric toxic ingestions are treated commonly by pediatricians and emergency physicians. Significant injury after these ingestions is infrequent, but identifying the dangerous ingestion is sometimes a difficult task. By performing a detailed history, focused physical examination, and directed laboratory evaluation, an estimation of risk can be developed. This article introduced the term "toxic triage" to describe this process. The toxic triage estimation allows the clinician to make thoughtful decontamination and treatment decisions. Familiarity with the literature supporting or refuting each decontamination method allows educated decisions to be made. Supportive care is an integral part of treatment for all poisonings, from asymptomatic to life-threatening. Most antidotes are used rarely in clinical practice, but familiarity with common antidotes benefits those patients with specific hazardous ingestions. Prevention efforts have the potential to decrease the incidence of pediatric poisonings. The universal poison control center number provided should be distributed and posted in homes, clinics, and emergency departments.

Gastrointestinal decontamination

Overall, no conclusive data support the use of gastric decontamination in the routine management of the poisoned patient. Studies of asymptomatic patients suggest that no treatment is required, and, given the complications that have been reported, this may be a reasonable approach to' most patients. Even in symptomatic patients, the only demonstrable benefit was found in a post-hoc subgroup analysis and involved an outcome of questionable clinical importance. Given these data, it would be easy to conclude that GI decontamination has no role in the management of the poisoned patient. This conclusion is valid when considering poisoned patients as a group, but all poisoned patients are not the same. Patients with trivial ingestion do well without treatment, and their greatest risk is an iatrogenic complication. Even patients with more serious ingestions usually have good outcomes with supportive care alone. It is no longer sufficient to justify GL or forced administration of AC with the supposition that "the patient could have taken something bad." However,there are some overdoses where limiting the systemic absorption of the poison may limit the toxic effects and prevent serious toxicity. After careful consideration of the risks, GI decontamination should be targeted at patients who, in the opinion of the treating physician, have a potentially life-threatening exposure.

Decontamination

Decontamination is the removal or reduction of chemical, biologic, or radiologic agents from the patient's skin, mucosa, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract. Decontamination is an important step in decreasing the clinical effects of the agent on the patient, as well as protecting coworkers from exposure. For most agents and the vast majority of scenarios, the removal of clothing and a simple 5- to 6-minute shower with soap and water is sufficient to eliminate the risks to the patient and hospital staff. In rare circumstances, additional steps in decontamination including gastric lavage, broncho-alveolar lavage, surgical removal of wound foreign bodies, and administration of activated charcoal, polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution, and radioisotope binding agents, may be necessary.

A randomized clinical trial of activated charcoal for the routine management of oral drug overdose

BACKGROUND

Activated charcoal (AC) is commonly used for the routine management of oral drug overdose.

AIM

To determine whether the routine use of activated charcoal has an effect on patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled unblinded trial.

METHODS

We recruited all adult patients presenting with an oral overdose at The Canberra Hospital, excluding only transfers, late presenters, those who had ingested drugs not adsorbed by activated charcoal or where administration was contraindicated, and very serious ingestions (at the discretion of the admitting physician). Patients were randomized to either activated charcoal or no decontamination.

RESULTS

The trial recruited 327 patients over 16 months. Of 411 presentations, four refused consent, 27 were protocol violations and 53 were excluded from the trial. Only seven were excluded due to the severity of their ingestion. The most common substances ingested were benzodiazepines, paracetamol and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants. More than 80% of patients presented within 4 h following ingestion. There were no differences between AC and no decontamination in terms of length of stay (AC 6.75 h, IQR 4-14 vs. controls 5.5 h, IQR 3-12; p=0.11) or secondary outcomes including vomiting, mortality and intensive care admission.

DISCUSSION

Routine administration of charcoal following oral overdose did not significantly influence length of stay or other patient outcomes following oral drug overdose. There were few adverse events. This does not exclude a role in patients who present shortly after ingestion of highly lethal drugs.

Ipecac syrup abuse, morbidity, and mortality: isn't it time to repeal its over-the-counter status?

PURPOSE

To review and address the abuse of ipecac, describing its epidemiology, toxicity, clinical characteristics, and laboratory assessment.

METHODS

A Medline search (1980-2003) for Ipecac abuse and Ipecac toxicity, n = 34.

