Influence of activated charcoal on the pharmacokinetics and the clinical features of carbamazepine poisoning

Severe carbamazepine-induced cardiotoxicity with multisystem involvement: early recognition and advanced therapeutic approach

Carbamazepine (CBZ) toxicity is a medical emergency due to severe neurological and cardiovascular risks. Management is challenging due to CBZ's prolonged elimination, enterohepatic recirculation, and active metabolites. We report a severe CBZ intoxication in a 23-year-old male who ingested 24 g in a suicide attempt. He presented in profound coma (Glasgow Coma Scale 3) with respiratory failure, requiring orotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. ECG showed sinus tachycardia and slightly widened QRS complexes. Echocardiography revealed myocardial depression with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40%. His CBZ plasma level was critically high (44 mcg/mL). Treatment included multiple-dose activated charcoal, intravenous lipid emulsion, and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration, leading to rapid CBZ clearance, cardiotoxicity reversal, and neurological recovery. He was extubated on day three and discharged in stable condition. This case highlights severe CBZ-induced cardiotoxicity and emphasizes early recognition and advanced therapies for improved outcomes.

Prevalence and Outcomes of Carbamazepine Toxicity in the Emergency Department: A Single-center Retrospective Study

Background

Carbamazepine (CBX) is widely used for various medical conditions, but its associated toxicity poses significant clinical concerns. This study aims to provide insights into the clinical presentations, management strategies, and outcomes of CBX toxicity cases in an emergency department (ED) setting.

Methodology

This was a 10-year retrospective cohort chart review study, including all patients with elevated CBX levels. Data on clinical features, CBX levels, laboratory findings, electrocardiograms (ECGs), patient management, and outcomes were analyzed. Cases were categorized as acute or chronic toxicity.

Results

Out of the 1,965 medical charts reviewed, we included 70 patients with CBX levels above the therapeutic range (prevalence: 3.6%). Chronic CBX toxicity cases (55.7%) were predominant, with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms being the most common. Most patients presented with isolated CBX overdoses (88.6%), while mixed overdoses (11.4%) were less frequent. Patients were categorized based on CBX levels: 44 had mild toxicity (>51 μmol/L), and 26 had moderate toxicity (>85 μmol/L). Within the mild group, 15 patients experienced acute toxicity, compared to 16 patients in the moderate group. Four patients who had mixed overdoses and low sensorium required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Three patients received activated charcoal (AC), and another 3 patients received multiple doses of AC to reduce drug absorption. The majority of patients (65.7%) required hospital admission, underscoring the seriousness of CBX toxicity. There were no fatalities among these 70 patients.

Conclusion

This study emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to assessing and managing CBX toxicity, considering its diverse clinical presentations and variations in serum CBX levels.

How to cite this article

Hazra D, Ellouze NF, Abri SA. Prevalence and Outcomes of Carbamazepine Toxicity in the Emergency Department: A Single-center Retrospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(9):866-870.

Management of acute carbamazepine poisoning: A narrative review

Standard management protocols are lacking and specific antidotes are unavailable for acute carbamazepine (CBZ) poisoning. The objective of this review is to provide currently available information on acute CBZ poisoning, including its management, by describing and summarizing various therapeutic methods for its treatment according to previously published studies. Several treatment methods for CBZ poisoning will be briefly introduced, their advantages and disadvantages will be analyzed and compared, and suggestions for the clinical treatment of CBZ poisoning will be provided. A literature search was performed in various English and Chinese databases. In addition, the reference lists of identified articles were screened for additional relevant studies, including non-indexed reports. Non-peer-reviewed sources were also included. In the present review, 154 articles met the inclusion criteria including case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in vitro studies. Data on 67 patients, including 4 fatalities, were reviewed. Based on the summary of cases reported in the included articles, the cure rate of CBZ poisoning after symptomatic treatment was 82% and the efficiency of hemoperfusion was 58.2%. Based on the literature review, CBZ is moderately dialyzable and the recommendation for CBZ poisoning is supportive management and gastric lavage. In severe cases, extracorporeal treatment is recommended, with hemodialysis as the first choice.

