Severe poisoning with sotalol and verapamil. Recovery after 4 h of normothermic CPR followed by extra corporeal heart lung assist

Extracorporeal cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in poisoning: A scoping review article

Background

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) represents last-line salvage therapy for poisoning-induced cardiac arrest but no review has focused on this specific area.

Objective

This scoping review sought to evaluate the survival outcomes and characteristics of published cases of ECPR for toxicological arrest, with the aim of highlighting the potential and limitations of ECPR in toxicology.Eligibility Criteria.We searched PubMed and Cochrane for eligible papers from database inception to October 1, 2022 using the keywords "toxicology", "ECLS" and "CPR". References of included publications were searched to identify additional relevant articles. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence.

Results

85 articles were chosen: 15 case series, 58 individual cases and 12 other publications that were analyzed separately due to ambiguity. ECPR may improve survival outcomes in selected poisoned patients, although the extent of benefit is unclear. As ECPR for poisoning-induced arrest may have better prognosis compared to from other aetiologies, it is likely reasonable to apply ELSO ECPR consensus guideline recommendations to toxicological arrest.Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest alone may not be sufficient grounds to deny ECPR if effective resuscitation had been promptly instituted. Poisonings involving membrane-stabilizing agents and cardio-depressive drugs, and cardiac arrests with shockable rhythms appear to have better outcomes. ECPR may permit excellent neurologically-intact recovery despite prolonged low-flow time of up to four hours. Early ECLS activation and pre-emptive catheter placement can significantly shorten time-to-ECPR and possibly improve survival.

Conclusion

As effects of poisoning may be reversible, ECPR can potentially support poisoned patients through the critical peri-arrest state.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in poisoning: a narrative review with clinical recommendations

CONTEXT

Poisoning may lead to respiratory failure, shock, cardiac arrest, or death. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be used to provide circulatory support, termed venoarterial (VA) ECMO; or respiratory support termed venovenous (VV) ECMO. The clinical utility of ECMO in poisoned patients remains unclear and guidelines on its use in this setting are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a literature search and narrative review on the use of ECMO in poisonings. Additionally, to provide recommendations on the use of ECMO in poisonings from physicians with expertise in ECMO, medical toxicology, critical care, and emergency medicine.

METHODS

A literature search in Ovid MEDLINE from 1946 to October 14, 2020, was performed to identify relevant articles with a strategy utilizing both MeSH terms and adjacency searching that encompassed both extracorporeal life support/ECMO/Membrane Oxygenation concepts and chemically-induced disorders/toxicity/poisoning concepts, which identified 318 unique records. Twelve additional manuscripts were identified by the authors for a total of 330 articles for screening, of which 156 were included for this report.

NARRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW

The use of ECMO in poisoned patients is significantly increasing over time. Available retrospective data suggest that patients receiving VA ECMO for refractory shock or cardiac arrest due to poisoning have lower mortality as compared to those who receive VA ECMO for non-poisoning-related indications. Poisoned patients treated with ECMO have reduced mortality as compared to those treated without ECMO with similar severity of illness and after adjusted analyses, regardless of the type of ingestion. This is especially evident for poisoned patients with refractory cardiac arrest placed on VA ECMO (termed extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation [ECPR]).

INDICATIONS

We suggest VA ECMO be considered for poisoned patients with refractory cardiogenic shock (continued shock with myocardial dysfunction despite fluid resuscitation, vasoactive support, and indicated toxicologic therapies such as glucagon, intravenous lipid emulsion, hyperinsulinemia euglycemia therapy, or others), and strongly considered for patients with cardiac arrest in institutions which are structured to deliver effective ECPR. VV ECMO should be considered in poisoned patients with ARDS or severe respiratory failure according to traditional indications for ECMO in this setting.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Patients with pre-existing comorbidities with low expected survival or recovery. Relative contraindications vary based on each center's experience but often include: severe brain injury; advanced age; unrepaired aortic dissection or severe aortic regurgitation in VA ECMO; irreversible organ injury; contraindication to systemic anticoagulation, such as severe hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

ECMO may provide hemodynamic or respiratory support to poisoned patients while they recover from the toxic exposure and metabolize or eliminate the toxic agent. Available literature suggests a potential benefit for ECMO use in selected poisoned patients with refractory shock, cardiac arrest, or respiratory failure. Future studies may help to further our understanding of the use and complications of ECMO in poisoned patients.

Treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reported effects of treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and hemodynamic parameters. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital, length of stay in intensive care unit, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations.