RESULTS

Ipecac abuse occurs predominantly among adolescent and young adult females who are either experimenting with purging or have an eating disorder. Psychiatric comorbidity is common. Death can occur and is usually of cardiac origin. Morbidity includes myocarditis with arrhythmias, myositis, gastroesophageal pathology, including Mallory Weiss tears, diarrhea, and metabolic abnormalities (alkalosis, hypokalemia, dehydration). The injuries can reverse with cessation of ipecac use. A high index of suspicion is needed for early detection. Classic findings are abnormal EKG and echocardiography and/or elevation of muscle enzymes (CPK, adolase). Emetine, the alkaloid in ipecac, can be confirmed in serum, urine, and tissue by high performance liquid chromatography.

CONCLUSIONS

Ipecac abuse is dangerous, even deadly. However, if abuse is discontinued, cardiac and muscle damage tends to reverse. Were ipecac syrup to remain an over- the-counter medication, or become a prescription medication, more stringent warning labels ought to be included and further education be provided about its toxicity and potential for abuse. Removing ipecac from the over-the-counter category would best eliminate its potential for abuse.

Position paper: gastric lavage

Gastric lavage should not be employed routinely, if ever, in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies, the amount of marker removed by gastric lavage was highly variable and diminished with time. The results of clinical outcome studies in overdose patients are weighed heavily on the side of showing a lack of beneficial effect. Serious risks of the procedure include hypoxia, dysrhythmias, laryngospasm, perforation of the GI tract or pharynx, fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, and aspiration pneumonitis. Contraindications include loss of protective airway reflexes (unless the patient is first intubated tracheally), ingestion of a strong acid or alkali, ingestion of a hydrocarbon with a high aspiration potential, or risk of GI hemorrhage due to an underlying medical or surgical condition. A review of the 1997 Gastric Lavage Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of the Statement.

The Management of Tricyclic Antidepressant Poisoning

Although there have been descriptive, uncontrolled clinical reports of removal of tablet debris by gastric lavage, there have been no clinical studies that have demonstrated that this has any impact on outcome in patients with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) poisoning. There is also the possibility that lavage may increase drug absorption by pushing tablets into the small intestine. Furthermore, gastric lavage in patients with TCA poisoning may induce hypoxia and a tachycardia potentially increasing the risk of severe complications such as arrhythmias and convulsions. In view of the paucity of evidence that gastric lavage removes a significant amount of drug and the risk of complications associated with the procedure, the routine use of gastric lavage in the management of patients with TCA poisoning is not appropriate. Volunteer studies have shown generally that activated charcoal is more likely to reduce drug absorption if it is administered within 1 hour of drug ingestion. In the one volunteer study that looked at later administration of activated charcoal, there was a 37% decrease in plasma concentration associated with administration of activated charcoal at 2 hours post-ingestion. There have been no clinical studies that enable an estimate of the effect of activated charcoal administration on outcome in the management of patients with TCA poisoning. Volunteer studies have shown that multiple-dose activated charcoal increases the elimination of therapeutic doses of amitriptyline and nortriptyline, but not of doxepin or imipramine; however, these studies cannot be directly extrapolated to the management of patients with TCA poisoning. There have been no well designed controlled studies that have assessed the impact of multiple-dose activated charcoal in the management of patients with TCA poisoning. Because of the large volume of distribution of TCAs, it would not be expected that their elimination would be significantly increased by multiple-dose activated charcoal.Haemoperfusion, haemodialysis and the combination of these procedures do not result in significant removal of TCAs and are not recommended in the management of patients with TCA poisoning.

Activated charcoal administration in a pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Activated charcoal is the commonest form of gastrointestinal decontamination offered to potentially poisoned children within United States emergency departments. Our aim was to describe this practice with regard to timing, route of administration, use of flavoring agents, and occurrence of adverse events other than vomiting.

