Blood purification in toxicology: nephrology's ugly duckling

Barriers to the performance of timely hemodialysis when recommended by one United States poison center: a retrospective review

INTRODUCTION

Hemodialysis has an essential role in the treatment of certain poisoned patients, both by enhancing the elimination of select poisons and correcting underlying fluid, electrolyte, and acid-base disturbances. We sought to identify barriers to the performance of hemodialysis when it was recommended by our poison center.

METHODS

Data from a single United States poison center were retrospectively queried for adult patients for whom the poison center recommended intermittent hemodialysis for poison removal. The primary outcome was the performance of intermittent hemodialysis within 12 h of the poison center recommendation, which we defined as timely hemodialysis. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the effect of the following variables on this outcome: age group, patient sex, time of day of the recommendation, day of week of the recommendation, year of the recommendation, hospital location, and poison category.

RESULTS

A total of 535 patient encounters were analyzed. The majority (73.5%) of patients had intermittent hemodialysis performed within 12 h of when it was recommended. The multivariable analyses showed that the odds of receiving recommended intermittent hemodialysis within 12 h were significantly lower when the recommendation was made during the nighttime (OR: 0.660; 95% CI: 0.442-0.987) compared to daytime and during the weekend (OR: 0.605; 95% CI: 0.398-0.918) compared to weekdays.

DISCUSSION

Intermittent hemodialysis is resource-intensive and requires specialized equipment and personnel, which is likely less available outside of regular business hours. This study is limited by its retrospective nature and may not be generalizable to other poison centers.

CONCLUSION

Patients for whom our poison center recommended intermittent hemodialysis during non-weekday times had lower odds of receiving timely hemodialysis. Hospital administrators and healthcare providers should be aware of this potential treatment obstacle for poisoned patients and identify the specific barriers involved in order to facilitate timely hemodialysis.

Toxidromes and a general approach to poisoning

A toxicologic syndrome, or toxidrome, is a distinct pattern of effects of poisoning. Well-defined toxidromes are the opioid, anticholinergic, cholinergic and sympathomimetic, and an additional described toxidrome is GABAergic. These toxidromes are named for the receptor effects causing their specific clinical findings, and knowledge of toxidromes allows rapid pattern recognition of specific poisonings. In this review, toxidromes and the initial assessment and general approach to management of acute poisoning are discussed. This article details the receptor-level effects of the poisoning, key clinical signs and symptoms and the role antidotes play in treatment. Clinical resources such as Toxbase and others exist to provide detailed guidance on clinical management of poisoning.

High risk and low prevalence diseases: Metformin toxicities

INTRODUCTION

Metformin toxicity is a rare but serious condition that carries with it a high rate of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

This review highlights the pearls and pitfalls of metformin toxicity, including diagnosis, initial resuscitation, and management in the emergency department (ED) based on current evidence.

DISCUSSION

Metformin is a common medication used for treatment of diabetes mellitus. Metformin toxicity is a spectrum of conditions that may be differentiated into three subgroups: metformin-associated lactic acidosis (MALA), metformin-induced lactic acidosis (MILA), and metformin-unrelated lactic acidosis (MULA). MILA is a condition found predominantly in patients chronically taking metformin or those with large acute overdoses. Conversely, MULA occurs in patients on metformin but with a critical illness stemming from a separate cause. MALA is rare but the most severe form, with mortality rates that reach 50%. Differentiating these entities is difficult in the ED setting without obtaining metformin levels. Patients with metformin toxicity present with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and vital sign abnormalities. Laboratory analysis will reveal a high lactate with anion gap metabolic acidosis. Patients presenting with elevated lactate levels in the setting of metformin use should be considered at risk for the most severe form, MALA. Patients with MALA require aggressive treatment with intravenous fluids, treatment of any concomitant condition, and early consideration of hemodialysis, along with specialist consultation such as nephrology and toxicology.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of metformin toxicity can assist emergency clinicians in diagnosing and managing this potentially deadly disease.

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

Ethylene glycol (EG) is metabolized into glycolate and oxalate and may cause metabolic acidemia, neurotoxicity, acute kidney injury (AKI), and death. Historically, treatment of EG toxicity included supportive care, correction of acid-base disturbances and antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole), and extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis. With the wider availability of fomepizole, the indications for ECTRs in EG poisoning are debated. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXTRIP methods to determine the utility of ECTRs in the management of EG toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, either strong ("we recommend") or weak/conditional ("we suggest"), were graded according to the GRADE approach. A total of 226 articles met inclusion criteria. EG was assessed as dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis (level of evidence = B) as was glycolate (Level of evidence = C). Clinical data were available for analysis on 446 patients, in whom overall mortality was 18.7%. In the subgroup of patients with a glycolate concentration ≤ 12 mmol/L (or anion gap ≤ 28 mmol/L), mortality was 3.6%; in this subgroup, outcomes in patients receiving ECTR were not better than in those who did not receive ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup made the following recommendations for the use of ECTR in addition to supportive care over supportive care alone in the management of EG poisoning (very low quality of evidence for all recommendations): i) Suggest ECTR if fomepizole is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or ii) Recommend ECTR if ethanol is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or iii) Recommend ECTR if glycolate concentration is > 12 mmol/L or anion gap > 27 mmol/L; or iv) Suggest ECTR if glycolate concentration 8-12 mmol/L or anion gap 23-27 mmol/L; or v) Recommend ECTR if there are severe clinical features (coma, seizures, or AKI). In most settings, the workgroup recommends using intermittent hemodialysis over other ECTRs. If intermittent hemodialysis is not available, CKRT is recommended over other types of ECTR. Cessation of ECTR is recommended once the anion gap is < 18 mmol/L or suggested if EG concentration is < 4 mmol/L. The dosage of antidotes (fomepizole or ethanol) needs to be adjusted during ECTR.