Drug-induced liver injury: a comprehensive review

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) remains a challenge in clinical practice and is still a diagnosis of exclusion. Although it has a low incidence amongst the general population, DILI accounts for most cases of acute liver failure with a fatality rate of up to 50%. While multiple mechanisms of DILI have been postulated, there is no clear causal relationship between drugs, risk factors and mechanisms of DILI. Current best practice relies on a combination of high clinical suspicion, thorough clinical history of risk factors and timeline, and extensive hepatological investigations as supported by the international Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method criteria, the latter considered a key diagnostic algorithm for DILI. This review focuses on DILI classification, risk factors, clinical evaluation, future biomarkers and management, with the aim of facilitating physicians to correctly identify DILI early in presentation.

Acute Carbamazepine Intoxication

Carbamazepine is an anticonvulsant drug with multiple mechanisms of action, which condition the presence of a characteristic clinical picture after the overingestion of the drug. We expose a case report about a patient who, in the context of an attempted suicide, presented acute intoxication by benzodiazepines and carbamazepine, presenting the characteristic clinical picture of fluctuations in the level of consciousness, even presenting gaze deconjugation, almost unreactive coma and generalized hypotonia.

Carbamazepine Induces Platelet Apoptosis and Thrombocytopenia Through Protein Kinase A

Carbamazepine is extensively used worldwide to treat a wide range of disorders such as epilepsy, peripheral neuralgia and bipolar disorder. Thrombocytopenia and hemorrhage have been identified in multiple carbamazepine-treated patients. However, the underlying mechanism remains poorly understood. Here, we show that platelets undergo apoptosis after carbamazepine treatment. The apoptotic platelets induced by carbamazepine are rapidly removed in vivo, which accounts for thrombocytopenia. We found that carbamazepine treatment attenuates the phosphorylation level of bcl-xl/bcl-2-associated death promoter (BAD), vasodilator-associated stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) and GPIbβ in platelets, indicating an inhibition effect on protein kinase A (PKA). We further demonstrated that carbamazepine reduced PKA activity through PI3K/Akt/PDE3A signaling pathway. Pharmacological activation of PKA or inhibition of PI3K/Akt/PDE3A protects platelets from apoptosis induced by carbamazepine. Importantly, PDE3A inhibitors or PKA activator ameliorates carbamazepine-mediated thrombocytopenia in vivo. These findings shed light on a possible mechanism of carbamazepine-induced thrombocytopenia, designating PDE3A/PKA as a potential therapeutic target in the treatment of carbamazepine-induced thrombocytopenia.

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.

[Cardiac arrest under special circumstances]

These guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest under Special Circumstances are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required for basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest under special circumstances; in particular, specific causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo-/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), specific settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation [in-flight, cruise ships], sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and specific patient groups (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological disease, morbid obesity, pregnancy).

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Cardiac arrest in special circumstances

These European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest in Special Circumstances guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required to basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest in special circumstances; specifically special causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), special settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, catheter laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation (in-flight, cruise ships), sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and special patient groups (asthma and COPD, neurological disease, obesity, pregnancy).