METHODS

Descriptive data were prospectively collected from consecutive administrations of single-dose activated charcoal, within an urban, academic pediatric emergency department, over a period of 2.5 years.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-five subjects were enrolled. The median time elapsed between ingestion and emergency department arrival was 1.2 hours. Although 55% of children were administered charcoal within 1 hour of emergency department presentation, only 7.8% received charcoal within 1 hour of poisoning exposure. Forty-four percent of children younger than 6 years, 50% of 6-year to 12-year olds, and 89% of 12-year to 18-year olds drank the charcoal voluntarily (P < 0.01). Medical staff chose not to offer charcoal orally to 42 asymptomatic children among the 176 subjects under the age of 6 years. Of the 114 young children offered oral charcoal, 36 (32%) refused or were intolerant. Nurses added flavoring agents to the charcoal in 59% of oral administrations, but this act did not enhance observed palatability. Among children younger than 6 years, the median time from first sip to complete ingestion of charcoal slurry was 15 minutes. One pulmonary aspiration event and a case of constipation were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite published guidelines, children treated in an emergency department rarely received charcoal within 1 hour of ingestion. Gastric tube administration of charcoal varies by age and is partly subjective in its application. We found no evidence that excipient flavoring of charcoal improved success of administration. Pulmonary aspiration of charcoal, although uncommon, should be considered when assessing the risk of therapy. We offer a report of symptomatic constipation from single-dose charcoal.

Single‐Dose Activated Charcoal‐Backup and Reassess

Single-dose activated charcoal (SDAC) is frequently administered to poisoned patients. The assumption is that toxin absorption is prevented and that toxicity (as defined by morbidity and mortality) of the poisoning is decreased. Yet there is no evidence that SDAC improves outcome. Risks of this procedure have not been determined. The reported adverse events following SDAC administration are reviewed and risk:benefit ratio for this procedure is discussed.

Aspiration pneumonitis in an overdose population: frequency, predictors, and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the frequency of aspiration pneumonitis in an unselected population of overdose patients and, further, to identify factors that predispose to aspiration pneumonitis and the outcomes of patients with aspiration pneumonitis compared with those without.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Toxicology unit of a tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

All poisoning admissions.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 71 of 4,562 poisoning admissions to the Hunter Area Toxicology Service between January 1997 and October 2002 had definite aspiration pneumonitis (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.0). Older age, Glasgow Coma Score of <15, spontaneous emesis, seizures, delayed presentation to hospital, and ingestion of tricyclic antidepressants were associated with an increased risk of aspiration pneumonitis. Paracetamol poisoning and female sex were associated with a decreased risk of aspiration pneumonitis with univariate analysis. Ingestion of alcohol, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and administration of activated charcoal were not associated with aspiration pneumonitis. A logistic regression model for predicting aspiration pneumonitis contained seven predictors: age, sex, Glasgow Coma Score of <15 (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.87-5.27), emesis (odds ratio, 4.17; 95% confidence interval, 2.44-7.13), seizure, tricyclic antidepressant ingestion, and time from ingestion to presentation (delay of >24 hrs [odds ratio, 4.42; 95% confidence interval, 2.42-8.10]). The mortality for patients with aspiration pneumonitis was 8.5% compared with 0.4% for those without (odds ratio, 23; 95% confidence interval, 9-60; p <.0001), and they had a significantly higher intensive care unit admission rate. The median length of stay of patients with aspiration pneumonitis was 126 hrs (interquartile range, 62-210 hrs) compared with 14.7 hrs (interquartile range, 7-23 hrs) in patients without (p <.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has shown a number of risk factors in overdose patients that are associated with aspiration pneumonitis that may allow the early identification of these patients for appropriate observation and management. Patients with aspiration pneumonitis have a significantly increased mortality and length of stay in the hospital.

Position paper: Ipecac syrup

Syrup of ipecac should not be administered routinely in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies the amount of marker removed by ipecac was highly variable and diminished with time. There is no evidence from clinical studies that ipecac improves the outcome of poisoned patients and its routine administration in the emergency department should be abandoned. There are insufficient data to support or exclude ipecac administration soon after poison ingestion. Ipecac may delay the administration or reduce the effectiveness of activated charcoal, oral antidotes, and whole bowel irrigation. Ipecac should not be administered to a patient who has a decreased level or impending loss of consciousness or who has ingested a corrosive substance or hydrocarbon with high aspiration potential. A review of the literature since the preparation of the 1997 Ipecac Syrup Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of that Statement.

