Extracorporeal treatment for digoxin poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

Successful management of massive digoxin overdose using DIGIFab and therapeutic plasma exchange: a case report

BACKGROUND

Despite the efficacy and safety of DIGIFab, it is relatively expensive and has limited availability. In addition, alternative interventions, such as therapeutic plasma exchange, may need to be considered in massive digoxin overdoses. Although few case reports describe its efficacy.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of a 17-year-old white male patient brought by family members to our emergency department in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. After intentionally ingesting 48 mg of digoxin tablets to commit suicide, the patient's initial digoxin serum level was 8.04 ng/mL. The patient was resuscitated in the emergency department. After admission to the intensive care unit, the patient underwent therapeutic plasma exchange, because of insufficient DIGIFab doses. Afterward, the serum digoxin levels drastically decreased, and his symptoms reverted. The patient was successfully managed and discharged 7 days after admission.

CONCLUSION

Despite insufficient evidence and a limited number of case reports describing the use of extracorporeal treatment in digoxin overdose, we noted the significant impact of therapeutic plasma exchange on our patient. However, therapeutic plasma exchange's use in routine treatment requires stronger evidence to confirm its benefits.

Digoxin-specific antibodies: a novel dosing strategy

Digoxin-specific antibodies (digoxin-Fabs) are of value in the treatment of a strongly suspected or a known, potentially life-threatening digoxin toxicity. These antibodies are not registered for use in Europe; therefore Dutch hospital pharmacies are not allowed to keep them in stock. In the Netherlands, digoxin-Fabs are stored in a national calamity stock of emergency medicines at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. In the case of a medical emergency, digoxin-Fabs are available after contact with the Dutch Poisons Information Centre. Recent studies have shown that the dose of digoxin-Fabs required to effectively treat digoxin toxicity is lower than previously thought. In this article, we present the adjusted digoxin-Fab dosing strategy currently recommended by the Dutch Poisons Information Centre ( www.vergiftigingen.info ). This new dose titration strategy is safe and effective and has a cost-saving side-effect.

Diagnosis and practical management of digoxin toxicity: a narrative review and consensus

There are currently no universally accepted guidelines for the management of digoxin toxicity. In the absence of clinical practice guidelines, a set of consensus recommendations for management of digoxin toxicity in the clinical setting were developed through a modified Delphi approach. The recommendations highlight the importance of early recognition of signs of potentially life-threatening toxicity that requires immediate treatment with digoxin-specific antibodies. The consensus identifies a straightforward approach to dosing immune antibody fragments according to the presence or absence of signs of life-threatening toxicity. Supportive measures and management of specific signs of toxicity are also covered.

2023 American Heart Association Focused Update on the Management of Patients With Cardiac Arrest or Life-Threatening Toxicity Due to Poisoning: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

In this focused update, the American Heart Association provides updated guidance for resuscitation of patients with cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, and refractory shock due to poisoning. Based on structured evidence reviews, guidelines are provided for the treatment of critical poisoning from benzodiazepines, β-adrenergic receptor antagonists (also known as β-blockers), L-type calcium channel antagonists (commonly called calcium channel blockers), cocaine, cyanide, digoxin and related cardiac glycosides, local anesthetics, methemoglobinemia, opioids, organophosphates and carbamates, sodium channel antagonists (also called sodium channel blockers), and sympathomimetics. Recommendations are also provided for the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These guidelines discuss the role of atropine, benzodiazepines, calcium, digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments, electrical pacing, flumazenil, glucagon, hemodialysis, hydroxocobalamin, hyperbaric oxygen, insulin, intravenous lipid emulsion, lidocaine, methylene blue, naloxone, pralidoxime, sodium bicarbonate, sodium nitrite, sodium thiosulfate, vasodilators, and vasopressors for the management of specific critical poisonings.