METHODS

Medline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, International pharmaceutical abstracts, Google Scholar, and the gray literature up to December 31, 2013 were searched without time restriction to identify all types of studies that examined effects of various treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning for the outcomes of interest. The search strategy included the following Keywords: [calcium channel blockers OR calcium channel antagonist OR calcium channel blocking agent OR (amlodipine or bencyclane or bepridil or cinnarizine or felodipine or fendiline or flunarizine or gallopamil or isradipine or lidoflazine or mibefradil or nicardipine or nifedipine or nimodipine or nisoldipine or nitrendipine or prenylamine or verapamil or diltiazem)] AND [overdose OR medication errors OR poisoning OR intoxication OR toxicity OR adverse effect]. Two reviewers independently selected studies and a group of reviewers abstracted all relevant data using a pilot-tested form. A second group analyzed the risk of bias and overall quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist and the Thomas tool for observational studies, the Institute of Health Economics tool for Quality of Case Series, the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, and the modified NRCNA (National Research Council for the National Academies) list for animal studies. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence. Of 15,577 citations identified in the initial search, 216 were selected for analysis, including 117 case reports. The kappa on the quality analysis tools was greater than 0.80 for all study types.

RESULTS

The only observational study in humans examined high-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support. The risk of bias across studies was high for all interventions and moderate to high for extracorporeal life support. High-dose insulin. High-dose insulin (bolus of 1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5-2.0 units/kg/h) was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, at the risks of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia (low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal life support. Extracorporeal life support was associated with improved survival in patients with severe shock or cardiac arrest at the cost of limb ischemia, thrombosis, and bleeding (low quality of evidence). Calcium, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These agents improved hemodynamic parameters and survival without documented severe side effects (very low quality of evidence). 4-Aminopyridine. Use of 4-aminopyridine was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal studies, at the risk of seizures. Lipid emulsion therapy. Lipid emulsion was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal models of intravenous verapamil poisoning, but not in models of oral verapamil poisoning. Other studies. Studies on decontamination, atropine, glucagon, pacemakers, levosimendan, and plasma exchange reported variable results, and the methodologies used limit their interpretation. No trial was documented in humans poisoned with calcium channel blockers for Bay K8644, CGP 28932, digoxin, cyclodextrin, liposomes, bicarbonate, carnitine, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, PK 11195, or triiodothyronine. Case reports were only found for charcoal hemoperfusion, dialysis, intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella device and methylene blue.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning is supported by low-quality evidence drawn from a heterogeneous and heavily biased literature. High-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support were the interventions supported by the strongest evidence, although the evidence is of low quality.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of sugammadex for verapamil intoxication

Previous studies have shown that medications from the cyclodextrin family bind to verapamil. The aim of our study was to determine whether sugammadex could bind to verapamil and prevent the cardiovascular toxicity of that drug. Twenty-eight sedated Wistar rats were infused with verapamil at 37.5 mg/kg/h. Five minutes after the start of infusion, the animals were treated with a bolus of either 16 mg/kg, 100 mg/kg or 1000 mg/kg sugammadex. The control group was treated with an infusion without sugammadex. The heart rate and respiratory rate were monitored, and an electrocardiogram was recorded. The primary end-point was the time to asystole. The verapamil infusion continued until the animals arrested. The asystole time for the S16 group was significantly longer compared to those for the control and S1000 groups (p < 0.05). The asystole time for the S1000 group was significantly shorter than those for all of the other groups (p < 0.05). Reflecting these data, there was a near doubling of the mean lethal dose of verapamil from 13.57 mg/kg (S.D. ±8.1) in the saline-treated rats to 22.42 mg/kg (S.D. ±9.9) in the sugammadex 16 group (p < 0.05). However, for the sugammadex 1000 group, the mean lethal dose was found to be 6.28 ± 1.11 mg/kg. This dose is significantly lower than those for all of the other groups (p < 0.05). We found that treatment with 16 mg/kg sugammadex delayed verapamil cardiotoxicity in rats. However, 1000 mg/kg sugammadex accelerated verapamil cardiotoxicity in rats. Further studies must be conducted to investigate the interaction between verapamil and sugammadex.

Outcome after heroin overdose and cardiopulmonary resuscitation

BACKGROUND

The survival of heroin overdose patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest is reported to be poor. The aim of our study was to investigate the outcome and characteristics of survivors after cardiac arrest caused by heroin overdose.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study in a medium-sized city (population, 560,000). Between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2000, there were 94 combined cardiac arrests caused by acute drug poisonings. The main outcome measure was survival to discharge.

RESULTS

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was attempted in 19 heroin overdose patients (group A) and in 53 patients with cardiac arrest caused by other poisonings (group B). Three (16%) vs. six (11%) patients were discharged alive (group A vs. B, respectively). The survivors in group A had an Emergency Medical Service (EMS)-witnessed cardiac arrest or the Emergency Dispatching Centre was called before the arrest occurred. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of survival. Survivors in both groups suffered from acute renal failure (two), hypoglycaemia (four) and hypothermia (three).

CONCLUSION

Survival after cardiac arrest caused by heroin overdose is possible if the arrest is EMS witnessed or the Emergency Dispatching Centre is called before the cardiac arrest occurs. In comparison with cardiac arrests caused by other poisonings, there was no difference in survival. The incidence and mechanism of hypoglycaemia should be examined in further studies.