Comparative efficacy of hemodialysis and hemoperfusion in severe theophylline intoxication

A case of multiorgan failure due to carbamazepine intoxication successfully treated with multimodal blood purification therapy

Carbamazepine (CBZ) intoxication can occur due to various factors, including drug interactions and over-ingestion. Extracorporeal elimination, particularly through hemodialysis and hemoperfusion, is effective in treating severe carbamazepine intoxication. However, as the effectiveness of various modalities can differ, method selection may be based on a specific clinical situation. A 47-year-old woman who took CBZ for schizophrenia presented to our hospital with episodes of vomiting and consciousness disorder. As the CBZ concentration was > 20 μg/mL, she was admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of acute CBZ poisoning. She underwent one session of hemoperfusion for 2 h, and her CBZ level decreased from > 20 µg/mL to 6.4 µg/mL. However, she developed acute kidney and liver injuries 2 days after admission and underwent intermittent hemodialysis, plasma exchange, continuous hemodiafiltration (CHDF), and online HDF, depending on her condition. Her general condition improved, and she was transferred to the psychiatric department. To our knowledge, no case reports have described severe acute CBZ poisoning in a patient who developed multiorgan failure to date, which was successfully treated with multimodal blood purification therapy. When treating severe CBZ intoxication, blood purification therapy should be tailored to the changing pathophysiology of the condition.

Management of acute carbamazepine poisoning: A narrative review

Standard management protocols are lacking and specific antidotes are unavailable for acute carbamazepine (CBZ) poisoning. The objective of this review is to provide currently available information on acute CBZ poisoning, including its management, by describing and summarizing various therapeutic methods for its treatment according to previously published studies. Several treatment methods for CBZ poisoning will be briefly introduced, their advantages and disadvantages will be analyzed and compared, and suggestions for the clinical treatment of CBZ poisoning will be provided. A literature search was performed in various English and Chinese databases. In addition, the reference lists of identified articles were screened for additional relevant studies, including non-indexed reports. Non-peer-reviewed sources were also included. In the present review, 154 articles met the inclusion criteria including case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in vitro studies. Data on 67 patients, including 4 fatalities, were reviewed. Based on the summary of cases reported in the included articles, the cure rate of CBZ poisoning after symptomatic treatment was 82% and the efficiency of hemoperfusion was 58.2%. Based on the literature review, CBZ is moderately dialyzable and the recommendation for CBZ poisoning is supportive management and gastric lavage. In severe cases, extracorporeal treatment is recommended, with hemodialysis as the first choice.

Extracorporeal treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Ethylene glycol (EG) is metabolized into glycolate and oxalate and may cause metabolic acidemia, neurotoxicity, acute kidney injury (AKI), and death. Historically, treatment of EG toxicity included supportive care, correction of acid-base disturbances and antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole), and extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis. With the wider availability of fomepizole, the indications for ECTRs in EG poisoning are debated. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXTRIP methods to determine the utility of ECTRs in the management of EG toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, either strong ("we recommend") or weak/conditional ("we suggest"), were graded according to the GRADE approach. A total of 226 articles met inclusion criteria. EG was assessed as dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis (level of evidence = B) as was glycolate (Level of evidence = C). Clinical data were available for analysis on 446 patients, in whom overall mortality was 18.7%. In the subgroup of patients with a glycolate concentration ≤ 12 mmol/L (or anion gap ≤ 28 mmol/L), mortality was 3.6%; in this subgroup, outcomes in patients receiving ECTR were not better than in those who did not receive ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup made the following recommendations for the use of ECTR in addition to supportive care over supportive care alone in the management of EG poisoning (very low quality of evidence for all recommendations): i) Suggest ECTR if fomepizole is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or ii) Recommend ECTR if ethanol is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or iii) Recommend ECTR if glycolate concentration is > 12 mmol/L or anion gap > 27 mmol/L; or iv) Suggest ECTR if glycolate concentration 8-12 mmol/L or anion gap 23-27 mmol/L; or v) Recommend ECTR if there are severe clinical features (coma, seizures, or AKI). In most settings, the workgroup recommends using intermittent hemodialysis over other ECTRs. If intermittent hemodialysis is not available, CKRT is recommended over other types of ECTR. Cessation of ECTR is recommended once the anion gap is < 18 mmol/L or suggested if EG concentration is < 4 mmol/L. The dosage of antidotes (fomepizole or ethanol) needs to be adjusted during ECTR.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Methotrexate Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

