Esophageal laceration and charcoal mediastinum complicating gastric lavage

Success rates and procedure times of oesophageal temperature probe insertion for therapeutic hypothermia treatment of cardiac arrest according to insertion methods in the emergency department

PURPOSE

Therapeutic hypothermia has become the standard treatment for unconscious patients in cardiac arrest. Although various body parts, including the oesophagus, rectum, bladder and tympanum, can be used for measurement of the core temperature, the oesophageal temperature is preferred because of its accuracy and stability. We first investigated the success rate and procedure time of oesophageal temperature probe (ETP) insertion according to the insertion method.

METHODS

The conventional method involved blind insertion through nasal orifices. The alternative method was insertion with Magill's forceps or long forceps under visualisation using a direct laryngoscope. The new method was performed as follows: (1) insertion of another endotracheal tube (ETT) orally into the oesophagus; (2) insertion of a temperature probe into the hole of the ETT; (3) removal of the ETT. To compare the success rates and procedure times according to the insertion method, we collected data retrospectively from the prospective Samsung Medical Centre hypothermia database and medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 91 cases were examined. Insertion was performed using the conventional method in 36 cases, the alternative method in 26, and the new method in 29. Rates of success on the first attempt were 63.9%, 65.4% and 100%, and procedure times were 33.2 ± 13.6, 33.3 ± 17.8 and 27.0 ± 7.9 min, for the conventional, alternative and new methods, respectively. The initial success rates and procedure times were significantly different among the three groups (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The new ETP insertion method had a better first attempt success rate than the conventional method and the alternative method.

Drugs and pharmaceuticals: management of intoxication and antidotes

The treatment of patients poisoned with drugs and pharmaceuticals can be quite challenging. Diverse exposure circumstances, varied clinical presentations, unique patient-specific factors, and inconsistent diagnostic and therapeutic infrastructure support, coupled with relatively few definitive antidotes, may complicate evaluation and management. The historical approach to poisoned patients (patient arousal, toxin elimination, and toxin identification) has given way to rigorous attention to the fundamental aspects of basic life support--airway management, oxygenation and ventilation, circulatory competence, thermoregulation, and substrate availability. Selected patients may benefit from methods to alter toxin pharmacokinetics to minimize systemic, target organ, or tissue compartment exposure (either by decreasing absorption or increasing elimination). These may include syrup of ipecac, orogastric lavage, activated single- or multi-dose charcoal, whole bowel irrigation, endoscopy and surgery, urinary alkalinization, saline diuresis, or extracorporeal methods (hemodialysis, charcoal hemoperfusion, continuous venovenous hemofiltration, and exchange transfusion). Pharmaceutical adjuncts and antidotes may be useful in toxicant-induced hyperthermias. In the context of analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anticholinergic, anticonvulsant, antihyperglycemic, antimicrobial, antineoplastic, cardiovascular, opioid, or sedative-hypnotic agents overdose, N-acetylcysteine, physostigmine, L-carnitine, dextrose, octreotide, pyridoxine, dexrazoxane, leucovorin, glucarpidase, atropine, calcium, digoxin-specific antibody fragments, glucagon, high-dose insulin euglycemia therapy, lipid emulsion, magnesium, sodium bicarbonate, naloxone, and flumazenil are specifically reviewed. In summary, patients generally benefit from aggressive support of vital functions, careful history and physical examination, specific laboratory analyses, a thoughtful consideration of the risks and benefits of decontamination and enhanced elimination, and the use of specific antidotes where warranted. Data supporting antidotes effectiveness vary considerably. Clinicians are encouraged to utilize consultation with regional poison centers or those with toxicology training to assist with diagnosis, management, and administration of antidotes, particularly in unfamiliar cases.

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.

Activated charcoal for pediatric poisonings: the universal antidote?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For decades, activated charcoal has been used as a 'universal antidote' for the majority of poisons because of its ability to prevent the absorption of most toxic agents from the gastrointestinal tract and enhance the elimination of some agents already absorbed. This manuscript will review the history of activated charcoal, its indications, contraindications, and the complications associated with its use as reported in the literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent randomized prospective studies, although with small numbers, have shown no difference in length of hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality between groups who received and did not receive activated charcoal. No study has had sufficient numbers to satisfactorily address clinical outcome in patients who received activated charcoal less than 1 h following ingestion.

SUMMARY

If used appropriately, activated charcoal has relatively low morbidity. Due to the lack of definitive studies showing a benefit in clinical outcome, it should not be used routinely in ingestions. AC could be considered for patients with an intact airway who present soon after ingestion of a toxic or life-threatening dose of an adsorbable toxin. The appropriate use of activated charcoal should be determined by the analysis of the relative risks and benefits of its use in each specific clinical scenario.

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.