Management of Poisonings and Intoxications

Poisoning occurs after exposure to any of a number of substances, including medicines, which can result in severe toxicity including death. The nephrologist may be involved in poisonings that cause kidney disease and for targeted treatments. The overall approach to the poisoned patient involves the initial acute resuscitation and performing a risk assessment, whereby the exposure is considered in terms of the anticipated severity and in the context of the patient's status and treatments that may be required. Time-critical interventions such as gastrointestinal decontamination ( e.g. , activated charcoal) and antidotes are administered when indicated. The nephrologist is usually involved when elimination enhancement techniques are required, such as urine alkalinization or extracorporeal treatments. There is increasing data to guide decision making for the use of extracorporeal treatments in the poisoned patient. Principles to consider are clinical indications such as whether severe toxicity is present, anticipated, and/or will persist and whether the poison will be significantly removed by the extracorporeal treatment. Extracorporeal clearance is maximized for low-molecular weight drugs that are water soluble with minimal protein binding (<80%) and low endogenous clearance and volume of distribution. The dosage of some antidotes ( e.g. , N-acetylcysteine, ethanol, fomepizole) should be increased to maintain therapeutic concentrations once the extracorporeal treatment is initiated. To maximize the effect of an extracorporeal treatment, blood and effluent flows should be optimized, the filter with the largest surface area selected, and duration tailored to remove enough poison to reduce toxicity. Intermittent hemodialysis is recommended in most cases when an extracorporeal treatment is required because it is the most efficient, and continuous kidney replacement therapy is prescribed in some circumstances, particularly if intermittent hemodialysis is not readily available.

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.

Causes, Predisposing Factors and Prevention Directions of Drug-induced Bradycardia (Based on the Results of the Hospital Register of Oardiac Medications Overdoses STORM)

Aim. Analysis of drug-induced bradiarrhythmia (DIB) causes and predisposing factors, followed by the development of recommendations for practitioners on its prevention.

Material and methods. The register included consistently all cases of hospitalization at the Regional Vascular Center (Ryazan) due to DIB in 2017 (n=114), 2018 (n=167), and retrospectively in 2014 (n=44). In total, 325 cases were reported: men - 26.1%, age 76.0 [68.0; 82.0] years; patients >65 years - 83.7%, and patients >75 years - 57.9%. The dose of medications with bradycardic action (BCA) taken the day before was known in 227 cases (69.8%), which allowed us to analyze the correctness of the intake regime in these cases.

Results. The excess of a single and / or daily medication dose (absolute overdose, AOD) occurred only in 10.6% of cases and was associated with the patient's attempt to cope with the deterioration of the disease or an acute clinical situation on their own. In other cases, there was no formal violation of the Instructions, but there was an inhibition of the heart's conducting system activity, characteristic of an overdose of medication (the so-called "relative” overdose, ROD). It was due to the summation/potentiation of BCA of several medications or changes in the medication pharmacokinetics. There were no differences in the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients and the provision of medical care in the groups with AOD and ROD (p>0.05). The exception was a high frequency of bradycardia <40 beats / min in AOD group (75.0% vs 49.8%, p=0.019) and, as a result, - management in the conditions of the Intensive Care Unit (66.7% vs 39.9%, p=0.012). Frequency of pre-admission receiving medications in AOD and ROD groups also did not differ (p>0.05): beta-blockers - an average of 64.3%, antiarrhythmic drugs with BCA- 41.0%, cardiac glycosides 25.1% (frequency each of these medicationsin DIB cases over the 5-year period has not changed), an agonist of the 11-imidazoline receptors - moxonidine (12.3%, its frequency has increased 8.9 times in 5 years, p=0.004), non-dihydropyridine calcium antagonists - 7.9% (decrease frequency over 5 years 4.0 times, p=0.002), other - 16.7%. In 56.8% of cases, medications with BCA were used in combination. At admission, a decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <45 ml/min/1.73 m2 was registered in 56.8% of cases, <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 - in 31.8%, <15 ml/min/1.73 m2 -in 10.9% (differences between groups with p>0.05). Hospital lethality in the AOD group is 4.2%, in the ROD group- 5.4% (p>0.05).

Conclusion. The main reasons of DIB are excess of the recommended dose, unrecorded summation/potentiation of BCA of several medications, and / or changes in the medication pharmacokinetics. Predisposing factors are self-medication of patients with worsening cardiovascular disease or acute clinical situations (e.g., hypertensive crisis), taking multiple medications with BCA, accession of heart disease, manifested by bradyarrhythmia, decrease in GFR, elderly and senile age.

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.

Management of pharmaceutical and recreational drug poisoning

BACKGROUND

Poisoning is one of the leading causes of admission to the emergency department and intensive care unit. A large number of epidemiological changes have occurred over the last years such as the exponential growth of new synthetic psychoactive substances. Major progress has also been made in analytical screening and assays, enabling the clinicians to rapidly obtain a definite diagnosis.