Methotrexate is used in the treatment of many malignancies, rheumatological diseases, and inflammatory bowel disease. Toxicity from use is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. Rescue treatments include intravenous hydration, folinic acid, and, in some centers, glucarpidase. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) methods to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments in the management of methotrexate toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations (either "strong" or "weak/conditional") were graded according to the GRADE approach. A formal voting process using a modified Delphi method assessed the level of agreement between panelists on the final recommendations. A total of 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic data were available on 90 patients (89 with impaired kidney function). Methotrexate was considered to be moderately dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis. Data were available for clinical analysis on 109 patients (high-dose methotrexate [>0.5 g/m2]: 91 patients; low-dose [≤0.5 g/m2]: 18). Overall mortality in these publications was 19.5% and 26.7% in those with high-dose and low-dose methotrexate-related toxicity, respectively. Although one observational study reported lower mortality in patients treated with glucarpidase compared with those treated with hemodialysis, there were important limitations in the study. For patients with severe methotrexate toxicity receiving standard care, the EXTRIP workgroup: (1) suggested against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is not administered; (2) recommended against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is administered; and (3) recommended against extracorporeal treatments instead of administering glucarpidase. The quality of evidence for these recommendations was very low. Rationales for these recommendations included: (1) extracorporeal treatments mainly remove drugs in the intravascular compartment, whereas methotrexate rapidly distributes into cells; (2) extracorporeal treatments remove folinic acid; (3) in rare cases where fast removal of methotrexate is required, glucarpidase will outperform any extracorporeal treatment; and (4) extracorporeal treatments do not appear to reduce the incidence and magnitude of methotrexate toxicity.

Plasma Concentration After the First Hemoperfusion has a High Predictive Value in Medium Level Acute Paraquat-Poisoned Patients

BACKGROUND

Paraquat ( PQ) is very poisonous to humans and animals and there is no effective clinical antidote . The efficacy of hemoperfusion (HP) treatment for PQ poisoning remains controversial. To explore new ways to predict the prognosis of patients with acute PQ poisoning and assist in the development of better hemopurification treatment strategies.

METHODS

The clinical data of patients who were intoxicated with PQ through contact were diagnosed with PQ poisoning by high-performance liquid chromatography. Samples were collected by the Emergency Intensive Care Unit of the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from January 2012 to November 2016. Based on the prognosis, the patients were grouped into survival and death groups. Comparisons of the differences in the clinical indexes were performed, including the initial concentration of PQ at admission, PQ concentration after first HP, the number of HP cartridges used for the first hemoperfusion, whether HP was combined with continuous renal replacement therapy, and the number of concurrent organ injuries between the 2 groups. In addition, data were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves. Moreover, prognostic factors in patients with acute PQ poisoning were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 128 patients with acute PQ poisoning were enrolled in this study. The median plasma PQ concentrations of the patients at admission were 21 and 834 ng/mL (range: 50-1,099,118 ng/mL). The multiple logistic regression model revealed that the initial concentration of PQ and the PQ concentration after the first perfusion were independent risk factors for death in patients with acute PQ poisoning. The PQ concentration in the survival group after the first HP was <516 ng/mL and was mainly distributed at approximately 100 ng/mL. The percentage of patients whose concentration after the first HP was <516 ng/mL in the death group was only 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial plasma PQ concentration after admission and PQ concentration after the first HP are risk factors for death in patients with acute PQ poisoning. Moreover, PQ concentration after the first HP had a high predictive value for death. When the initial plasma PQ concentration after admission ranges from 50 ng/mL to 5000 ng/mL, the rapid reduction in plasma PQ concentration after HP treatment could improve the prognosis of patients with acute PQ poisoning.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Gabapentin and Pregabalin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the EXTRIP Workgroup