Outcomes of 434 dogs with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicosis treated with fluid therapy, lipid emulsion, or therapeutic plasma exchange

BACKGROUND

Traditional management of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) intoxication includes gastrointestinal decontamination, intravenous administration of fluids (IVF), and gastroprotection. Intravenous administration of lipid emulsion (ILE) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) are popular novel therapeutic strategies.

HYPOTHESIS

Compare outcomes of dogs treated with IVF, ILE, and TPE for NSAID intoxications and evaluate outcome predictors for drug subgroups.

ANIMALS

Four hundred thirty-four dogs with NSAID intoxications (2015-2020).

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective study of ibuprofen, carprofen, and naproxen intoxication. An ordinal outcome was defined as mild gastrointestinal, moderate kidney, or signs of severe central nervous system disease.

RESULTS

Signs of neurological disease were overrepresented and acute kidney injury underrepresented in the TPE group among dogs exposed to kidney- or CNS-toxic doses (P = .05), though all TPE dogs with signs of neurological disease had evidence of neurotoxicity at presentation. Dogs treated with IVF had a higher maximal creatinine concentration (median, 1.1 mg/dL; range, 0.4-8.44 mg/dL) compared with IVF + ILE (median, 0.9 mg/dL; range, 0.4-6.2 mg/dL; P = .01). Increased maximum time to presentation (P < .001), higher baseline creatinine (P < .001) and PCV (P = .007), and absence of induced emesis (P < .001) were associated with greater clinical severity. Ibuprofen toxicosis was associated with more severe clinical signs compared with carprofen (P = .03). Overall survival rate was 99%.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

NSAID toxicosis generally carries an excellent prognosis in dogs. Despite similar outcomes of lower incidence of AKI in the TPE group, and slightly lower maximal creatinine concentration in dogs treated with ILE vs IVF alone, ILE and TPE should be considered in the management of severe NSAID toxicosis.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Methotrexate Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

Methotrexate is used in the treatment of many malignancies, rheumatological diseases, and inflammatory bowel disease. Toxicity from use is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. Rescue treatments include intravenous hydration, folinic acid, and, in some centers, glucarpidase. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) methods to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments in the management of methotrexate toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations (either "strong" or "weak/conditional") were graded according to the GRADE approach. A formal voting process using a modified Delphi method assessed the level of agreement between panelists on the final recommendations. A total of 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic data were available on 90 patients (89 with impaired kidney function). Methotrexate was considered to be moderately dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis. Data were available for clinical analysis on 109 patients (high-dose methotrexate [>0.5 g/m2]: 91 patients; low-dose [≤0.5 g/m2]: 18). Overall mortality in these publications was 19.5% and 26.7% in those with high-dose and low-dose methotrexate-related toxicity, respectively. Although one observational study reported lower mortality in patients treated with glucarpidase compared with those treated with hemodialysis, there were important limitations in the study. For patients with severe methotrexate toxicity receiving standard care, the EXTRIP workgroup: (1) suggested against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is not administered; (2) recommended against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is administered; and (3) recommended against extracorporeal treatments instead of administering glucarpidase. The quality of evidence for these recommendations was very low. Rationales for these recommendations included: (1) extracorporeal treatments mainly remove drugs in the intravascular compartment, whereas methotrexate rapidly distributes into cells; (2) extracorporeal treatments remove folinic acid; (3) in rare cases where fast removal of methotrexate is required, glucarpidase will outperform any extracorporeal treatment; and (4) extracorporeal treatments do not appear to reduce the incidence and magnitude of methotrexate toxicity.

Dialysis and Extracorporeal Therapies for Enhanced Elimination of Toxic Ingestions and Poisoning

Poisoning and toxic ingestions cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Extracorporeal therapies such as dialysis, haemoperfusion and plasma exchange are selectively applied to patients with severe intoxications unresponsive to standard interventions and can be lifesaving. Extracorporeal therapies are a complex but fundamental aspect of the practice of nephrology. Without high-quality evidence to guide implementation, an understanding of toxicokinetics and the physiochemical principles of the enhanced elimination techniques is especially important. This review provides a comphrensive, user-friendly outline of the application of extracorporeal therapy in the poisoned patient.

Extracorporeal blood purification in acutely intoxicated veterinary patients: A multicenter retrospective study (2011-2018): 54 cases

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical outcome and complications associated with extracorporeal blood purification (EBP) using either hemodialysis (HD), hemodialysis and hemoperfusion (HD + HP), or therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) for the management of acute toxin ingestion in small animals.

DESIGN

Retrospective, multicenter study from January 2011 to July 2018.

SETTING

One university teaching hospital and one private specialty hospital.

ANIMALS

Fifty-one dogs and 3 cats with a history of acute toxin exposure that could lead to severe morbidity and mortality, managed with different EBP techniques.