Antiepileptic Overdose

Antiepileptics include various groups of drugs that have different mechanisms of actions and adverse effects. They are often also used to treat other disorders such as psychosis, chronic pain, and migraine. The most common drugs implicated in overdose include phenytoin, sodium valproate, carbamazepine, and phenobarbital. Common signs of toxicity of these drugs are central nervous system manifestations such as altered sensorium, lethargy, ataxia, and nystagmus. Some ingestions can paradoxically precipitate seizures and even status epilepticus. Sodium valproate can cause hyperammonemic encephalopathy and cerebral edema. Carbamazepine is implicated in cardiac arrhythmias and hyponatremia. Phenobarbital causes sedation, respiratory depression, and hypotension. In suspected overdose, apart from the routine laboratory tests, serum levels of the drug should be sent. Serial levels should be measured, as drug toxicity can be prolonged. Treatment of all these overdoses begins with stabilization of airway, breathing, and circulation, and endotracheal intubation being performed to protect the airway in patients with altered mental status. For decontamination, a single dose of activated charcoal should be given. Multidose of activated charcoal may be useful in phenytoin, carbamazepine, and phenobarbital overdose. Naloxone and carnitine are indicated in valproate overdose. Carbamazepine overdose can cause a widened QRS complex and arrhythmias, which can be treated with sodium bicarbonate. Forced alkaline diuresis is no longer advocated for phenobarbital poisoning. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup have formulated guidelines for extracorporeal removal of all these drugs. In most cases, hemodialysis is preferred. Other modalities include charcoal hemoperfusion (especially for carbamazepine) or continuous venovenous hemodialysis. Patients who ingest long-acting preparations should be monitored for longer periods.

Ti-Based nanoMOF as an Efficient Oral Therapeutic Agent

Despite the interest in (Zn, Fe, and Zr)-nanoscaled metal-organic frameworks (nanoMOFs) as intravenous drug nanocarriers, their most convenient oral administration has been almost unexplored. In this scenario, an uncharted Ti-nanoMOF is originally proposed here as an oral therapeutic agent, not as a drug delivery system but as an innovative and efficient oral detoxifying agent of the challenge and timeliness salicylate intoxication (e.g., aspirin). Thus, this orally robust and biosafe Ti-nanoMOF is the only porous nanomaterial, among the six tested MOFs, able to adsorb and retain aspirin under the whole gastrointestinal tract, overpassing the capabilities of the current treatment (i.e., activated charcoal). Further, the biodistribution and bioremoval of Ti-nanoMOF have been assessed, proving a bioprotective character with an intact and almost complete removal by feces.

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.

Which is the best in carbamazepine overdose?

Intravenous lipid emulsion treatment is safer, faster, and easier to apply and could be a powerful alternative to extracorporeal treatment methods in carbamazepine intoxication.

Activated charcoal for acute overdose: a reappraisal

Sometimes mistakenly characterized as a 'universal antidote,' activated charcoal (AC) is the most frequently employed method of gastrointestinal decontamination in the developed world. Typically administered as a single dose (SDAC), its tremendous surface area permits the binding of many drugs and toxins in the gastrointestinal lumen, reducing their systemic absorption. Like other decontamination procedures, the utility of SDAC attenuates with time, and, although generally safe, it is not free of risk. A large body of evidence demonstrates that SDAC can reduce the absorption of drugs and xenobiotics but most such studies involve volunteers and have little generalizability to clinical practice. Few rigorous clinical trials of SDAC have been conducted, and none validate or refute its utility in those patients who are intuitively most likely to benefit. Over the past decade, a growing body of observational data have demonstrated that SDAC can elicit substantial reductions in drug absorption in acutely poisoned patients. The challenge for clinicians rests in differentiating those patients most likely to benefit from SDAC from those in whom meaningful improvement is doubtful. This is often a difficult determination not well suited to an algorithmic approach. The present narrative review summarizes the data supporting the benefits and harms of SDAC, and offers pragmatic suggestions for clinical practice.

Extracorporeal treatment for carbamazepine poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Context. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning. Objectives. To perform a systematic review and provide clinical recommendations for ECTR in carbamazepine poisoning. Methods. After a systematic literature search, the subgroup extracted the data and summarized the findings following a pre-determined format. The entire workgroup voted via a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations. Results. Seventy-four articles met inclusion criteria. Articles included case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in-vitro studies; two poor-quality observational studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 173 patients, including 6 fatalities, were reviewed. The workgroup concluded that carbamazepine is moderately dialyzable and made the following recommendations: ECTR is suggested in severe carbamazepine poisoning (2D). ECTR is recommended if multiple seizures occur and are refractory to treatment (1D), or if life-threatening dysrhythmias occur (1D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation are present (2D) or if significant toxicity persists, particularly when carbamazepine concentrations rise or remain elevated, despite using multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC) and supportive measures (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum carbamazepine concentration is below 10 mg/L (42 the μ in μmol/L looks weird.) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR (1D), but both intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are alternatives if hemodialysis is not available. MDAC therapy should be continued during ECTR (1D). Conclusion. Despite the low quality of the available clinical evidence and the high protein binding capacity of carbamazepine, the workgroup suggested extracorporeal removal in cases of severe carbamazepine poisoning.

