Interpreting gastric emptying studies

Position paper: gastric lavage

Gastric lavage should not be employed routinely, if ever, in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies, the amount of marker removed by gastric lavage was highly variable and diminished with time. The results of clinical outcome studies in overdose patients are weighed heavily on the side of showing a lack of beneficial effect. Serious risks of the procedure include hypoxia, dysrhythmias, laryngospasm, perforation of the GI tract or pharynx, fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, and aspiration pneumonitis. Contraindications include loss of protective airway reflexes (unless the patient is first intubated tracheally), ingestion of a strong acid or alkali, ingestion of a hydrocarbon with a high aspiration potential, or risk of GI hemorrhage due to an underlying medical or surgical condition. A review of the 1997 Gastric Lavage Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of the Statement.

Position statement: gastric lavage. American Academy of Clinical Toxicology; European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists

In preparing this Position Statement, all relevant scientific literature was identified and reviewed critically by acknowledged experts using agreed criteria. Well-conducted clinical and experimental studies were given precedence over anecdotal case reports and abstracts were not usually considered. A draft Position Statement was then produced and subjected to detailed peer review by an international group of clinical toxicologists chosen by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. The Position Statement went through multiple drafts before being approved by the boards of the two societies and being endorsed by other societies. The Position Statement includes a summary statement for ease of use and is supported by detailed documentation which describes the scientific evidence on which the Statement is based. Gastric lavage should not be employed routinely in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies, the amount of marker removed by gastric lavage was highly variable and diminished with time. There is no certain evidence that its use improves clinical outcome and it may cause significant morbidity. Gastric lavage should not be considered unless a patient has ingested a potentially life-threatening amount of a poison and the procedure can be undertaken within 60 minutes of ingestion. Even then, clinical benefit has not been confirmed in controlled studies. Unless a patient is intubated, gastric lavage is contraindicated if airway protective reflexes are lost. It is also contraindicated if a hydrocarbon with high aspiration potential or corrosive substance has been ingested.

Approach to the poisoned patient

Routine poison management involves the following: (1) stabilization, (2) toxidrome recognition, (3) decontamination, (4) antidote administration, (5) enhanced elimination of toxin, and (6) supportive care. Stabilization involves airway, ventilation, and circulation support. In the patient with altered mental status, oxygen, naloxone, glucose, and thiamine should be administered. Symptom complexes that relate to specific classifications of toxins are referred to as toxidromes. Emesis by means of syrup of ipecac is rarely used for in-hospital gastric decontamination. Activated charcoal is a useful adsorbent for gastric decontamination. Whole bowel irrigation is useful for iron, lead, and lithium poisoning and for the body packer phenomenon. Enhancement of elimination may involve multiple doses of activated charcoal, hemodialysis, or charcoal hemoperfusion.

Prevention of drug absorption in simulated theophylline overdose

1. The effects of emesis, gastric lavage and oral activated charcoal on theophylline absorption were compared in healthy volunteers. 2. One of four regimes (ipecacuanha-induced emesis, gastric lavage, oral activated charcoal and no treatment) was randomly chosen one hour after a simulated overdose with sustained-release theophylline on four separate occasions in twelve healthy volunteers. 3. Syrup of ipecacuanha produced emesis in all twelve volunteers but only seven vomited any tablets. Gastric lavage yielded tablets in only one volunteer. 4. The mean systemic availabilities (areas under the concentration-time curves relative to control) of theophylline for ipecacuanha-induced emesis, gastric lavage and charcoal, were 107.1%, 101.1% and 16.9%, respectively. 5. Oral activated charcoal was thus highly effective, while gastric lavage and emesis were ineffective in preventing theophylline absorption. Activated charcoal is potentially the most effective first-line treatment for acute overdosage with sustained-release theophylline tablets.

Efficacy of charcoal cathartic versus ipecac in reducing serum acetaminophen in a simulated overdose

The traditional role of gastric emptying as the initial step in the management of the poisoned patient has recently been questioned; immediate activated charcoal administration has been recommended by some. In the setting of acetaminophen overdose, ipecac-induced emesis may interfere with subsequent oral antidotal therapy. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare the efficacy of initial therapy with ipecac with therapy with activated charcoal-cathartic in a simulated acetaminophen overdosage. Ten healthy volunteers participated in a randomized, crossover trial. Subjects ingested 3.0 g acetaminophen, followed by either no intervention, 30 mL syrup of ipecac, or 50 g activated charcoal-sorbitol solution at one hour. Serial acetaminophen levels were determined at intervals over eight hours. Both interventions significantly reduced the area under the curve compared with control (P less than .05). When comparing ipecac with activated charcoal-cathartic, no significant difference was noted among these groups.

Inefficacy of gastric emptying procedures

Gastric lavage or ipecac-induced emesis are routinely recommended in the management of the acutely poisoned patient. Efficacy of either procedure has not been shown. Three cases are described clearly demonstrating inefficacy of emesis and wide bore orogastric lavage. The role of these procedures requires careful controlled evaluation. Until the publication of supportive data, their efficacy is unproven.