Single‐Dose Activated Charcoal‐Backup and Reassess

Protective effect of activated charcoal against progression of chronic kidney disease: A randomized clinical study

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a non-reversible and progressive disease affecting the kidneys, significantly impacting global public health. One of the complications of chronic kidney disease is impaired intestinal barrier function, which may allow harmful products such as urea to enter the bloodstream and cause systemic inflammation. This study aimed to investigate whether supplementation with activated charcoal could reduce uremic toxins in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The study was a randomized clinical trial conducted at the Dialysis Center of al Diwaniyah Medical Hospital in the Diwaniyah Governorate. Eighty-two patients with ESRD on regular hemodialysis were enrolled, with 15 patients receiving oral supplementation with activated charcoal in addition to standard care and 13 patients receiving only standard care. Blood samples were collected at baseline and after eight weeks, and several biomarkers were measured, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine, urea, phosphorus, albumin, and indoxyl sulfate. The results showed a significant reduction in both serum urea and serum phosphorus levels after eight weeks of oral-activated charcoal treatment. However, the other biomarkers were not affected by the treatment. In conclusion, the use of oral-activated charcoal for eight weeks in Iraqi patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis improved urea and phosphorus levels.

Recent developments in the use of activated charcoal in medicine

One of the raw forms of graphite is activated charcoal which has an extensive surface area allowing for the adsorption of a wide range of chemicals. It possesses the strongest physical adsorption forces of the available materials, as well as the largest volume of adsorbing porosity. Activated charcoal acts as an adsorbent, collecting and storing substances in the gastrointestinal tract, reducing or blocking absorption in the bloodstream. The ingested toxins interact with charcoal by recycling toxins in the intestinal cavity. In cases where the drug has not been absorbed from the abdominal system, it is recirculated through the liver and intestines or by means of passive diffusion or active secretion. The article aims to review the most recent advances in the use of the activated charcoal, including the dose, how charcoal acts in the body, the mechanism of action, administration, contraindications, as well as the impact of various factors on the adsorption process. In addition, we also discussed numerous medical applications of activated charcoal.

[Cardiac arrest under special circumstances]

These guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest under Special Circumstances are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required for basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest under special circumstances; in particular, specific causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo-/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), specific settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation [in-flight, cruise ships], sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and specific patient groups (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological disease, morbid obesity, pregnancy).

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Cardiac arrest in special circumstances

These European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest in Special Circumstances guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required to basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest in special circumstances; specifically special causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), special settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, catheter laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation (in-flight, cruise ships), sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and special patient groups (asthma and COPD, neurological disease, obesity, pregnancy).

Retrospective study of paracetamol poisoning in children aged zero to six years found no cases of liver injury

AIM

This study focused on children aged zero to six years with suspected single-dose paracetamol poisoning, which has not been investigated in Denmark. We evaluated the incidence of liver injuries and the use of activated charcoal and N-acetylcysteine treatment.

METHODS

Our retrospective study was performed in three paediatric hospital centres from 2001 to 2012. Data on symptoms, time of ingestion, blood biochemistry, treatment and adverse reactions were collected. The results were evaluated against the Rumack-Matthew nomogram.

RESULTS

We identified 221 children (58% male), with a mean age of 2.67 ± 1.05 years. Activated charcoal treatment was given in 87% of cases, but only 15% of the children received treatment within one hour of the suspected paracetamol poisoning. Although 80% of the children received N-acetylcysteine treatment, only one case (0.5%) had a toxic plasma paracetamol level according to the treatment nomogram. Abdominal pain or vomiting was associated with higher paracetamol levels in plasma. None of the children developed liver injuries.

CONCLUSION

We found a low incidence of significant poisoning and liberal use of N-acetylcysteine and activated charcoal treatment in Danish children aged zero to six years with suspected paracetamol poisoning. Vomiting or abdominal pain was associated with elevated plasma paracetamol levels. No liver injuries were reported.

