Does gastric lavage really push poisons beyond the pylorus? A systematic review of the evidence

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.

First aid interventions by laypeople for acute oral poisoning

BACKGROUND

Oral poisoning is a major cause of mortality and disability worldwide, with estimates of over 100,000 deaths due to unintentional poisoning each year and an overrepresentation of children below five years of age. Any effective intervention that laypeople can apply to limit or delay uptake or to evacuate, dilute or neutralize the poison before professional help arrives may limit toxicity and save lives.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pre-hospital interventions (alone or in combination) for treating acute oral poisoning, available to and feasible for laypeople before the arrival of professional help.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and three clinical trials registries to 11 May 2017, and we also carried out reference checking and citation searching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing interventions (alone or in combination) that are feasible in a pre-hospital setting for treating acute oral poisoning patients, including but potentially not limited to activated charcoal (AC), emetics, cathartics, diluents, neutralizing agents and body positioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data collection and assessment. Primary outcomes of this review were incidence of mortality and adverse events, plus incidence and severity of symptoms of poisoning. Secondary outcomes were duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, and incidence of hospitalization and ICU admission.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials involving 7099 participants. Using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, we assessed no study as being at low risk of bias for all domains. Many studies were poorly reported, so the risk of selection and detection biases were often unclear. Most studies reported important outcomes incompletely, and we judged them to be at high risk of reporting bias.All but one study enrolled oral poisoning patients in an emergency department; the remaining study was conducted in a pre-hospital setting. Fourteen studies included multiple toxic syndromes or did not specify, while the other studies specifically investigated paracetamol (2 studies), carbamazepine (2 studies), tricyclic antidepressant (2 studies), yellow oleander (2 studies), benzodiazepine (1 study), or toxic berry intoxication (1 study). Eighteen trials investigated the effects of activated charcoal (AC), administered as a single dose (SDAC) or in multiple doses (MDAC), alone or in combination with other first aid interventions (a cathartic) and/or hospital treatments. Six studies investigated syrup of ipecac plus other first aid interventions (SDAC + cathartic) versus ipecac alone. The collected evidence was mostly of low to very low certainty, often downgraded for indirectness, risk of bias or imprecision due to low numbers of events.First aid interventions that limit or delay the absorption of the poison in the bodyWe are uncertain about the effect of SDAC compared to no intervention on the incidence of adverse events in general (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) or vomiting specifically (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 57.26, 1 study, 25 participants), ICU admission (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 0.15 to 391.93, 1 study, 451 participants) and clinical deterioration (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) in participants with mixed types or paracetamol poisoning, as all evidence for these outcomes was of very low certainty. No studies assessed SDAC for mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption or hospitalization.Only one study compared SDAC to syrup of ipecac in participants with mixed types of poisoning, providing very low-certainty evidence. Therefore we are uncertain about the effects on Glasgow Coma Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, 1 study, 34 participants) or incidence of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.83, 1 study, 34 participants). No information was available concerning mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission.This review also considered the added value of SDAC or MDAC to hospital interventions, which mostly included gastric lavage. No included studies investigated the use of body positioning in oral poisoning patients.First aid interventions that evacuate the poison from the gastrointestinal tractWe found one study comparing ipecac versus no intervention in toxic berry ingestion in a pre-hospital setting. Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be an increase in the incidence of adverse events, but the study did not report incidence of mortality, incidence or duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission (103 participants).In addition, we also considered the added value of syrup of ipecac to SDAC plus a cathartic and the added value of a cathartic to SDAC.No studies used cathartics as an individual intervention.First aid interventions that neutralize or dilute the poison No included studies investigated the neutralization or dilution of the poison in oral poisoning patients.The review also considered combinations of different first aid interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review provided mostly low- or very low-certainty evidence about the use of first aid interventions for acute oral poisoning. A key limitation was the fact that only one included study actually took place in a pre-hospital setting, which undermines our confidence in the applicability of these results to this setting. Thus, the amount of evidence collected was insufficient to draw any conclusions.

Current Controversies in Gastrointestinal Decontamination

Most poisonings reported to American poison control centers occur in the home. The most common route of exposure is ingestion, which is responsible for most fatalities. The goal of gastrointestinal decontamination is to prevent absorption of the toxin. Trends in treating poisoned patients have changed over the past few decades in light of a move toward practicing evidence-based medicine. Efficacy and clinical outcome have come into question and have led to position papers published recently regarding syrup of ipecac, gastric lavage, activated charcoal, and whole-bowel irrigation. These different methods of decontamination and the scientific data supporting each one will be reviewed, and the current controversies surrounding each will be discussed.

Gastrointestinal decontamination in the acutely poisoned patient

Objective

To define the role of gastrointestinal (GI) decontamination of the poisoned patient.

Data Sources

A computer-based PubMed/MEDLINE search of the literature on GI decontamination in the poisoned patient with cross referencing of sources.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Clinical, animal and in vitro studies were reviewed for clinical relevance to GI decontamination of the poisoned patient.

Data Synthesis

The literature suggests that previously, widely used, aggressive approaches including the use of ipecac syrup, gastric lavage, and cathartics are now rarely recommended. Whole bowel irrigation is still often recommended for slow-release drugs, metals, and patients who "pack" or "stuff" foreign bodies filled with drugs of abuse, but with little quality data to support it. Activated charcoal (AC), single or multiple doses, was also a previous mainstay of GI decontamination, but the utility of AC is now recognized to be limited and more time dependent than previously practiced. These recommendations have resulted in several treatment guidelines that are mostly based on retrospective analysis, animal studies or small case series, and rarely based on randomized clinical trials.

Conclusions

The current literature supports limited use of GI decontamination of the poisoned patient.

Gastrointestinal decontamination of the poisoned patient

Gastrointestinal decontamination has been a historically accepted modality in the emergency management of oral intoxicants. Theoretically, gastric and whole-bowel emptying procedures hinder absorption, remove toxic substances, prevent clinical deterioration, and hasten recovery. This article presents a current overview of gastrointestinal decontamination. It challenges the accepted precepts of gut decontamination and assesses the utility of syrup of ipecac-induced emesis, orogastric lavage, single-dose-activated charcoal, cathartics, and whole-bowel irrigation.

Acute poisoning: understanding 90% of cases in a nutshell

The acutely poisoned patient remains a common problem facing doctors working in acute medicine in the United Kingdom and worldwide. This review examines the initial management of the acutely poisoned patient. Aspects of general management are reviewed including immediate interventions, investigations, gastrointestinal decontamination techniques, use of antidotes, methods to increase poison elimination, and psychological assessment. More common and serious poisonings caused by paracetamol, salicylates, opioids, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and cocaine are discussed in detail. Specific aspects of common paediatric poisonings are reviewed.

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.