Toxicity from gabapentin and pregabalin overdose is commonly encountered. Treatment is supportive, and the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. The EXTRIP workgroup conducted systematic reviews of the literature and summarized findings following published methods. Thirty-three articles (30 patient reports and 3 pharmacokinetic studies) met the inclusion criteria. High gabapentinoid extracorporeal clearance (>150mL/min) and short elimination half-life (<5 hours) were reported with hemodialysis. The workgroup assessed gabapentin and pregabalin as "dialyzable" for patients with decreased kidney function (quality of the evidence grade as A and B, respectively). Limited clinical data were available (24 patients with gabapentin toxicity and 7 with pregabalin toxicity received ECTR). Severe toxicity, mortality, and sequelae were rare in cases receiving ECTR and in historical controls receiving standard care alone. No clear clinical benefit from ECTR could be identified although major knowledge gaps were acknowledged, as well as costs and harms of ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care rather than standard care alone (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for gabapentinoid poisoning in patients with normal kidney function. If decreased kidney function and coma requiring mechanical ventilation are present, the workgroup suggests performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup on extracorporeal treatment for baclofen poisoning

Baclofen toxicity results from intentional self-poisoning ("acute baclofen poisoning") or accumulation of therapeutic dose in the setting of impaired kidney function. Standard care includes baclofen discontinuation, respiratory support and seizure treatment. Use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. To clarify this, a comprehensive review of the literature on the effect of ECTRs in baclofen toxicity was performed and recommendations following EXTRIP methods were formulated based on 43 studies. (1 comparative cohort, 1 aggregate results cohort, 1 pharmacokinetic modeling, and 40 patient reports or series). Toxicokinetic data were available for 20 patients. Baclofen's dialyzability is limited by a high endogenous clearance and a short half-life in patients with normal kidney function. The workgroup assessed baclofen as "Moderately dialyzable" by intermittent hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence C) and "Dialyzable" for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence C). Clinical data were available for 25 patients with acute baclofen poisoning and 46 patients with toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. No deaths or sequelae were reported. Mortality in historical controls was rare. No benefit of ECTR was identified in patients with acute baclofen poisoning. Indirect evidence suggests a benefit of ECTR in reducing the duration of toxic encephalopathy from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. These potential benefits were balanced against added costs and harms related to the insertion of a catheter, the procedure itself, and the potential of baclofen withdrawal. Thus, the EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care for acute baclofen poisoning and suggests performing ECTR in toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment, especially in the presence of coma requiring mechanical ventilation.

Extracorporeal treatment for poisoning to beta-adrenergic antagonists: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

β-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning.

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods.

RESULTS

A total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

BAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.

Extracorporeal treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly used to treat conditions such as arterial hypertension and supraventricular dysrhythmias. Poisoning from these drugs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in the management of CCB poisoning.

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods.

RESULTS

A total of 83 publications (6 in vitro and 1 animal experiments, 55 case reports or case series, 19 pharmacokinetic studies, 1 cohort study and 1 systematic review) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of ECTR. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 210 patients (including 32 for amlodipine, 20 for diltiazem, and 52 for verapamil). Regardless of the ECTR used, amlodipine, bepridil, diltiazem, felodipine, isradipine, mibefradil, nifedipine, nisoldipine, and verapamil were considered not dialyzable, with variable levels of evidence, while no dialyzability grading was possible for nicardipine and nitrendipine. Data were available for clinical analysis on 78 CCB poisoned patients (including 32 patients for amlodipine, 16 for diltiazem, and 23 for verapamil). Standard care (including high dose insulin euglycemic therapy) was not systematically administered. Clinical data did not suggest an improvement in outcomes with ECTR. Consequently, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either amlodipine, diltiazem or verapamil (strong recommendations, very low quality of the evidence (1D)). There were insufficient clinical data to draft recommendation for other CCBs, although the workgroup acknowledged the low dialyzability from, and lack of biological plausibility for, ECTR.

