Gastrointestinal tract perforation with charcoal peritoneum complicating orogastric intubation and lavage

Systematic review on the use of activated charcoal for gastrointestinal decontamination following acute oral overdose

INTRODUCTION

The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements on the use of single-dose and multiple-dose activated charcoal by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the routine use of activated charcoal declined. Over subsequent years, many new pharmaceuticals became available in modified or alternative-release formulations and additional data on gastric emptying time in poisoning was published, challenging previous assumptions about absorption kinetics. The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology founded the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative to create a framework for evidence-based recommendations for the management of poisoned patients. The activated charcoal workgroup of the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was tasked with reviewing systematically the evidence pertaining to the use of activated charcoal in poisoning in order to update the previous recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was: Does oral activated charcoal given to adults or children prevent toxicity or improve clinical outcome and survival of poisoned patients compared to those who do not receive charcoal?  Secondary objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetic outcomes, the role of cathartics, and adverse events to charcoal administration. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of activated charcoal.

METHODS

A medical librarian created a systematic search strategy for Medline (Ovid), subsequently translated for Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), BIOSIS Previews (via Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library/DARE. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2019. There were no language limitations.  One author screened all citations identified in the search based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Excluded citations were confirmed by an additional author and remaining articles were obtained in full text and evaluated by at least two authors for inclusion. All authors cross-referenced full-text articles to identify articles missed in the searches. Data from included articles were extracted by the authors on a standardized spreadsheet and two authors used the GRADE methodology to independently assess the quality and risk of bias of each included study.

RESULTS

From 22,950 titles originally identified, the final data set consisted of 296 human studies, 118 animal studies, and 145 in vitro studies. Also included were 71 human and two animal studies that reported adverse events. The quality was judged to have a Low or Very Low GRADE in 469 (83%) of the studies. Ninety studies were judged to be of Moderate or High GRADE. The higher GRADE studies reported on the following drugs: paracetamol (acetaminophen), phenobarbital, carbamazepine, cardiac glycosides (digoxin and oleander), ethanol, iron, salicylates, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, and valproate. Data on newer pharmaceuticals not reviewed in the previous American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists statements such as quetiapine, olanzapine, citalopram, and Factor Xa inhibitors were included. No studies on the optimal dosing for either single-dose or multiple-dose activated charcoal were found. In the reviewed clinical data, the time of administration of the first dose of charcoal was beyond one hour in 97% (n = 1006 individuals), beyond two hours in 36% (n = 491 individuals), and beyond 12 h in 4% (n = 43 individuals) whereas the timing of the first dose in controlled studies was within one hour of ingestion in 48% (n = 2359 individuals) and beyond two hours in 36% (n = 484) of individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found heterogenous data. The higher GRADE data was focused on a few select poisonings, while studies that addressed patients with unknown and or mixed ingestions were hampered by low rates of clinically meaningful toxicity or death.  Despite these limitations, they reported a benefit of activated charcoal beyond one hour in many clinical scenarios.

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.

Drugs and pharmaceuticals: management of intoxication and antidotes

The treatment of patients poisoned with drugs and pharmaceuticals can be quite challenging. Diverse exposure circumstances, varied clinical presentations, unique patient-specific factors, and inconsistent diagnostic and therapeutic infrastructure support, coupled with relatively few definitive antidotes, may complicate evaluation and management. The historical approach to poisoned patients (patient arousal, toxin elimination, and toxin identification) has given way to rigorous attention to the fundamental aspects of basic life support--airway management, oxygenation and ventilation, circulatory competence, thermoregulation, and substrate availability. Selected patients may benefit from methods to alter toxin pharmacokinetics to minimize systemic, target organ, or tissue compartment exposure (either by decreasing absorption or increasing elimination). These may include syrup of ipecac, orogastric lavage, activated single- or multi-dose charcoal, whole bowel irrigation, endoscopy and surgery, urinary alkalinization, saline diuresis, or extracorporeal methods (hemodialysis, charcoal hemoperfusion, continuous venovenous hemofiltration, and exchange transfusion). Pharmaceutical adjuncts and antidotes may be useful in toxicant-induced hyperthermias. In the context of analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anticholinergic, anticonvulsant, antihyperglycemic, antimicrobial, antineoplastic, cardiovascular, opioid, or sedative-hypnotic agents overdose, N-acetylcysteine, physostigmine, L-carnitine, dextrose, octreotide, pyridoxine, dexrazoxane, leucovorin, glucarpidase, atropine, calcium, digoxin-specific antibody fragments, glucagon, high-dose insulin euglycemia therapy, lipid emulsion, magnesium, sodium bicarbonate, naloxone, and flumazenil are specifically reviewed. In summary, patients generally benefit from aggressive support of vital functions, careful history and physical examination, specific laboratory analyses, a thoughtful consideration of the risks and benefits of decontamination and enhanced elimination, and the use of specific antidotes where warranted. Data supporting antidotes effectiveness vary considerably. Clinicians are encouraged to utilize consultation with regional poison centers or those with toxicology training to assist with diagnosis, management, and administration of antidotes, particularly in unfamiliar cases.