MAIN RESULTS

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (38/54, 52%), baclofen (8/54, 15%), and ethylene glycol (7/54, 13%) were the most common toxicities treated with EBP. Membrane-based TPE was used most commonly (22/54, 40.7%), followed by HD (17/54, 31.5%) and then HD + HP (15/54, 27.8%). There was an 83.3% (45/54) overall survival, with 88.9% (8/9) of nonsurvivors having clinical signs prior to therapy. One third (18/54) of the patients never developed clinical signs of toxicity. Treatment complications occurred in 44.4% (24/54) of the animals, although only 18.5% (10/54) of these complications, such as mild hypotension, thrombocytopenia secondary to the HP cartridge, facial swelling after plasma transfusion for TPE, bleeding from catheter size secondary to heparinization, or clotting of the system, could be attributed to the EBP treatment. None of the nonsurvivors died because of EBP complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Early initiation of EBP therapy might be considered as an alternative route of decontamination in severe acute toxicities with high potential for significant morbidity and mortality. The survival rate in small animals undergoing EBP is high despite exposure to potential lethal doses of toxins, and survival appears to be more likely if clinical signs of toxicity are not present at the time of EBP. Continued research is warranted with randomized controlled clinical trials to further evaluate the clinical efficacy and benefit of EBP.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Gabapentin and Pregabalin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the EXTRIP Workgroup

Toxicity from gabapentin and pregabalin overdose is commonly encountered. Treatment is supportive, and the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. The EXTRIP workgroup conducted systematic reviews of the literature and summarized findings following published methods. Thirty-three articles (30 patient reports and 3 pharmacokinetic studies) met the inclusion criteria. High gabapentinoid extracorporeal clearance (>150mL/min) and short elimination half-life (<5 hours) were reported with hemodialysis. The workgroup assessed gabapentin and pregabalin as "dialyzable" for patients with decreased kidney function (quality of the evidence grade as A and B, respectively). Limited clinical data were available (24 patients with gabapentin toxicity and 7 with pregabalin toxicity received ECTR). Severe toxicity, mortality, and sequelae were rare in cases receiving ECTR and in historical controls receiving standard care alone. No clear clinical benefit from ECTR could be identified although major knowledge gaps were acknowledged, as well as costs and harms of ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care rather than standard care alone (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for gabapentinoid poisoning in patients with normal kidney function. If decreased kidney function and coma requiring mechanical ventilation are present, the workgroup suggests performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup on extracorporeal treatment for baclofen poisoning

Baclofen toxicity results from intentional self-poisoning ("acute baclofen poisoning") or accumulation of therapeutic dose in the setting of impaired kidney function. Standard care includes baclofen discontinuation, respiratory support and seizure treatment. Use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. To clarify this, a comprehensive review of the literature on the effect of ECTRs in baclofen toxicity was performed and recommendations following EXTRIP methods were formulated based on 43 studies. (1 comparative cohort, 1 aggregate results cohort, 1 pharmacokinetic modeling, and 40 patient reports or series). Toxicokinetic data were available for 20 patients. Baclofen's dialyzability is limited by a high endogenous clearance and a short half-life in patients with normal kidney function. The workgroup assessed baclofen as "Moderately dialyzable" by intermittent hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence C) and "Dialyzable" for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence C). Clinical data were available for 25 patients with acute baclofen poisoning and 46 patients with toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. No deaths or sequelae were reported. Mortality in historical controls was rare. No benefit of ECTR was identified in patients with acute baclofen poisoning. Indirect evidence suggests a benefit of ECTR in reducing the duration of toxic encephalopathy from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. These potential benefits were balanced against added costs and harms related to the insertion of a catheter, the procedure itself, and the potential of baclofen withdrawal. Thus, the EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care for acute baclofen poisoning and suggests performing ECTR in toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment, especially in the presence of coma requiring mechanical ventilation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Extracorporeal treatments for isoniazid poisoning: Systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Isoniazid toxicity from self-poisoning or dosing errors remains common in regions of the world where tuberculosis is prevalent. Although the treatment of isoniazid poisoning is centered on supportive care and pyridoxine administration, extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis, have been advocated to enhance elimination of isoniazid. No systematic reviews or evidence-based recommendations currently exist on the benefit of ECTRs for isoniazid poisoning. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup systematically collected and rated the available evidence on the effect of and indications for ECTRs in cases of isoniazid poisoning. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, screened studies, extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, and measurement characteristics, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods. Forty-three studies (two animal studies, 34 patient reports or patient series, and seven pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 60 patients, most treated with hemodialysis (n = 38). The workgroup assessed isoniazid as "Moderately Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence = C) and "Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence = A). Clinical data for ECTR in isoniazid poisoning were available for 40 patients. Mortality of the cohort was 12.5%. Historical controls who received modern standard care including appropriately dosed pyridoxine generally had excellent outcomes. No benefit could be extrapolated from ECTR, although there was evidence of added costs and harms related to the double lumen catheter insertion, the extracorporeal procedure itself, and the extracorporeal removal of pyridoxine. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) in patients with isoniazid poisoning. If standard dose pyridoxine cannot be administered, we suggest performing ECTR only in patients with seizures refractory to GABA_A receptor agonists (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Extracorporeal treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly used to treat conditions such as arterial hypertension and supraventricular dysrhythmias. Poisoning from these drugs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in the management of CCB poisoning.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