Activated charcoal for acute overdose: a reappraisal

Sometimes mistakenly characterized as a 'universal antidote,' activated charcoal (AC) is the most frequently employed method of gastrointestinal decontamination in the developed world. Typically administered as a single dose (SDAC), its tremendous surface area permits the binding of many drugs and toxins in the gastrointestinal lumen, reducing their systemic absorption. Like other decontamination procedures, the utility of SDAC attenuates with time, and, although generally safe, it is not free of risk. A large body of evidence demonstrates that SDAC can reduce the absorption of drugs and xenobiotics but most such studies involve volunteers and have little generalizability to clinical practice. Few rigorous clinical trials of SDAC have been conducted, and none validate or refute its utility in those patients who are intuitively most likely to benefit. Over the past decade, a growing body of observational data have demonstrated that SDAC can elicit substantial reductions in drug absorption in acutely poisoned patients. The challenge for clinicians rests in differentiating those patients most likely to benefit from SDAC from those in whom meaningful improvement is doubtful. This is often a difficult determination not well suited to an algorithmic approach. The present narrative review summarizes the data supporting the benefits and harms of SDAC, and offers pragmatic suggestions for clinical practice.

Indications for single-dose activated charcoal administration in acute overdose

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastrointestinal decontamination in overdose patients remains a controversial problem in emergency medicine. There has been a significant decrease in the use of single-dose activated charcoal (SDAC) in recent years based on little new evidence and possibly because the overall mortality in overdose patients is low.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human volunteer studies suggest SDAC is effective and this effect occurs for up to 4 h after ingestion, but the magnitude of the reduction in area under the curve (AUC) decreases over time. Two randomized controlled trials including one recent large study did not find SDAC to be beneficial. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of specific drugs in overdose suggest that for most drugs SDAC decreases drug exposure, but this does not translate to clinical benefit in all cases. The administration of SDAC is a low-risk intervention.

SUMMARY

Although SDAC is unlikely to be beneficial in many overdose patients, for some subgroups with severe poisoning, the benefits will outweigh the low risk of administration. The use of SDAC should be based on the potential toxicity of the drug ingested and the potential benefit of SDAC balanced against the willingness of the patient to take SDAC and the low risk of administration.

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.

The feasibility of administration of activated charcoal with respect to current practice guidelines in emergency department patients

OBJECTIVE

The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, European Association of Poisons Centres, and Clinical Toxicologists recommend administration of activated charcoal (AC) within one-hour of an acute toxic ingestion [1]. Our poison control center periodically and upon request faxes an abbreviated protocol to hospital emergency departments, reminding physicians of these current AC recommendations. This study was conducted to describe how often patients present within the one-hour time frame and how often the guidelines in the above position statement are being followed.

METHODS

Following a brief training of systematic chart review, reviewers blinded to the purpose of the study completed a standardized data collection sheet. Three years after publication of these consensus statements, a period of 3 consecutive years of poison center patient encounters were reviewed. Recorded data included age, outcomes, and time to administration of charcoal.

RESULTS

Approximately 150,000 reported toxic exposures were reviewed, of which 16,914 patients of acute ingestions presented to a health care facility. The mean age of the group that presented was 25 years [range 1 month-87 years]. A total of 2,700 (16%) patients that presented were within 60 minutes of an acute overdose and all were administered AC in accordance with the recommended guidelines. Interestingly, pre-hospital personnel administered AC within 60 minutes to 762 (28% of 2,700) patients. Correspondingly, 14,214 (84%) patients presented more than 60 minutes after an acute overdose. Of this latter group AC was withheld in 341 (2.4% of 14,214) patients, and 13,873 (97.6% of 14,214) patients received charcoal despite having arrived more than 60 minutes after ingestion. The mean time to the first administration of AC in this latter group was 225 minutes [range of 61-2160 minutes] following ingestion.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a small percentage of patients treated for an acute overdose (16%) present within 60 minutes and are given charcoal according to the current guidelines. A large subset of these patients (28%) is given AC in a pre-hospital setting. Few patients presenting to a health care provider after an acute toxic ingestion are treated in accordance with the current recommendations for activated charcoal.