Bowel perforation after single-dose activated charcoal

Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) after medication overdose are often given activated charcoal initially for gastrointestinal decontamination. Complications of charcoal are rare, but do occur. The following case describes a patient with pre-existing undiagnosed diverticular disease who developed sigmoid perforation after a single dose of activated charcoal, given without cathartic for a drug overdose. A literature search revealed no other cases of bowel perforation associated with single-dose activated charcoal. This case report discusses adverse effects associated with activated charcoal and the role of cathartics in gastrointestinal decontamination.

Activated charcoal for pediatric poisonings: the universal antidote?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For decades, activated charcoal has been used as a 'universal antidote' for the majority of poisons because of its ability to prevent the absorption of most toxic agents from the gastrointestinal tract and enhance the elimination of some agents already absorbed. This manuscript will review the history of activated charcoal, its indications, contraindications, and the complications associated with its use as reported in the literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent randomized prospective studies, although with small numbers, have shown no difference in length of hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality between groups who received and did not receive activated charcoal. No study has had sufficient numbers to satisfactorily address clinical outcome in patients who received activated charcoal less than 1 h following ingestion.

SUMMARY

If used appropriately, activated charcoal has relatively low morbidity. Due to the lack of definitive studies showing a benefit in clinical outcome, it should not be used routinely in ingestions. AC could be considered for patients with an intact airway who present soon after ingestion of a toxic or life-threatening dose of an adsorbable toxin. The appropriate use of activated charcoal should be determined by the analysis of the relative risks and benefits of its use in each specific clinical scenario.

Use of single-dose activated charcoal among Canadian pediatric emergency physicians

OBJECTIVE

Gastric decontamination with single-dose activated charcoal (SDAC) is a mainstay in emergency department (ED) treatment of ingestions. Guidelines updated in 2005 encourage practitioners to use SDAC only in toxic ingestions presenting within 1 hour. Despite these guidelines, adult studies demonstrate a significant lack of consensus. This study examined the proposed use of SDAC for gastric decontamination in common pediatric ingestion scenarios by emergency physicians working in Canadian pediatric EDs.

METHODS

A standardized survey consisting of 5 clinical scenarios was mailed to all physicians with a primary clinical appointment to the ED at 9 Canadian children's hospitals.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one physicians were surveyed, and 95 (72%) responded. The majority of respondents were pediatricians (68.1%) with a mean of 15.0 years of experience (SD, 6.8 years). Of those surveyed; 91 (97.8%) would use SDAC for a toxic ingestion presenting in less than 1 hour; 35 (36.8%) would use SDAC for a toxic ingestion presenting after 3 hours; 61 (64.9%) would use SDAC for a nontoxic exploratory ingestion presenting in less than 1 hour; and 29 (30.5%) would use SDAC for a mildly symptomatic intentional ingestion presenting at an unknown time. Eleven (11.7%) would use SDAC for an ingestion of a substance that does not adsorb to SDAC.

CONCLUSIONS

There is variation in the use of SDAC among emergency physicians working in Canadian pediatric EDs. This variation suggests that optimal management is not clear and that continued education and research are required.

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.