METHODS

A committee composed of 30 experts from five scientific societies, the Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF), the Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence (SFMU), the Société de Toxicologie Clinique (STC), the Société Française de Toxicologie Analytique (SFTA) and the Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et d'Urgences Pédiatriques (GFRUP) evaluated eight fields: (1) severity assessment and initial triage; (2) diagnostic approach and role of toxicological analyses; (3) supportive care; (4) decontamination; (5) elimination enhancement; (6) place of antidotes; (7) specificities related to recreational drug poisoning; and (8) characteristics of cardiotoxicant poisoning. Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Analysis of the literature and formulation of recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The SRLF-SFMU guideline panel provided 41 statements concerning the management of pharmaceutical and recreational drug poisoning. Ethanol and chemical poisoning were excluded from the scope of these recommendations. After two rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong consensus was reached for all recommendations. Six of these recommendations had a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and six had a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). Twenty-nine recommendations were in the form of expert opinion recommendations due to the low evidences in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The experts reached a substantial consensus for several strong recommendations for optimal management of pharmaceutical and recreational drug poisoning, mainly regarding the conditions and effectiveness of naloxone and N-acetylcystein as antidotes to treat opioid and acetaminophen poisoning, respectively.

Bibliometric profile of global scientific research on digoxin toxicity (1849-2015)

Digoxin is a cardiac glycoside derived from the common foxglove digitalis purpurea and has been available for several centuries as a medicinal agent. Despite extensive patient experience over many years, there remains some controversy regarding the possibility that digoxin might have a deleterious effect on survival. This study was constructed to assess trends in digoxin toxicity research using well-established qualitative and quantitative bibliometric indicators. The current study is based on publications that have been indexed in Scopus. Articles referring to the subject of digoxin toxicity between 1849 and 2015 were assessed according to the document type, publication language, countries/territories, institutions, journal, impact factors, total number of citations, h-index, average number of citations per publication, and international collaborations. There were 2900 publications that included 2542 (87.7%) original research articles, while 5.3% were reviews and 4.6% letters. The country of origin was the USA in 849 publications, Germany in 241, the UK in 150, and France in 143. The USA and the UK had the highest number of international collaborations. The average number of citations per publications related to digoxin toxicity was 8.1, and the h-index was 59. The USA and Canada had the highest h-indices by country at 46 and 22, respectively. This study presents the first bibliometric analysis on digoxin toxicity publications. The USA was the most important contributors to digoxin toxicity literature with the greatest international collaboration, largest number of articles and highest h-index, followed by Germany and the UK. There has been a trend towards reduced publication numbers related to digoxin toxicity at global level, although it is still an important issue and we present the current research themes related to digoxin toxicity that were identified.

Continuous venovenous hemodialysis may be effective in digoxin removal in digoxin toxicity: A case report

Digoxin is a cardiac glycoside that is used for the treatment of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Besides its careful close follow-up, toxicity affects nearly 1% of congestive heart failure patients. Cessation of the drug, appropriate electrolyte and rhythm control and digoxin-Fab antibody are the mainstay for toxicity treatment in these patients. As known, hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are not effective by the means of digoxin removal. We present a 66-year-old patient who admitted to hospital with digoxin toxicity and severe acute kidney injury. The patient was treated with continuous venovenous hemodialysis because of her hypervolemia, hyperkalemia, cardiac instability, and the thought of probable decrease in digoxin levels concerning the continuous nature of solute clearance. Without the treatment using digoxin-specific Fab antibodies, the patient's digoxin level was decreased successfully with continuous venovenous hemodialysis. In conclusion, continuous venovenous hemodialysis may be a treatment option in digoxin toxicity especially those who suffer from severe renal dysfunction and cannot access digoxin antidote.

Symptomatic digoxin toxicity in a patient on haemodialysis

We present a man undergoing regular haemodialysis sessions, who presented with non-specific symptoms of nausea, vomiting and light-headedness. He was found to have significantly raised serum digoxin concentrations, as well as a heart rate of 30 beats per minutes. An ECG showed complete heart block. He has a history of non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy with resistant supraventricular and ventricular tachycardias and was on concomitant beta-blockade and digoxin. On questioning, he reported a gradual decline in his residual urine output over the past 6 months. He was reviewed by the cardiology team and required both pharmacological therapy for reversal of digoxin toxicity and temporary pacing in view of significant bradyarrhythmias. The beta-blockade and digoxin were discontinued. He was kept on continuous monitoring at the Cardiac Critical Care Unit. His symptoms resolved spontaneously once digoxin-specific antibody fragments were administered and temporary pacing successfully performed.