The approach to the patient with an unknown overdose

Toxic overdose can present with various clinical signs and symptoms. These may be the only clues to diagnosis when the cause of toxicity is unknown at the time of initial assessment. The prognosis and clinical course of recovery of a patient poisoned by a specific agent depends largely on the quality of care delivered within the first few hours in the emergency setting. Usually the drug or toxin can be quickly identified by a careful history, a directed physical examination, and commonly available laboratory tests. Once the patient has been stabilized, the physician must consider how to minimize the bioavailability of toxin not yet absorbed, which antidotes (if any) to administer, and if other measures to enhance elimination are necessary.

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.

The Changing Indications of Gastrointestinal Decontamination in Poisonings

Gastrointestinal (GI) decontamination is commonly used in the treatment of the poisoned patient. Although the practice is widely accepted, the science behind the recommendations is limited. This article describes commonly used techniques for GI decontamination and critically reviews the studies evaluating these treatments.

Gastrointestinal decontamination

Overall, no conclusive data support the use of gastric decontamination in the routine management of the poisoned patient. Studies of asymptomatic patients suggest that no treatment is required, and, given the complications that have been reported, this may be a reasonable approach to' most patients. Even in symptomatic patients, the only demonstrable benefit was found in a post-hoc subgroup analysis and involved an outcome of questionable clinical importance. Given these data, it would be easy to conclude that GI decontamination has no role in the management of the poisoned patient. This conclusion is valid when considering poisoned patients as a group, but all poisoned patients are not the same. Patients with trivial ingestion do well without treatment, and their greatest risk is an iatrogenic complication. Even patients with more serious ingestions usually have good outcomes with supportive care alone. It is no longer sufficient to justify GL or forced administration of AC with the supposition that "the patient could have taken something bad." However,there are some overdoses where limiting the systemic absorption of the poison may limit the toxic effects and prevent serious toxicity. After careful consideration of the risks, GI decontamination should be targeted at patients who, in the opinion of the treating physician, have a potentially life-threatening exposure.

Pharmacology, Pathophysiology and Management of Calcium Channel Blocker and ??-Blocker Toxicity

Calcium channel blockers (CCB) and beta-blockers (BB) account for approximately 40% of cardiovascular drug exposures reported to the American Association of Poison Centers. However, these drugs represent >65% of deaths from cardiovascular medications. Yet, caring for patients poisoned with these medications can be extremely difficult. Severely poisoned patients may have profound bradycardia and hypotension that is refractory to standard medications used for circulatory support.Calcium plays a pivotal role in cardiovascular function. The flow of calcium across cell membranes is necessary for cardiac automaticity, conduction and contraction, as well as maintenance of vascular tone. Through differing mechanisms, CCB and BB interfere with calcium fluxes across cell membranes. CCB directly block calcium flow through L-type calcium channels found in the heart, vasculature and pancreas, whereas BB decrease calcium flow by modifying the channels via second messenger systems. Interruption of calcium fluxes leads to decreased intracellular calcium producing cardiovascular dysfunction that, in the most severe situations, results in cardiovascular collapse.Although, CCB and BB have different mechanisms of action, their physiological and toxic effects are similar. However, differences exist between these drug classes and between drugs in each class. Diltiazem and especially verapamil tend to produce the most hypotension, bradycardia, conduction disturbances and deaths of the CCB. Nifedipine and other dihydropyridines are generally less lethal and tend to produce sinus tachycardia instead of bradycardia with fewer conduction disturbances.BB have a wider array of properties influencing their toxicity compared with CCB. BB possessing membrane stabilising activity are associated with the largest proportion of fatalities from BB overdose. Sotalol overdoses, in addition to bradycardia and hypotension, can cause torsade de pointes. Although BB and CCB poisoning can present in a similar fashion with hypotension and bradycardia, CCB toxicity is often associated with significant hyperglycaemia and acidosis because of complex metabolic derangements related to these medications. Despite differences, treatment of poisoning is nearly identical for BB and CCB, with some additional considerations given to specific BB. Initial management of critically ill patients consists of supporting airway, breathing and circulation. However, maintenance of adequate circulation in poisoned patients often requires a multitude of simultaneous therapies including intravenous fluids, vasopressors, calcium, glucagon, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, high-dose insulin, a relatively new therapy, and mechanical devices. This article provides a detailed review of the pharmacology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation and treatment strategies for CCB and BB overdoses.