The Management of Tricyclic Antidepressant Poisoning

Although there have been descriptive, uncontrolled clinical reports of removal of tablet debris by gastric lavage, there have been no clinical studies that have demonstrated that this has any impact on outcome in patients with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) poisoning. There is also the possibility that lavage may increase drug absorption by pushing tablets into the small intestine. Furthermore, gastric lavage in patients with TCA poisoning may induce hypoxia and a tachycardia potentially increasing the risk of severe complications such as arrhythmias and convulsions. In view of the paucity of evidence that gastric lavage removes a significant amount of drug and the risk of complications associated with the procedure, the routine use of gastric lavage in the management of patients with TCA poisoning is not appropriate. Volunteer studies have shown generally that activated charcoal is more likely to reduce drug absorption if it is administered within 1 hour of drug ingestion. In the one volunteer study that looked at later administration of activated charcoal, there was a 37% decrease in plasma concentration associated with administration of activated charcoal at 2 hours post-ingestion. There have been no clinical studies that enable an estimate of the effect of activated charcoal administration on outcome in the management of patients with TCA poisoning. Volunteer studies have shown that multiple-dose activated charcoal increases the elimination of therapeutic doses of amitriptyline and nortriptyline, but not of doxepin or imipramine; however, these studies cannot be directly extrapolated to the management of patients with TCA poisoning. There have been no well designed controlled studies that have assessed the impact of multiple-dose activated charcoal in the management of patients with TCA poisoning. Because of the large volume of distribution of TCAs, it would not be expected that their elimination would be significantly increased by multiple-dose activated charcoal.Haemoperfusion, haemodialysis and the combination of these procedures do not result in significant removal of TCAs and are not recommended in the management of patients with TCA poisoning.

Single‐Dose Activated Charcoal‐Backup and Reassess

Single-dose activated charcoal (SDAC) is frequently administered to poisoned patients. The assumption is that toxin absorption is prevented and that toxicity (as defined by morbidity and mortality) of the poisoning is decreased. Yet there is no evidence that SDAC improves outcome. Risks of this procedure have not been determined. The reported adverse events following SDAC administration are reviewed and risk:benefit ratio for this procedure is discussed.

Surgical issues in the poisoned patient

Some toxicologic emergencies require immediate or urgent surgical intervention in addition to routine medical care. The EP must be familiar with the indications for operative care, even though many of these poisonings and exposures are relatively rare. The EP must also be knowledgeable regarding the various means of surgical decontamination that are available, including temporary cardiopulmonary bypass. Finally, a high level of vigilance must be maintained for patients who have delayed presentation and fulminant organ failure necessitating early involvement of the transplantation team.

Single-dose oral activated charcoal in the treatment of the self-poisoned patient: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Oral activated charcoal (OAC) is a universally accepted treatment of the overdose patient. Although the benefits of OAC have been suggested, there are no conclusive clinical data indicating that OAC affects outcome in overdose patients. This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of OAC treatment in the self-poisoned adult patient. Adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a history of oral overdose were assigned to treatment with OAC (50 g) or supportive care only on an even-odd day protocol. Patients did not undergo gastric evacuation procedures in the ED. The outcome measures were clinical deterioration, length of stay in the ED or hospital, and complication rate. Over a 24-month period, 1479 patients were entered into the study. There were no significant differences in outcome parameters between the OAC treatment group and controls when comparing the length of intubation time, length of hospital stay, and the complication rates associated with the overdose. There was a higher incidence of vomiting and longer length of ED stay associated with OAC treatment. The results of this study indicated that oral drug overdose patients do not require gastric evacuation or charcoal administration. OAC provided no additional benefit to supportive care alone, was associated with a higher incidence of vomiting and a longer length of ED stay, and did not improve clinical outcome.

The role of activated charcoal and gastric emptying in gastrointestinal decontamination: a state-of-the-art review