A total of 83 publications (6 in vitro and 1 animal experiments, 55 case reports or case series, 19 pharmacokinetic studies, 1 cohort study and 1 systematic review) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of ECTR. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 210 patients (including 32 for amlodipine, 20 for diltiazem, and 52 for verapamil). Regardless of the ECTR used, amlodipine, bepridil, diltiazem, felodipine, isradipine, mibefradil, nifedipine, nisoldipine, and verapamil were considered not dialyzable, with variable levels of evidence, while no dialyzability grading was possible for nicardipine and nitrendipine. Data were available for clinical analysis on 78 CCB poisoned patients (including 32 patients for amlodipine, 16 for diltiazem, and 23 for verapamil). Standard care (including high dose insulin euglycemic therapy) was not systematically administered. Clinical data did not suggest an improvement in outcomes with ECTR. Consequently, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either amlodipine, diltiazem or verapamil (strong recommendations, very low quality of the evidence (1D)). There were insufficient clinical data to draft recommendation for other CCBs, although the workgroup acknowledged the low dialyzability from, and lack of biological plausibility for, ECTR.

CONCLUSIONS

Both dialyzability and clinical data do not support a clinical benefit from ECTRs for CCB poisoning. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance the elimination of amlodipine, diltiazem, and verapamil in patients with severe poisoning.

The Crashing Toxicology Patient

This article examines, using an organ-systems based approach, rapid diagnosis, resuscitation, and critical care management of the crashing poisoned patient in the emergency department. The topics discussed in this article include seizures and status epilepticus, respiratory failure, cardiovascular collapse and mechanical circulatory support, antidotes and drug-specific therapies, acute liver failure, and extracorporeal toxin removal.

Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: Who, When, Why, and How

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is commonly used to provide renal support for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, particularly patients who are hemodynamically unstable. A variety of techniques that differ in their mode of solute clearance may be used, including continuous venovenous hemofiltration with predominantly convective solute clearance, continuous venovenous hemodialysis with predominantly diffusive solute clearance, and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration, which combines both dialysis and hemofiltration. The present article compares CRRT with other modalities of renal support and reviews indications for initiation of renal replacement therapy, as well as dosing and technical aspects in the management of CRRT.

Efficacy of initial haemopurification strategy for acute paraquat poisoning in adults: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (HeSAPP)

INTRODUCTION

Paraquat (PQ) is a widely used herbicide which is inexpensive and easily accessible for people in rural areas. A small amount of PQ ingestion could be lethal, yet currently, the optimal treatment is still controversial. Extracorporeal therapies (ECTR) have been practised in PQ poisoning management, though limited evidence could be obtained to suggest its superiority over conservative therapy. Haemodialysis (HD) and haemoperfusion (HP) are most commonly used, while some institutions also choose HP-HD concurrent therapy. The object of the present trial is to investigate whether haemopurification therapy can reduce mortality compared with conservative therapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a planned single-centre, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Acute PQ poisoned adults who have orally ingested PQ within 24 hours would be recruited. A total of 360 patients would be recruited and randomly assigned to four groups, that is, HP, HD, concurrent HP-HD and control, at a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Subjects would be also stratified by their urine dithionite test results. Primary outcome is 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include survival time, all-cause mortality at the 3rd, 7th and 60th day, rate of major complications, Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation score and Poisoning Severity Score, etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol and informed consent documents have been approved by the Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University in September 2017 (approval number: 2017-KY-10). The result of this trial would be submitted to peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03314909; Pre-results.

Activated Charcoal Haemoperfusion in the Treatment of Experimental Amitriptyline Poisoning in Pigs - The Effect on Amitriptyline Plasma Concentration and Haemodynamic Parameters

Coated activated charcoal haemoperfusion (CAC-HP) is a well-known treatment modality. Case reports have revealed conflicting results about the efficacy of CAC-HP in the treatment of amitriptyline (AT) poisoning, and no randomized clinical trials have been identified in the literature. This study aimed at quantifying the efficacy of modern CAC-HP as an adjunctive treatment of AT intoxication compared with standard care alone. Fourteen female Danish landrace pigs were randomized to either standard care or standard care plus 4 hr of CAC-HP. The pigs were anaesthetized, and vital parameters were continuously recorded. Amitriptyline infusion (7.5 mg/kg) was completed in 20 min. Thirty minutes after AT infusion, activated charcoal was instilled orally in both groups. In the intervention group, CAC-HP was initiated 60 min. after AT infusion. Blood and urine samples were collected as were vital parameters at specific time intervals. The protocol was approved by the Danish Experimental Animal Expectorate and complied with the NIH guide for care and use of laboratory animals. Data were managed according to the ARRIVE guidelines. No statistical significant differences between intervention and control groups were found when analysing for differences in AT levels in plasma at any time-point. Furthermore, significant differences between the control and intervention groups in regard to vital parameters could not be found either. In our animal model, the addition of CAC-HP did not improve the clearance of AT compared with standard treatment alone. We suggest that the effect of modern CAC-HP as a treatment modality in AT-poisoned human patients may be inadequate.

