The limited utility of screening laboratory tests and electrocardiograms in the management of unintentional asymptomatic pediatric ingestions

Time of Observation in Xenobiotic Ingestions in Children: Is 6 Hours Too Long?

OBJECTIVES

Children endure a prolonged observation after xenobiotic ingestions, despite low associated morbidity and mortality. The primary objective was to describe the management and outcomes of acute xenobiotic exposures in asymptomatic pediatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). A secondary objective was to explore the impact of vital signs on the patients' management and outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of asymptomatic children (younger than 18 years) presenting to a pediatric ED after a toxic ingestion from 2014 to 2018. Ingestions of hydrocarbons, acetaminophen, salicylates, sulfonylureas, caustic, and/or extended release agents were excluded. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted.

RESULTS

Of 2817 charts, we identified 109 asymptomatic patients with a mean age of 4.7 years. The average observation from registration to disposition was 4.06 hours. Five patients were admitted and were subsequently discharged within 24 hours. Of the discharged patients, 2 returned within 72 hours and were subsequently discharged home. A total of 321 asymptomatic patients presented with ≥1 abnormal vital signs (mean age, 6.6 years) and were observed in the ED for an average of 4.54 hours. They had a higher percentage of ingestions related to suicide attempts (odds ratio, 6.8). Twenty-two were admitted. Of those discharged home, 11 returned to the ED within 72 hours; all were subsequently discharged home.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged observations may not be necessary after ingestions in asymptomatic children. Vital sign abnormalities at presentation did not impact disposition. Prospective studies are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of this shortened observation.

A Standardized Cardiac Protocol for Pediatric Drug Ingestion Hospital Admissions

To optimize patient resource utilization and safety, we created a standard-of-care guideline for pediatric drug ingestion hospital admissions.

[Use of urine drug screening in the emergency department of a paediatric hospital]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the situations in which urine drug screening is used in a Paediatric Emergency Department (ED). An analysis is also made on its potential usefulness on whether it changes the patient management, and if the results are confirmed by using specific techniques.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective study was conducted on patients under the age of 18 attended in the ED during 2014 and in whom urine drug screening was requested. Depending on the potential capacity of the screening result to change patient management, two groups were defined (potentially useful and not potentially useful).

RESULTS

Urine drug screening was performed on a total of 161 patients. The screening was considered not to be potentially useful in 87 (54.0%). This was because the clinical history already explained the symptoms the patient had in 55 (34.1%) patients, in 29 (18.0%) because the patient was asymptomatic, and in 3 (1.9%) because the suspected drug was not detectable in the screening. The drug screening results changed the patient management in 5 (3.1%) cases. A toxic substance was detected in 44 (27.3%). Two out of the 44 that were positive (2.1%) were re-tested by specific techniques, and presence of the toxic substance was ruled out in both of them (false positives).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the drug screening tests are not justified, and it is very infrequent that they change patient management. It is very rare that the results are confirmed using more specific methods. Urine drug screening tests should be restricted to particular cases and if the result has legal implications, or if the patient denies using the drug, it should be followed by a specific toxicological study to provide a conclusive result.