Heart failure management in dialysis patients: Many treatment options with no clear evidence

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) impacts approximately 20% of dialysis patients and is associated with high mortality rates. Key issues discussed in this review of HFrEF management in dialysis include dialysis modality choice, vascular access, dialysate composition, pharmacological therapies, and strategies to reduce sudden cardiac death, including the use of cardiac devices. Peritoneal dialysis and more frequent or longer duration of hemodialysis may be better tolerated due to slower ultrafiltration rates, leading to less intradialytic hypotension and better volume control; dialysate cooling and higher dialysate calcium may also have benefits. While high-quality evidence exists for many drug classes in the non-dialysis population, dialysis patients were excluded from major trials, and only limited data exist for many medications in kidney failure patients. Despite limited evidence, beta blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use is common in dialysis. Similarly, devices such as implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy that have proven benefits in non-dialysis HFrEF patients have not consistently been beneficial in the limited dialysis studies. The use of leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous ICDs can mitigate future hemodialysis access limitations. Additional research is critical to address knowledge gaps in treating maintenance dialysis patients with HFrEF.

Common Toxidromes and the Role of Extracorporeal Detoxification

Extracorporeal modalities have been used for detoxification for decades, with hemodialysis the preferred and most commonly used modality. Salicylates, lithium, methanol, and ethylene glycol are the most common poisonings treated with dialysis. For each of these common poisonings, a description of the toxidrome including pharmacokinetics, clinical presentation, an overview of treatment, and the role and application of dialysis is outlined. Inhibition of alcohol dehydrogenase to prevent the formation of toxic metabolites in methanol and ethylene glycol is discussed in detail, including the use of fomepizole and ethanol to complement and in some cases prevent the need for hemodialysis. Hemodialysis has been attempted to treat many poisonings, often without success. A description of EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning), a multidisciplinary project examining the evidence for extracorporeal treatments in poisoning, is also described. Recommendations for poisoning with acetaminophen, baclofen, barbiturates, carbamazepine, digoxin, metformin, phenytoin, thallium, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, and valproic acid are provided in a comprehensive table.

Extracorporeal Treatment in the Management of Acute Poisoning: What an Intensivist Should Know?

Extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) represents a treatment modality promoting removal of endogenous or exogenous poisons and supporting or temporarily replacing a vital organ. This article aims to provide a brief overview of the technical aspects and the potential indications and limitations of the different ECTRs, highlighting the important characteristics of poison amenable to ECTR and the most appropriate prescriptions used in the setting of acute poisoning. The various principles that govern poison elimination by ECTR (diffusion, convection, adsorption, and centrifugation) and how components of the ECTR can be adjusted to maximize clearance have also being discussed.

Digoxin-specific Fab and therapeutic plasma exchange for digitalis intoxication and renal failure

Treatment of chronic digitalis intoxication includes suspension of drug intake, which may be sufficient in case of mild manifestations, and supportive measures. Severe bradycardia requires the administration of atropine or isoproterenol; placement of a temporary pacemaker may be required in case of absent response to pharmacological therapy. Severe and life-threatening manifestations should be treated with digoxin-specific fragment antigen binding antibodies (Fab). Therapeutic plasma exchange has been suggested, in addition to Fab therapy, to maximize the clearance of Fab-digoxin complexes in patients with renal failure. To date, few case reports have described the use of such a therapeutic approach; currently, extracorporeal methods are not recommended as part of the treatment of digitalis intoxication, and stronger evidence is required to establish their benefit.