Extracorporeal Treatment in Phenytoin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning) Workgroup

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup conducted a systematic literature review using a standardized process to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in patients with phenytoin poisoning. The authors reviewed all articles, extracted data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A 2-round modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. 51 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only case reports, case series, and pharmacokinetic studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence. Clinical data from 31 patients and toxicokinetic grading from 46 patients were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that phenytoin is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = C) despite its high protein binding and made the following recommendations. ECTR would be reasonable in select cases of severe phenytoin poisoning (neutral recommendation, 3D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma is present or expected (graded 2D) and it would be reasonable if prolonged incapacitating ataxia is present or expected (graded 3D). If ECTR is used, it should be discontinued when clinical improvement is apparent (graded 1D). The preferred ECTR modality in phenytoin poisoning is intermittent hemodialysis (graded 1D), but hemoperfusion is an acceptable alternative if hemodialysis is not available (graded 1D). In summary, phenytoin appears to be amenable to extracorporeal removal. However, because of the low incidence of irreversible tissue injury or death related to phenytoin poisoning and the relatively limited effect of ECTR on phenytoin removal, the workgroup proposed the use of ECTR only in very select patients with severe phenytoin poisoning.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Metformin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup

BACKGROUND

Metformin toxicity, a challenging clinical entity, is associated with a mortality of 30%. The role of extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis is poorly defined at present. Here, the Extracorporeal Treatments In Poisoning workgroup, comprising international experts representing diverse professions, presents its systematic review and clinical recommendations for extracorporeal treatment in metformin poisoning.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, data extracted, findings summarized, and structured voting statements developed. A two-round modified Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on voting statements and RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymized votes and opinions were compiled and discussed. A second vote determined the final recommendations.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-five articles were identified, including 63 deaths: one observational study, 160 case reports or series, 11 studies of descriptive cohorts, and three pharmacokinetic studies in end-stage renal disease, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. The workgroup concluded that metformin is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence C) and made the following recommendations: extracorporeal treatment is recommended in severe metformin poisoning (1D). Indications for extracorporeal treatment include lactate concentration greater than 20 mmol/L (1D), pH less than or equal to 7.0 (1D), shock (1D), failure of standard supportive measures (1D), and decreased level of consciousness (2D). Extracorporeal treatment should be continued until the lactate concentration is less than 3 mmol/L (1D) and pH greater than 7.35 (1D), at which time close monitoring is warranted to determine the need for additional courses of extracorporeal treatment. Intermittent hemodialysis is preferred initially (1D), but continuous renal replacement therapies may be considered if hemodialysis is unavailable (2D). Repeat extracorporeal treatment sessions may use hemodialysis (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapy (1D).

CONCLUSION

Metformin poisoning with lactic acidosis appears to be amenable to extracorporeal treatments. Despite clinical evidence comprised mostly of case reports and suboptimal toxicokinetic data, the workgroup recommended extracorporeal removal in the case of severe metformin poisoning.

Developments in extracorporeal therapy for the poisoned patient

The modern use of extracorporeal therapies to treat poisoning and drug overdoses dates back to the early 20th century and has evolved along with their use as treatment for acute kidney injury or as maintenance therapy in advanced kidney disease. As our understanding of drug pharmacokinetics and membrane materials has increased, the technologies of extracorporeal therapy and their applications have become more sophisticated. Despite that, there is little robust evidence to guide clinicians on the optimal use of extracorporeal therapy in treating poisoning beyond case reports and series. New efforts are underway to remedy that: the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup (EXTRIP) is an international effort on the part of nephrologists, pharmacists and toxicologists to review the available data and formulate evidence-based guidelines on how to use extracorporeal techniques to treat poisoning and improve patient outcomes. Meanwhile, new techniques and membranes are under development. This review will summarize those key scientific and technologic developments, the efforts to optimize their use and new directions in research.

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

BACKGROUND

The EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup presents its systematic review and clinical recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in valproic acid (VPA) poisoning.

METHODS

The lead authors reviewed all of the articles from a systematic literature search, extracted the data, summarized the key findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations.

RESULTS

The latest literature search conducted in November 2014 retrieved a total of 79 articles for final qualitative analysis, including one observational study, one uncontrolled cohort study with aggregate analysis, 70 case reports and case series, and 7 pharmacokinetic studies, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data were reported for 82 overdose patients while pharmaco/toxicokinetic grading was performed in 55 patients. The workgroup concluded that VPA is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = B) and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe VPA poisoning (1D); recommendations for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 1300 mg/L (9000 μmol/L)(1D), the presence of cerebral edema (1D) or shock (1D); suggestions for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 900 mg/L (6250 μmol/L)(2D), coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation (2D), acute hyperammonemia (2D), or pH ≤ 7.10 (2D). Cessation of ECTR is indicated when clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum VPA concentration is between 50 and 100 mg/L (350-700 μmol/L)(2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR in VPA poisoning (1D). If hemodialysis is not available, then intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapy (2D) is an acceptable alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

VPA is moderately dialyzable in the setting of overdose. ECTR is indicated for VPA poisoning if at least one of the above criteria is present. Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR modality in VPA poisoning.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Salicylate Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the EXTRIP Workgroup

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Salicylate poisoning is a challenging clinical entity associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The indications for extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis are poorly defined. We present a systematic review of the literature along with evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment in salicylate poisoning.