CONCLUSIONS

Both dialyzability and clinical data do not support a clinical benefit from ECTRs for CCB poisoning. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance the elimination of amlodipine, diltiazem, and verapamil in patients with severe poisoning.

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.

Efficacy of direct hemoperfusion for the removal of phenobarbital through blood concentration analysis

Aim

Phenobarbital overdose can cause coma and even death. The consciousness disturbance is often prolonged due to its long half-life. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of direct hemoperfusion (DHP) for the removal of phenobarbital by measuring the blood levels of phenobarbital.

Methods

Study subjects included five patients with phenobarbital poisoning who were transferred to our hospital. Direct hemoperfusion was carried out in three of the five patients (six times in total), and the elimination rate was calculated by measuring the blood levels before and after DHP. Furthermore, the disappearance rate of phenobarbital without DHP was calculated in all five patients (seven times in total) for comparison with the elimination rate.

Results

The elimination rate of phenobarbital with DHP was significantly higher than the disappearance rate without DHP．.

Conclusion

This study suggests that early introduction of DHP should be considered as a treatment option for phenobarbital poisoning.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, and Quinine Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

BACKGROUND

Although chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and quinine are used for a range of medical conditions, recent research suggested a potential role in treating COVID-19. The resultant increase in prescribing was accompanied by an increase in adverse events, including severe toxicity and death. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup sought to determine the effect of and indications for extracorporeal treatments in cases of poisoning with these drugs.

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods.

RESULTS

A total of 44 studies (three in vitro studies, two animal studies, 28 patient reports or patient series, and 11 pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of extracorporeal treatments. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 61 patients (13 chloroquine, three hydroxychloroquine, and 45 quinine). Clinical data were available for analysis from 38 patients, including 12 with chloroquine toxicity, one with hydroxychloroquine toxicity, and 25 with quinine toxicity. All three drugs were classified as non-dialyzable (not amenable to clinically significant removal by extracorporeal treatments). The available data do not support using extracorporeal treatments in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either chloroquine or quinine (strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Although hydroxychloroquine was assessed as being non-dialyzable, the clinical evidence was not sufficient to support a formal recommendation regarding the use of extracorporeal treatments for this drug.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our systematic review and analysis, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance elimination of these drugs in patients with severe chloroquine or quinine poisoning.

Common Substances of Abuse

Adolescent substance abuse remains common, with almost a third of adolescents admitting to ethanol use, and a quarter admitting to illicit drug use. It is essential for pediatricians to regularly screen adolescent patients for substance use, because early initiation of drug use has been associated with physical, behavioral, and social health risks. Adolescents abuse what is common and readily available; this includes ethanol, over-the-counter products, marijuana, and inhalants. The most common and effective clinical treatments for significant toxicity from substances of abuse is symptomatic and supportive care including hemodynamic support, respiratory support, and sedation to control psychomotor agitation.

Cardiotoxicodynamics: Toxicity of Cardiovascular Xenobiotics

Maintaining adequate tissue perfusion depends on a variety of factors, all of which can be influenced by xenobiotics (substances foreign to the body, including pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and natural compounds). Volume status, systemic vascular resistance, myocardial contractility, and cardiac rhythm all play a significant role in ensuring hemodynamic stability and proper cardiovascular function. Direct effects on the nervous system, the vasculature, or the heart itself as well as indirect metabolic effects may play a significant role in the development of cardiotoxicity. This article is dedicated to discussion of the disruption of cardiovascular physiology by xenobiotics.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Metformin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup

BACKGROUND

Metformin toxicity, a challenging clinical entity, is associated with a mortality of 30%. The role of extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis is poorly defined at present. Here, the Extracorporeal Treatments In Poisoning workgroup, comprising international experts representing diverse professions, presents its systematic review and clinical recommendations for extracorporeal treatment in metformin poisoning.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, data extracted, findings summarized, and structured voting statements developed. A two-round modified Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on voting statements and RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymized votes and opinions were compiled and discussed. A second vote determined the final recommendations.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-five articles were identified, including 63 deaths: one observational study, 160 case reports or series, 11 studies of descriptive cohorts, and three pharmacokinetic studies in end-stage renal disease, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. The workgroup concluded that metformin is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence C) and made the following recommendations: extracorporeal treatment is recommended in severe metformin poisoning (1D). Indications for extracorporeal treatment include lactate concentration greater than 20 mmol/L (1D), pH less than or equal to 7.0 (1D), shock (1D), failure of standard supportive measures (1D), and decreased level of consciousness (2D). Extracorporeal treatment should be continued until the lactate concentration is less than 3 mmol/L (1D) and pH greater than 7.35 (1D), at which time close monitoring is warranted to determine the need for additional courses of extracorporeal treatment. Intermittent hemodialysis is preferred initially (1D), but continuous renal replacement therapies may be considered if hemodialysis is unavailable (2D). Repeat extracorporeal treatment sessions may use hemodialysis (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapy (1D).

CONCLUSION

Metformin poisoning with lactic acidosis appears to be amenable to extracorporeal treatments. Despite clinical evidence comprised mostly of case reports and suboptimal toxicokinetic data, the workgroup recommended extracorporeal removal in the case of severe metformin poisoning.

Intermittent haemodialysis and sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED) for acute theophylline toxicity

INTRODUCTION

Theophylline overdose can result in significant cardiovascular and neurologic toxicity and is potentially fatal. Clearance of theophylline can be enhanced by the administration of multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC) and extracorporeal elimination techniques. We report a case of severe theophylline toxicity initially treated with MDAC and intermittent haemodialysis. Subsequent to this, sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED) was undertaken. This is a prolonged renal replacement therapy that uses blood and dialysate flow rates between those of intermittent haemodialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy.

CASE REPORT

A 61-year-old man presented following ingestion of 24 g of theophylline SR (300 mg/kg), 240 mg of diazepam and 2 g of gabapentin. He required intubation and developed a supraventricular tachycardia treated with esmolol, but suffered no seizures. Serum theophylline concentration peaked at 636 μmol/L (55-110) at 9.5 h post-ingestion. Intermittent haemodialysis was performed for 4 h and resulted in a theophylline extraction ratio of 0.57 with elimination half-life of 2.3 h. SLED was subsequently performed on two occasions for 7 h. Theophylline extraction ratio ranged from 0.46 (half-life 5.3 h during the first cycle) to 0.61 (half-life 10.6 h during the second cycle). After cessation of SLED, elimination half-life was 26 h. The patient made an uneventful recovery.

DISCUSSION

Intermittent haemodialysis is the current recommended extracorporeal technique for enhancing theophylline elimination in the absence of charcoal haemoperfusion. However, SLED produced similar apparent extraction ratios with longer associated elimination half-life for theophylline than for intermittent haemodialysis. SLED is undertaken by intensive care unit (ICU) staff and may be a useful extracorporeal elimination technique in cases where access to intermittent haemodialysis, requiring specialist dialysis nursing staff, is limited or may be delayed.

Extracorporeal treatment for valproic acid poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

The EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup presents its systematic review and clinical recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in valproic acid (VPA) poisoning.

METHODS

The lead authors reviewed all of the articles from a systematic literature search, extracted the data, summarized the key findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations.