A stepwise approach for the management of poisoning with extracorporeal treatments

The use of an extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in a poisoned patient may be life-saving in a limited number of scenarios. The decision-processes surrounding the use of ECTR in poisoning is complex: most nephrologists are not trained to assess a poisoned patient while clinical toxicologists rarely prescribe ECTRs. Deciding on which ECTR is most appropriate for a poison requires a good understanding of the poison's physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties. Further, a detailed understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the different ECTRs can be useful to select the most appropriate ECTR for a given clinical situation. This manuscript provides a stepwise approach to assess the usefulness of ECTRs in poisoning.

Enhanced poison elimination in critical care

Nephrologists and critical care physicians are commonly involved in the treatment of severely poisoned patients. Various techniques exist presently to enhance the elimination of poisons. Corporeal treatments occur inside of the body and include multiple-dose activated charcoal, resin binding, forced diuresis, and urinary pH alteration. Extracorporeal treatments include hemodialysis, hemoperfusion, peritoneal dialysis, continuous renal replacement therapy, exchange transfusion, and plasmapheresis. This review illustrates the potential indications and limitations in the application of these modalities as well as the pharmacological characteristics of poisons amenable to enhanced elimination.

Introduction to pharmacokinetics in clinical toxicology

In clinical toxicology, a better understanding of the pharmacokinetics of the drugs may be useful in both risk assessment and formulating treatment guidelines for patients. Pharmacokinetics describes the time course of drug concentrations and is a driver for the time course of drug effects. In this chapter pharmacokinetics is described from a mathematical modeling perspective as applied to clinical toxicology. The pharmacokinetics of drugs are described using a combination of input and disposition (distribution and elimination) phases. A description of the time course of the input and disposition of drugs in overdose provides a basis for understanding the time course of effects of drugs in overdose. Relevant clinical toxicology examples are provided to explain various pharmacokinetic principles. Throughout this chapter we have taken a pragmatic approach to understanding and interpreting the time course of drug effects.

Toxic agents causing cerebellar ataxias

The cerebellum is particularly vulnerable to intoxication and poisoning, especially so the cerebellar cortex and Purkinje neurons. In humans, the most common cause of a toxic lesion to the cerebellar circuitry is alcohol related, but the cerebellum is also a main target of drug exposure (such as anticonvulsants, antineoplastics, lithium salts, calcineurin inhibitors), drug abuse and addiction (such as cocaine, heroin, phencyclidine), and environmental toxins (such as mercury, lead, manganese, toluene/benzene derivatives). Although data for the prevalence and incidence of cerebellar lesions related to intoxication and poisoning are still unknown in many cases, clinicians should keep in mind the list of agents that may cause cerebellar deficits, since toxin-induced cerebellar ataxias are not rare in daily practice. Moreover, the patient's status may require immediate therapies when the intoxication is life-threatening.

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.

Have advances in extracorporeal removal techniques changed the indications for their use in poisonings?

During the past 25 years, numerous changes have taken place in the use of hemodialysis as a therapeutic modality. Advances in technologies and a progression in our collective understanding of the pharmacokinetics of certain xenobiotics have resulted in alterations in the indications, effectiveness, and safety of hemodialysis. However, these changes have not necessarily been reflected in the current published data regarding treatment of intoxications. Reported clearance rates often reflect what was achievable in the 1970s and 1980s, and more recent reports are frequently lacking. Our goal in this review is to summarize the changes in hemodialysis and in other extracorporeal removal technologies and highlight the effects of these changes on the current indications for hemodialysis of the poisoned patient. Changes in dialysis performance that are reviewed in this article include the use of high-efficiency and high-flux dialysis membranes, improved hemodynamic stability because of ultrafiltration control, and the use of bicarbonate as a source of base. We review the indications for hemodialysis for removal of specific toxins, including vancomycin, methotrexate, carbamazepine, and valproic acid.