METHODS

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup is a multidisciplinary group with international representation whose aim is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. We conducted a systematic literature review followed by data extraction and summarized findings, following a predetermined format. The entire work group voted by a 2-round modified Delphi method to reach 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

Eighty-four articles met inclusion criteria, including 1 controlled clinical trial, 3 animal studies, and 80 case reports or case series, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 143 patients (130 sets of which could be analyzed for patient-level entry data), including 14 fatalities, were reviewed. Toxicokinetic data on 87 patients were also included. After the second round of voting, the workgroup concluded that salicylates are dialyzable by hemodialysis and hemoperfusion (level of evidence=B) and recommended extracorporeal treatment in patients with severe salicylate poisoning (1D), including any patient with altered mental status (1D), with acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring supplemental oxygen (1D), and for those in whom standard therapy is deemed to be failing (1D) regardless of the salicylate concentration. High salicylate concentrations warrant extracorporeal treatment regardless of signs and symptoms (>7.2 mmol/L [100 mg/dL] [1D]; and >6.5 mmol/L [90 mg/dL] [2D]), with lower thresholds applied for patients with impaired kidney function (>6.5 mmol/L [90 mg/dL] [1D]; >5.8 mmol/L [80 mg/dL] [2D]). Extracorporeal treatment is also suggested for patients with severe acidemia (pH ≤7.20 in the absence of other indications) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred modality (1D), although hemoperfusion (1D) and continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are acceptable alternatives if hemodialysis is unavailable, as is exchange transfusion in neonates (1D).

CONCLUSION

Salicylates are readily removed by extracorporeal treatment, with intermittent hemodialysis being the preferred modality. The signs and symptoms of salicylate toxicity listed warrant extracorporeal treatment, as do high concentrations regardless of clinical status.

Recommendations for the role of extracorporeal treatments in the management of acute methanol poisoning: a systematic review and consensus statement

OBJECTIVE

Methanol poisoning can induce death and disability. Treatment includes the administration of antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole and folic/folinic acid) and consideration of extracorporeal treatment for correction of acidemia and/or enhanced elimination. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning workgroup aimed to develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for extracorporeal treatment in methanol poisoning.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Utilizing predetermined methods, we conducted a systematic review of the literature. Two hundred seventy-two relevant publications were identified but publication and selection biases were noted. Data on clinical outcomes and dialyzability were collated and a two-round modified Delphi process was used to reach a consensus.

RESULTS

Recommended indications for extracorporeal treatment: Severe methanol poisoning including any of the following being attributed to methanol: coma, seizures, new vision deficits, metabolic acidosis with blood pH ≤ 7.15, persistent metabolic acidosis despite adequate supportive measures and antidotes, serum anion gap higher than 24 mmol/L; or, serum methanol concentration 1) greater than 700 mg/L (21.8 mmol/L) in the context of fomepizole therapy, 2) greater than 600 mg/L or 18.7 mmol/L in the context of ethanol treatment, 3) greater than 500 mg/L or 15.6 mmol/L in the absence of an alcohol dehydrogenase blocker; in the absence of a methanol concentration, the osmolal/osmolar gap may be informative; or, in the context of impaired kidney function. Intermittent hemodialysis is the modality of choice and continuous modalities are acceptable alternatives. Extracorporeal treatment can be terminated when the methanol concentration is <200 mg/L or 6.2 mmol/L and a clinical improvement is observed. Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning inhibitors and folic/folinic acid should be continued during extracorporeal treatment. General considerations: Antidotes and extracorporeal treatment should be initiated urgently in the context of severe poisoning. The duration of extracorporeal treatment extracorporeal treatment depends on the type of extracorporeal treatment used and the methanol exposure. Indications for extracorporeal treatment are based on risk factors for poor outcomes. The relative importance of individual indications for the triaging of patients for extracorporeal treatment, in the context of an epidemic when need exceeds resources, is unknown. In the absence of severe poisoning but if the methanol concentration is elevated and there is adequate alcohol dehydrogenase blockade, extracorporeal treatment is not immediately required. Systemic anticoagulation should be avoided during extracorporeal treatment because it may increase the development or severity of intracerebral hemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

Extracorporeal treatment has a valuable role in the treatment of patients with methanol poisoning. A range of clinical indications for extracorporeal treatment is provided and duration of therapy can be guided through the careful monitoring of biomarkers of exposure and toxicity. In the absence of severe poisoning, the decision to use extracorporeal treatment is determined by balancing the cost and complications of extracorporeal treatment to that of fomepizole or ethanol. Given regional differences in cost and availability of fomepizole and extracorporeal treatment, these decisions must be made at a local level.

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

BACKGROUND

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning. Here, the workgroup presents its systematic review and recommendations for theophylline.

METHODS

After a systematic review of the literature, a subgroup reviewed articles, extracted data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a pre-determined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed. A second vote determined the final recommendations.