Gastrointestinal decontamination has been practiced for hundreds of years; however, only in the past few years have data emerged that demonstrate a clinical benefit in some patients. Because most potentially toxic ingestions involve agents that are not toxic in the quantity consumed, the exact circumstances in which decontamination is beneficial and which methods are most beneficial in those circumstances remain important topics of research. Maximum benefit from decontamination is expected in patients who present soon after the ingestion. Unfortunately, many overdose patients present at least 2 hours after taking a medication, when most of the toxin has been absorbed or has moved well into the intestine, beyond the expected reach of gastrointestinal decontamination. Decontamination probably does not contribute to the outcome of many such patients, especially those without symptoms. However, if absorption has been delayed or gastrointestinal motility has been slowed, activated charcoal may reduce the final amount absorbed. The use of activated charcoal in these cases may be beneficial and is associated with few complications. Therefore, administration of activated charcoal is recommended as soon as possible after emergency department presentation, unless the agent and quantity are known to be nontoxic, the agent is known not to adsorb to activated charcoal, or the delay has been so long that absorption is probably complete. The use of gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal has generated intense debate. Several large comparative studies have failed to demonstrate a benefit of gastric emptying before activated charcoal. Because complications of such 2-step decontamination include a higher rate of intubation, aspiration, and ICU admission, gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal cannot be considered the routine approach to patients. However, there are several infrequent circumstances in which the data are inadequate to accurately assess the potential benefit of gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal: symptomatic patients presenting in the first hour after ingestion, symptomatic patients who have ingested agents that slow gastrointestinal motility, patients taking sustained release medications, and those taking massive or life-threatening amounts of medication. These circumstances represent only a small subset of ingestions. In the absence of convincing data about benefit or lack of benefit of gastric emptying for these patients, individual physicians must act on a personal valuation: Is it better to use a treatment that might have some benefit but definitely has some risk or not to use a treatment that has any risk unless there is proven benefit?

Pediatric orogastric and nasogastric tubes: a new formula evaluated

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the traditional method of determining depth of gastric tube insertion, by measuring from the external landmarks of the nose or mouth, to the earlobe, to the xiphoid process (NEX method), with a graph for determining depth of gastric tube insertion that is based on patient height (graphic method).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study comparing NEX and graphic methods for gastric tube depth of insertion was undertaken. This study included a convenience sample of pediatric emergency department patients in need of gastric intubation. Patients were block randomized, and their gastric tubes were placed to the depth derived from the particular method employed. Alternate depth of insertion was measured on all patients. Abdominal radiographs were used to determine the distance that the end of the tube was from the center of the stomach.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients each were in the NEX and graphic groups. The mean distance from the center of the stomach was -1.12 cm (SD 1.36) for the graphic group, compared with 1.31 cm (SD 3.39) for the NEX method. The difference between the 2 methods was 2.43 cm (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33 to 3.54). Using absolute values, the mean distance from the center of the stomach was 1.26 cm (SD 1.23) for the graphic group compared with 2.60 cm (SD 2.51) for the NEX method. Using these values, the difference between the groups is 1.34 cm (95% CI 0.50 to 2.18).

CONCLUSION

When compared with the NEX method, the graphic method demonstrates a significant ability to more consistently and accurately determine the depth of pediatric gastric tube insertion.

Esophageal laceration and charcoal mediastinum complicating gastric lavage

A 19-year-old woman underwent multiple attempts at orogastric lavage before success 5 h after ingesting approximately 24 grams of ibuprofen in a suicide attempt. Activated charcoal was administered via the lavage tube. She vomited charcoal shortly after administration and began experiencing difficulty breathing and an increase in the pitch of her voice. A chest X-ray study showed a widened mediastinum, pneumopericardium, and subcutaneous emphysema consistent with esophageal perforation that was confirmed by computed tomography scan. Surgical exploration revealed a tear in the proximal posterior esophagus with charcoal in the posterior mediastinum. She remained intubated for 7 days and was discharged 14 days after admission. This is a report of esophageal perforation with activated charcoal contamination of the mediastinum after gastric lavage. The risks and benefits of this procedure should be carefully considered in each patient prior to its use. Awake patients should be cooperative with the procedure to minimize any risk of trauma to the oropharynx or esophagus.

A new endoscopic technique for the removal of gastric phytobezoars

BACKGROUND

There is no standardized method for the evacuation of gastric phytobezoars. Prior endoscopic attempts have used injected cellulase and various devices to disrupt bezoars. The efficacy of directed, large-channel suction using an endoscope for the removal of large gastric phytobezoars is the subject of this study.

METHODS

Three consecutive patients with large gastric bezoars were examined. Phytobezoar removal using a standard endoscope (GIF-100, Olympus) was attempted but unsuccessful. Each phytobezoar was successfully evacuated by directed suction through an endoscope with a large-diameter accessory channel (GIF-XT30, Olympus). Each patient was followed up for bezoar recurrence.