Dizzy and confused: a step-by-step evaluation of the clinician's favorite chief complaint

This article covers the general approach to patients who present to the emergency department with a complaint of dizziness or vertigo, and altered mentation. Patients' histories and physical examination findings are discussed first, then a pertinent differential diagnosis, ranging from neurological causes and poor perfusion states to toxicologic causes, is described along with the distinguishing features and potential diagnostic pitfalls of each problem. Case scenarios are presented and the treatment and disposition of patients from the emergency department are discussed.

Extracorporeal Removal Techniques for the Poisoned Patient: A Review for the Intensivist

The kidney is able to rapidly eliminate many water-soluble xenobiotics (exogenous chemicals). However, in the face of extraordinary serum concentrations of these xenobiotics or renal dysfunction, alternative elimination techniques often become necessary. Extracorporeal removal (ECR) techniques are used to increase the clearance of xenobiotics. These techniques include hemodialysis (HD), charcoal hemoperfusion (HP), and modalities grouped under the heading of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT): continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). Extracorporeal removal is limited to patients with significant or potentially significant clinical poisoning because the resources required to perform ECR are great. Therefore, most patients who are treated with these techniques are being cared for in intensive care units (ICUs). Our goal in this review is to discuss the properties that make xenobiotics amenable to removal by ECR and the advantages and disadvantages of the individual techniques. We discuss xenobiotics that constitute clear indications for ECR, including the toxic alcohols, salicylates, and lithium. We review the use of CRRT, a modality for which clear indications for treatment of poisonings are currently lacking.

Limited efficacy of gastrointestinal decontamination in severe slow-release carbamazepine overdose

OBJECTIVE

To report the limited efficacy of both multiple doses of activated charcoal (MDAC) and whole bowel irrigation (WBI) in a patient with severe overdose of slow-release carbamazepine.

CASE SUMMARY

A 25-year-old man was admitted in a comatose state with seizures after a suicide attempt with slow-release carbamazepine. Serum carbamazepine concentration on admission (16 h postingestion) was 52.08 microg/mL. The patient was mechanically ventilated and treated with MDAC and a 4 hour charcoal hemoperfusion. Carbamazepine concentration at the end of hemoperfusion was 27.16 microg/mL. Despite continuous treatment with MDAC, a rebound in carbamazepine concentration to 36 microg/mL was observed 32 hours after hemoperfusion (58 h postingestion). WBI was performed over a 10 hour period. The carbamazepine concentration continued to increase to 38.55 microg/mL and seizures recurred. After WBI was performed, MDAC was reinstituted; 33 hours later (102 h postingestion), the carbamazepine concentration began to decline. The hospitalization course was complicated by pneumonia, which necessitated continuation of mechanical ventilation and administration of antibiotics. The patient recovered completely and was discharged without sequelae 15 days after admission.

DISCUSSION

Serum carbamazepine concentration and toxicity were effectively reduced by hemoperfusion. The role of MDAC coadministered during hemoperfusion cannot be ruled out. However, a rebound in carbamazepine concentration with recurrent seizures was observed despite MDAC and WBI. The most likely explanation for this rebound (65 h postingestion, 39 h posthemoperfusion) is prolonged absorption, possibly from a pharmacobezoar. Redistribution cannot be excluded, but this is not supported by the concentration-time course and previous reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Both MDAC and WBI may be ineffective in reducing absorption and enhancing elimination in overdose of slow-release carbamazepine. Repeated hemoperfusion or other elimination enhancement techniques should be considered when the clinical and toxicokinetic course suggests the presence of a refractory pharmacobezoar.