RESULTS

141 articles were included: 6 in vitro studies, 4 animal studies, 101 case reports/case series, 7 descriptive cohorts, 4 observational studies, and 19 pharmacokinetic studies, yielding a low-to-very-low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 143 patients were reviewed, including 10 deaths. The workgroup concluded that theophylline is dialyzable (level of evidence = A) and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe theophylline poisoning (1C). Specific recommendations for ECTR include a theophylline concentration [theophylline] > 100 mg/L (555 μmol/L) in acute exposure (1C), the presence of seizures (1D), life-threatening dysrhythmias (1D) or shock (1D), a rising [theophylline] despite optimal therapy (1D), and clinical deterioration despite optimal care (1D). In chronic poisoning, ECTR is suggested if [theophylline] > 60 mg/L (333 μmol/L) (2D) or if the [theophylline] > 50 mg/L (278 μmol/L) and the patient is either less than 6 months of age or older than 60 years of age (2D). ECTR is also suggested if gastrointestinal decontamination cannot be administered (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent or the [theophylline] is < 15 mg/L (83 μmol/L) (1D). Following the cessation of ECTR, patients should be closely monitored. Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred method of ECTR (1C). If intermittent hemodialysis is unavailable, hemoperfusion (1C) or continuous renal replacement therapies may be considered (3D). Exchange transfusion is an adequate alternative to hemodialysis in neonates (2D). Multi-dose activated charcoal should be continued during ECTR (1D).

CONCLUSION

Theophylline poisoning is amenable to ECTRs. The workgroup recommended extracorporeal removal in the case of severe theophylline poisoning.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Lithium Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. Here, the EXTRIP workgroup presents its recommendations for lithium poisoning. After a systematic literature search, clinical and toxicokinetic data were extracted and summarized following a predetermined format. The entire workgroup voted through a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement, and anonymous votes were compiled and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations. In total, 166 articles met inclusion criteria, which were mostly case reports, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. A total of 418 patients were reviewed, 228 of which allowed extraction of patient-level data. The workgroup concluded that lithium is dialyzable (Level of evidence=A) and made the following recommendations: Extracorporeal treatment is recommended in severe lithium poisoning (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is recommended if kidney function is impaired and the [Li(+)] is >4.0 mEq/L, or in the presence of a decreased level of consciousness, seizures, or life-threatening dysrhythmias irrespective of the [Li(+)] (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is suggested if the [Li(+)] is >5.0 mEq/L, significant confusion is present, or the expected time to reduce the [Li(+)] to <1.0 mEq/L is >36 hours (2D). Extracorporeal treatment should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent or [Li(+)] is <1.0 mEq/L (1D). Extracorporeal treatments should be continued for a minimum of 6 hours if the [Li(+)] is not readily measurable (1D). Hemodialysis is the preferred extracorporeal treatment (1D), but continuous RRT is an acceptable alternative (1D). The workgroup supported the use of extracorporeal treatment in severe lithium poisoning. Clinical decisions on when to use extracorporeal treatment should take into account the [Li(+)], kidney function, pattern of lithium toxicity, patient's clinical status, and availability of extracorporeal treatments.

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.

Comparison between kidney and continuous plasma perfusion for paraquat elimination

BACKGROUND

Thousands of paraquat (PQ)-poisoned patients continue to die. Plasma perfusion (PP) has recently been incorporated as a method of clinical detoxification. The purpose of this study was to estimate the PQ clearance of PP and observe the effect of PP on PQ concentration in the blood of patients with acute PQ poisoning.

METHODS

Twenty one PQ-poisoned patients admitted to our poisoning center within 24 hours after the ingestion were prospectively enrolled. Continuous plasma perfusion was performed. Urinary PQ and plasma PQ concentration level at inlet/outlet of the cartridge were obtained right before and 1.5 hours after the start of each perfusion session for the calculation of renal and plasma PQ excretion.

RESULTS

In all 8 rounds (108 sessions) of PP on the 21 patients, PQ clearance rate (mL/min) by PP was always found to be higher than the renal value: (1st 11.14 ± 6.13 versus 6.53 ± 1.46; 2nd 18.36 ± 11.32 versus 6.23 ± 1.51; 3rd 16.13 ± 10.05 versus 4.01 ± 0.93; 4th 12.86 [6.72, 17.47] versus 2.42 [0.65, 4.20]; 5th 14.12 [10.48, 35.20] versus 1.77 [0.63, 2.91]; 6th 16.47 [11.82; 20.69] versus 1.70 [0.23, 3.18]; 7th 13.33 [9.71, 18.75] versus 1.10 [0.14, 2.99]; 8th 11.27 [9.21, 16.02] versus 1.10 [0.09, 2.79], P < 0.05). The survivors showed a higher plasma PQ reduction rate (mg L hour) than the nonsurvivors (0.57 ± 0.03 versus 0.47 ± 0.06, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that PP therapies help in the clearance of PQ and may prove a promising therapeutic tool in patients with acute PQ intoxication.

Extracorporeal treatment for acetaminophen poisoning: recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning and the results are presented here for acetaminophen (APAP).

METHODS

After a systematic review of the literature, a subgroup selected and reviewed the articles and summarized clinical and toxicokinetic data in order to propose structured voting statements following a pre-determined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Following discussion, a second vote determined the final recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles (1 randomized controlled trial, 1 observational study, 2 pharmacokinetic studies, and 20 case reports or case series) were identified, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 135 patients and toxicokinetic data on 54 patients were analyzed. Twenty-three fatalities were reviewed. The workgroup agreed that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is the mainstay of treatment, and that ECTR is not warranted in most cases of APAP poisoning. However, given that APAP is dialyzable, the workgroup agreed that ECTR is suggested in patients with excessively large overdoses who display features of mitochondrial dysfunction. This is reflected by early development of altered mental status and severe metabolic acidosis prior to the onset of hepatic failure. Specific recommendations for ECTR include an APAP concentration over 1000 mg/L if NAC is not administered (1D), signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 700 mg/L (4630 mmol/L) if NAC is not administered (1D) and signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 900 mg/L (5960 mmol/L) if NAC is administered (1D). Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) is the preferred ECTR modality in APAP poisoning (1D).