Clinical Use of Digitalis: A State of the Art Review

The history of digitalis is rich and interesting, with the first use usually attributed to William Withering and his study on the foxglove published in 1785. However, some knowledge of plants with digitalis-like effects used for congestive heart failure (CHF) was in evidence as early as Roman times. The active components of the foxglove (Digitalis purpurea and Digitalis lanata) are classified as cardiac glycosides or cardiotonic steroids and include the well-known digitalis leaf, digitoxin, and digoxin; ouabain is a rapid-acting glycoside usually obtained from Strophanthus gratus. These drugs are potent inhibitors of cellular membrane sodium-potassium adenosine triphosphatase (Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase). For most of the twentieth century, digitalis and its derivatives, especially digoxin, were the available standard of care for CHF. However, as the century closed, many doubts, especially regarding safety, were raised about their use as other treatments for CHF, such as decreasing the preload of the left ventricle, were developed. Careful attention is needed to maintain the serum digoxin level at ≤ 1.0 ng/ml because of the very narrow therapeutic window of the medication. Evidence for benefit exists for CHF with reduced ejection fraction (EF), also referred to as heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF), especially when considering the combination of mortality, morbidity, and decreased hospitalizations. However, the major support for using digoxin is in atrial fibrillation (AF) with a rapid ventricular response when a rate control approach is planned. The strongest support of all for digoxin is for its use in rate control in AF in the presence of a marginal blood pressure, since all other rate control medications contribute to additional hypotension. In summary, these days, digoxin appears to be of most use in HFrEF and in AF with rapid ventricular response for rate control, especially when associated with hypotension. The valuable history of the foxglove continues; it has been modified but not relegated to the garden or the medical history book, as some would advocate.

Extracorporeal treatments in poisonings from four non-traditionally dialysed toxins (acetaminophen, digoxin, opioids and tricyclic antidepressants): A combined single-centre and national study

The use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) for poisonings with four non-traditionally dialysed toxins (NTDTs) is increasing in the United States. This study evaluated whether ECTRs are prescribed for toxin removal or the treatment of other medical illnesses or complications. We performed a 2-Phase retrospective analysis evaluating the main indication for ECTRs in patients with poisoning from a NTDT (defined for this study as acetaminophen, opioids, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or digoxin) and ECTR. The first phase assessed all cases from a single site (New York City Poison Control Center) between the years 2000 and 2016, and the second phase surveyed all United States Poison Control Centers (PCCs). In Phase 1, demographics, toxin ingested and main indication for ECTR were extracted. In Phase 2, a query to the National Poison Data System using the a pragmatic subset of inclusion criteria from Phase 1 restricted to single toxin ingestions over a narrower time frame (2014-2016) provided the cases for study. A structured online questionnaire was sent to all United States PCCs to request their database review regarding the indication for ECTR for their cases. In Phase 1, 92 cases met inclusion criteria. In Phase 2, 519 cases were screened and 425 met inclusion criteria. In Phase 1 91/92 (98.9%) and Phase 2 411/425 (96.7%), of extracorporeal treatments were used to treat underlying medical conditions or poisoning-related complications rather than accelerate toxin removal. The increasing number of ECTRs reported in patients who ingested one of the four NTDTs thus appears to be for medical indications rather than attempts at toxin removal, a distinction that is important.

Acute renal replacement therapy during hospitalization: Is training adequate?

Acute renal replacement therapy is one of the most common interventions provided by nephrologists, however, data on the quality of training provided to nephrology fellows is limited. Extensive curricula for acute renal replacement therapy and the management of poisonings and intoxications have been published, but personal experience suggests that there are significant opportunities to improve training. Particular areas to be considered include the use of novel technologies for assessment of volume status, greater emphasis on the dosing of medications during acute renal replacement therapy, greater training in assessing and tailoring treatment to the goals of care of the individual patient, incorporation of continuous quality improvement tools into the management of acute renal replacement therapy programs and development of robust simulation training to augment training.

Pharmacological treatment of cardiac glycoside poisoning

Cardiac glycosides are an important cause of poisoning, reflecting their widespread clinical usage and presence in natural sources. Poisoning can manifest as varying degrees of toxicity. Predominant clinical features include gastrointestinal signs, bradycardia and heart block. Death occurs from ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia. A wide range of treatments have been used, the more common including activated charcoal, atropine, β-adrenoceptor agonists, temporary pacing, anti-digoxin Fab and magnesium, and more novel agents include fructose-1,6-diphosphate (clinical trial in progress) and anticalin. However, even in the case of those treatments that have been in use for decades, there is debate regarding their efficacy, the indications and dosage that optimizes outcomes. This contributes to variability in use across the world. Another factor influencing usage is access. Barriers to access include the requirement for transfer to a specialized centre (for example, to receive temporary pacing) or financial resources (for example, anti-digoxin Fab in resource poor countries). Recent data suggest that existing methods for calculating the dose of anti-digoxin Fab in digoxin poisoning overstate the dose required, and that its efficacy may be minimal in patients with chronic digoxin poisoning. Cheaper and effective medicines are required, in particular for the treatment of yellow oleander poisoning which is problematic in resource poor countries.