Does gastric lavage really push poisons beyond the pylorus? A systematic review of the evidence

Classically, treatment of acute self-poisoning involves resuscitation and supportive care, followed by gastric emptying, administration of activated charcoal, and use of specific antidotes. Recently, however, the practice of gastric emptying has fallen out of favor in the West because physicians have recognized its complications and the lack of evidence for clinical benefit from its practice. Authoritative position statements have stated that forced emesis should not be used and that gastric lavage should be used in restricted settings. One commonly cited complication of gastric lavage is propulsion of poison beyond the pyloric sphincter into the small bowel. We have carried out a systematic search for studies addressing this issue and found only 2. The first, a randomized controlled trial of patients presenting to an emergency department, reported propulsion of poison into the small bowel and has been widely cited as showing evidence for such a complication. However, analysis of the data presented in this article shows no significant difference in the number of radio-opaque marker pellets present in the small bowel after gastric lavage, ipecac-induced forced emesis, or no intervention. The second, an observational study using human volunteers, showed significantly less poison in the small bowel after gastric lavage than after no intervention. In conclusion, it seems that no published data support the statement that gastric lavage forces poison into the small bowel.

Feasibility of prehospital treatment with activated charcoal: Who could we treat, who should we treat?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility and potential risk benefit of prehospital administration of activated charcoal.

METHODS

Review of deliberate self poisoning presentations to the emergency department (ED) of a toxicology unit by ambulance over six years. Data were extracted from a standardised prospective database of poisonings. Outcomes included: number of patients attended by ambulance and number arriving in emergency within one hour. Cases were stratified by ingestion type, based on toxicity and sedative activity.

RESULTS

2041 poisoning admissions were included. The median time to ambulance attendance was 1 h 23 min (IQR 37 min-3 h) and to hospital attendance was 2 h 15 min (IQR 1 h 25 min-4 h). In 774 cases (38%) ambulance attendance occurred within one hour, but in only 161 (8%) did ED attendance occur within one hour. Non-sedating, highly toxic substances were ingested in 55 cases, 24 (23 with GCS>14) with ambulance attendance, and five with ED attendance, within one hour. Conversely 439 patients ingested a less toxic, sedative agent, 160 with ambulance attendance, and 32 with ED attendance, within one hour. Limiting decontamination to patients ingesting highly toxic, non-sedating compounds (GCS<14) reduces the proportion requiring treatment to 23 of the 774 (3.0%), an additional 18 patients.

CONCLUSION

More patients could potentially be decontaminated if all patients attended by ambulance within one hour received charcoal. However, this would expose 128 patients with sedative, low risk poisonings to the risk of aspiration, and only treat 18 extra high risk poisonings. This small potential benefit of prehospital charcoal is unlikely to justify the expense in training and protocols required to implement it

Adult toxicology in critical care: part I: general approach to the intoxicated patient

Intensivists are confronted with poisoned patients on a routine basis, with clinical scenarios ranging from known drug overdose or toxic exposure, illicit drug use, suicide attempt, or accidental exposure. In addition, drug toxicity can also manifest in hospitalized patients from inappropriate dosing and drug interactions. In this review article, we describe the epidemiology of poisoning in the United States, review physical examination findings and laboratory data that may aid the intensivist in recognizing a toxidrome (symptom complex of specific poisoning) or specific poisoning, and describe a rational and systematic approach to the poisoned patient. It is important to recognize that there is a paucity of evidence-based information on the management of poisoned patient. However, the most current recommendations by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and European Association of Poisons Centers and Clinical Toxicologists will be reviewed. Specific poisonings will be reviewed in the second section of these review articles.

Single-dose oral activated charcoal in the treatment of the self-poisoned patient: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Oral activated charcoal (OAC) is a universally accepted treatment of the overdose patient. Although the benefits of OAC have been suggested, there are no conclusive clinical data indicating that OAC affects outcome in overdose patients. This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of OAC treatment in the self-poisoned adult patient. Adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a history of oral overdose were assigned to treatment with OAC (50 g) or supportive care only on an even-odd day protocol. Patients did not undergo gastric evacuation procedures in the ED. The outcome measures were clinical deterioration, length of stay in the ED or hospital, and complication rate. Over a 24-month period, 1479 patients were entered into the study. There were no significant differences in outcome parameters between the OAC treatment group and controls when comparing the length of intubation time, length of hospital stay, and the complication rates associated with the overdose. There was a higher incidence of vomiting and longer length of ED stay associated with OAC treatment. The results of this study indicated that oral drug overdose patients do not require gastric evacuation or charcoal administration. OAC provided no additional benefit to supportive care alone, was associated with a higher incidence of vomiting and a longer length of ED stay, and did not improve clinical outcome.