CONCLUSION

APAP is amenable to extracorporeal removal. Due to the efficacy of NAC, ECTR is reserved for rare situations when the efficacy of NAC has not been definitively demonstrated.

Extracorporeal treatment for tricyclic antidepressant poisoning: recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

The Extracorporeal Treatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning. Here, the workgroup presents its results for tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). After an extensive literature search, using a predefined methodology, the subgroup responsible for this poison reviewed the articles, extracted the data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Blinded votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person at a meeting. A second vote determined the final recommendations. Seventy-seven articles met inclusion criteria. Only case reports, case series, and one poor-quality observational study were identified yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 108 patients, including 12 fatalities, were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that TCAs are not dialyzable and made the following recommendation: ECTR is not recommended in severe TCA poisoning (1D). The workgroup considers that poisoned patients with TCAs are not likely to have a clinical benefit from extracorporeal removal and recommends it NOT to be used in TCA 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.

Variability in the management of lithium poisoning

Three patterns of lithium poisoning are recognized: acute, acute-on-chronic, and chronic. Intravenous fluids with or without an extracorporeal treatment are the mainstay of treatment; their respective roles may differ depending on the mode of poisoning being treated. Recommendations for treatment selection are available but these are based on a small number of observational studies and their uptake by clinicians is not known. Clinician decision-making in the treatment of four cases of lithium poisoning was assessed at a recent clinical toxicology meeting using an audience response system. Variability in treatment decisions was evident in addition to discordance with published recommendations. Participants did not consistently indicate that hemodialysis was the first-line treatment, instead opting for a conservative approach, and continuous modalities were viewed favorably; this is in contrast to recommendations in some references. The development of multidisciplinary consensus guidelines may improve the management of patients with lithium poisoning but prospective randomized controlled trials are required to more clearly define the role of extracorporeal treatments.

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.

Evaluation of antibiotic prescribing patterns in patients receiving sustained low-efficiency dialysis: opportunities for pharmacists

OBJECTIVES

Sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED) is a 'hybrid' form of continuous renal replacement therapy; however, there is very limited information on drug disposition during this procedure. Individuals requiring SLED are often critically ill and require antibiotics. The study aim was to evaluate antibiotic orders for patients requiring SLED compared to literature-based recommendations. We also evaluated whether doses were administered as prescribed and assessed clinical and microbiologic cure.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed over a 2-year period for patients who received concurrent SLED and antibiotic therapy. Demographic data, prescribed antibiotic dosing regimens and doses delivered as prescribed were determined for 10 antibiotics: cefepime (C), daptomycin (Da), doripenem (D), gentamicin (G), imipenem-cilastatin (I), linezolid (L), meropenem (M), piperacillin-tazobactam (P), tobramycin (T) and vancomycin (V). Dosing regimens were compared to recommendations from the literature where available. The incidence of clinical and microbiologic cure was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients met inclusion criteria: mean age 54 ± 14 years, 60% male, 58% white. Prescribed doses were evidence-based for 37% of Da, 97% of L, 15% of M and 7% of V orders. The majority of discrepancies were due to under-dosing. There were 129 (11%) antibiotic doses missed. Of the 13 patients who met criteria for assessment of clinical and microbiologic cure, 10 achieved a microbiologic cure and none reached clinical cure.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribed antibiotic dosing regimens varied substantially and under-dosing was common. There is a need to further define appropriate dosing regimens for antibiotics administered during SLED and determine how pharmacists may help to ensure appropriate therapy.

The EXTRIP (EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning) workgroup: guideline methodology

Extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis and hemoperfusion, are used in poisoning despite a lack of controlled human trials demonstrating efficacy. To provide uniform recommendations, the EXTRIP group was formed as an international collaboration among recognized experts from nephrology, clinical toxicology, critical care, or pharmacology and supported by over 30 professional societies. For every poison, the clinical benefit of ECTR is weighed against associated complications, alternative therapies, and costs. Rigorous methodology, using the AGREE instrument, was developed and ratified. Methods rely on evidence appraisal and, in the absence of robust studies, on a thorough and transparent process of consensus statements. Twenty-four poisons were chosen according to their frequency, available evidence, and relevance. A systematic literature search was performed in order to retrieve all original publications regardless of language. Data were extracted on a standardized instrument. Quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE as: High = A, Moderate = B, Low = C, Very Low = D. For every poison, dialyzability was assessed and clinical effect of ECTR summarized. All pertinent documents were submitted to the workgroup with a list of statements for vote (general statement, indications, timing, ECTR choice). A modified Delphi method with two voting rounds was used, between which deliberation was required. Each statement was voted on a Likert scale (1-9) to establish the strength of recommendation. This approach will permit the production of the first important practice guidelines on this topic.