RESULTS

Rapid, complete bezoar evacuation was achieved at one session in all patients. Aspirated volumes were 500, 700, and 1000 mL. There were no procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic suction removal of gastric phytobezoars using a large-channel endoscope is efficacious and safe. Coupling directed endoscopic suction with other endoscopic techniques might be efficacious for removal of more complex bezoars.

Indications for, techniques of, complications of, and efficacy of gastric lavage in the treatment of the poisoned child

Gastrointestinal decontamination is central to the care of poisoned patients, and gastric lavage is one common method for gastrointestinal decontamination. Gastric lavage in pediatric patients should be limited to children who present shortly after a potentially life-threatening ingestion. The routine use of gastric lavage has recently been questioned because of limited outcome data and increased morbidity. If gastric lavage is deemed necessary, proper positioning of the patient and strict attention to appropriate technique are essential to avert complications.

David R. Boyd lecture in trauma care and emergency medical systems: "The surgical complications of toxins."

Toxins have had major roles in our societies for thousands of years. Interactions between surgeons, both generalists and subspecialists, and those caring for poisoned patients have been extensive throughout history. The advancement of the science of toxicology, the development of regional poison control centers, the development of emergency medicine, and the development of the subspecialty of medical toxicology have led to more appropriate and creative interactions between medical toxicologists, emergency physicians, and surgeons. This article will review the diverse interfaces between the medical toxicologist and the surgeon.

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.

Potential time savings by prehospital administration of activated charcoal

OBJECTIVE

Activated charcoal (AC) has been proven useful in many toxic ingestions. Theoretically, administration of AC in the prehospital environment could save valuable time in the treatment of patients who have sustained potentially toxic oral ingestions. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of prehospital AC administration and to identify time savings that could potentially result from field AC administration.

METHODS

Adult patients with a chief complaint of toxic ingestion who had complete emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency department (ED) records and no medical treatment (gastric emptying, AC administration) prior to EMS arrival were eligible for inclusion. Data obtained from EMS and ED records included time of EMS departure from the scene, time of EMS arrival at the ED, and time of administration of AC in the ED. Since most EMS agencies in this system do not insert gastric tubes, patients requiring gastric tube placement for administration of AC were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine of 117 (24.8%) adult patients received oral AC with no other intervention. None of the 117 patients received AC in the prehospital setting. The EMS transport time for these patients ranged from 5 to 43 minutes (mean 16.2 +/- 9.7 minutes). The delay from ED arrival to AC administration ranged from 5 to 94 minutes (mean 48.8 +/- 24.1 minutes), and was more than 60 minutes for 14 (48.2%) of the patients. The total time interval from scene departure to ED AC administration ranged from 17 to 111 minutes (mean 65.0 +/- 25.9 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

In a selected subset of patients who tolerate oral AC, prehospital administration of AC could result in earlier and potentially more efficacious AC therapy. Prospective study of the benefits and feasibility of prehospital AC administration is indicated.

Misadventures with activated charcoal and recommendations for safe use

OBJECTIVE

To review published reports of adverse effects associated with single- and multiple-dose activated charcoal therapy, and to formulate recommendations for safe use of activated charcoal therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A manual search of Index Medicus from 1970 to December 1993 was conducted for English language articles; bibliographies of the resultant articles were also scanned.

STUDY SELECTION

Cases were included if they were described in full detail, resulted in significant morbidity or mortality, and uniquely contributed to the formulation of recommendations for safe use of activated charcoal therapy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The major causes of morbidity and mortality secondary to activated charcoal therapy are aspiration of charcoal, gastrointestinal obstruction, and fluid and electrolyte abnormalities. Aspirations have occurred as a result of a number of circumstances that may be avoided. These include use in patients with unprotected airways, use of excessive charcoal dose, administration of inappropriately diluted charcoal, and administration of charcoal in the field. Gastrointestinal obstruction has occurred when multiple doses of activated charcoal have been administered without a cathartic and in cases in which a cathartic was administered if the patient had impaired peristalsis. Fluid and electrolyte abnormalities have occurred secondary to excessive cathartic administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Activated charcoal therapy should be used judiciously so that related morbidity and mortality can be prevented. Adequate consideration for the patient's airway protection capability is necessary. Judicious dosing of charcoal and concomitant cathartic therapy, along with adequate monitoring of fluid and electrolyte status, abdominal physical assessment, and clinical condition are all vital to the safe use of activated charcoal therapy.