Extracorporeal therapies for acute intoxications

Intoxications frequently perturb acid-base and electrolyte status, intravascular volume, and renal function. In selected cases, extracorporeal techniques effectively restore homeostasis and augment intoxicant removal. The use of 4-methylpyrazole, an inhibitor of alcohol dehydrogenase, is a new and effective treatment for patients exposed to toxic alcohols. In this section, practical approaches to commonly encountered intoxicants and the use of extracorporeal techniques are critically reviewed.

The role of activated charcoal and gastric emptying in gastrointestinal decontamination: a state-of-the-art review

Gastrointestinal decontamination has been practiced for hundreds of years; however, only in the past few years have data emerged that demonstrate a clinical benefit in some patients. Because most potentially toxic ingestions involve agents that are not toxic in the quantity consumed, the exact circumstances in which decontamination is beneficial and which methods are most beneficial in those circumstances remain important topics of research. Maximum benefit from decontamination is expected in patients who present soon after the ingestion. Unfortunately, many overdose patients present at least 2 hours after taking a medication, when most of the toxin has been absorbed or has moved well into the intestine, beyond the expected reach of gastrointestinal decontamination. Decontamination probably does not contribute to the outcome of many such patients, especially those without symptoms. However, if absorption has been delayed or gastrointestinal motility has been slowed, activated charcoal may reduce the final amount absorbed. The use of activated charcoal in these cases may be beneficial and is associated with few complications. Therefore, administration of activated charcoal is recommended as soon as possible after emergency department presentation, unless the agent and quantity are known to be nontoxic, the agent is known not to adsorb to activated charcoal, or the delay has been so long that absorption is probably complete. The use of gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal has generated intense debate. Several large comparative studies have failed to demonstrate a benefit of gastric emptying before activated charcoal. Because complications of such 2-step decontamination include a higher rate of intubation, aspiration, and ICU admission, gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal cannot be considered the routine approach to patients. However, there are several infrequent circumstances in which the data are inadequate to accurately assess the potential benefit of gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal: symptomatic patients presenting in the first hour after ingestion, symptomatic patients who have ingested agents that slow gastrointestinal motility, patients taking sustained release medications, and those taking massive or life-threatening amounts of medication. These circumstances represent only a small subset of ingestions. In the absence of convincing data about benefit or lack of benefit of gastric emptying for these patients, individual physicians must act on a personal valuation: Is it better to use a treatment that might have some benefit but definitely has some risk or not to use a treatment that has any risk unless there is proven benefit?

Activated charcoal alone or after gastric lavage: a simulated large paracetamol intoxication

AIMS

Activated charcoal is now being recommended for patients who have ingested potentially toxic amounts of a poison, where the ingested substance adsorbs to charcoal. Combination therapy with gastric lavage and activated charcoal is widely used, although clinical studies to date have not provided evidence of additional efficacy compared with the use of activated charcoal alone. There are also doubts regarding the efficacy of activated charcoal, when administered more than 1 h after the overdose. The aim of this study was to examine if there was a difference in the effect of the two interventions 1 h post ingestion, and to determine if activated charcoal was effective in reducing the systemic absorption of a drug, when administered 2 h post ingestion.

METHODS

We performed a four-limbed randomized cross-over study in 12 volunteers, who 1 h after a standard meal ingested paracetamol 50 mg kg(-1) in 125 mg tablets to mimic real-life, where several factors, such as food, interfere with gastric emptying and thus treatment. The interventions were activated charcoal after 1 h, combination therapy of gastric lavage followed by activated charcoal after 1 h, or activated charcoal after 2 h. Serum paracetamol concentrations were determined by h.p.l.c. Percentage reductions in the area under the curve (AUC) were used to estimate the efficacy of each intervention (paired observations).

RESULTS

There was a significant (P<0.005) reduction in the paracetamol AUC with activated charcoal at 1 h (median reduction 66%, 95% confidence intervals 49, 76) compared with controls, and a significant (P<0.01) reduction for gastric lavage followed by activated charcoal at 1 h (median reduction 48.2%, 95% confidence interval 32.4, 63.7) compared with controls. There was no significant difference between the two interventions (95% confidence interval for the difference -3.8, 34.0). Furthermore, we found a significant (P<0.01) reduction in the paracetamol AUC when activated charcoal was administered 2 h after tablet ingestion when compared with controls (median 22.7%, 95% confidence intervals 13.6--34.4).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that combination treatment may be no better than activated charcoal alone in patients presenting early after large overdoses. The effect of activated charcoal given 2 h post ingestion is substantially less than at 1 h, emphasizing the importance of early intervention.