RESULTS

The latest literature search conducted in November 2014 retrieved a total of 79 articles for final qualitative analysis, including one observational study, one uncontrolled cohort study with aggregate analysis, 70 case reports and case series, and 7 pharmacokinetic studies, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data were reported for 82 overdose patients while pharmaco/toxicokinetic grading was performed in 55 patients. The workgroup concluded that VPA is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = B) and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe VPA poisoning (1D); recommendations for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 1300 mg/L (9000 μmol/L)(1D), the presence of cerebral edema (1D) or shock (1D); suggestions for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 900 mg/L (6250 μmol/L)(2D), coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation (2D), acute hyperammonemia (2D), or pH ≤ 7.10 (2D). Cessation of ECTR is indicated when clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum VPA concentration is between 50 and 100 mg/L (350-700 μmol/L)(2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR in VPA poisoning (1D). If hemodialysis is not available, then intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapy (2D) is an acceptable alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

VPA is moderately dialyzable in the setting of overdose. ECTR is indicated for VPA poisoning if at least one of the above criteria is present. Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR modality in VPA poisoning.

Extracorporeal treatment for theophylline poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning. Here, the workgroup presents its systematic review and recommendations for theophylline.

METHODS

After a systematic review of the literature, a subgroup reviewed articles, extracted data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a pre-determined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed. A second vote determined the final recommendations.

RESULTS

141 articles were included: 6 in vitro studies, 4 animal studies, 101 case reports/case series, 7 descriptive cohorts, 4 observational studies, and 19 pharmacokinetic studies, yielding a low-to-very-low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 143 patients were reviewed, including 10 deaths. The workgroup concluded that theophylline is dialyzable (level of evidence = A) and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe theophylline poisoning (1C). Specific recommendations for ECTR include a theophylline concentration [theophylline] > 100 mg/L (555 μmol/L) in acute exposure (1C), the presence of seizures (1D), life-threatening dysrhythmias (1D) or shock (1D), a rising [theophylline] despite optimal therapy (1D), and clinical deterioration despite optimal care (1D). In chronic poisoning, ECTR is suggested if [theophylline] > 60 mg/L (333 μmol/L) (2D) or if the [theophylline] > 50 mg/L (278 μmol/L) and the patient is either less than 6 months of age or older than 60 years of age (2D). ECTR is also suggested if gastrointestinal decontamination cannot be administered (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent or the [theophylline] is < 15 mg/L (83 μmol/L) (1D). Following the cessation of ECTR, patients should be closely monitored. Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred method of ECTR (1C). If intermittent hemodialysis is unavailable, hemoperfusion (1C) or continuous renal replacement therapies may be considered (3D). Exchange transfusion is an adequate alternative to hemodialysis in neonates (2D). Multi-dose activated charcoal should be continued during ECTR (1D).

CONCLUSION

Theophylline poisoning is amenable to ECTRs. The workgroup recommended extracorporeal removal in the case of severe theophylline poisoning.

Extracorporeal treatment for carbamazepine poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Context. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning. Objectives. To perform a systematic review and provide clinical recommendations for ECTR in carbamazepine poisoning. Methods. After a systematic literature search, the subgroup extracted the data and summarized the findings following a pre-determined format. The entire workgroup voted via a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations. Results. Seventy-four articles met inclusion criteria. Articles included case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in-vitro studies; two poor-quality observational studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 173 patients, including 6 fatalities, were reviewed. The workgroup concluded that carbamazepine is moderately dialyzable and made the following recommendations: ECTR is suggested in severe carbamazepine poisoning (2D). ECTR is recommended if multiple seizures occur and are refractory to treatment (1D), or if life-threatening dysrhythmias occur (1D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation are present (2D) or if significant toxicity persists, particularly when carbamazepine concentrations rise or remain elevated, despite using multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC) and supportive measures (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum carbamazepine concentration is below 10 mg/L (42 the μ in μmol/L looks weird.) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR (1D), but both intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are alternatives if hemodialysis is not available. MDAC therapy should be continued during ECTR (1D). Conclusion. Despite the low quality of the available clinical evidence and the high protein binding capacity of carbamazepine, the workgroup suggested extracorporeal removal in cases of severe carbamazepine poisoning.

Cardiac arrest: a case-based review

BACKGROUND

Coffee is commonly consumed among young people in China. However, consumers are rarely aware of physically adverse effects as a result of excessive consumption of caffeine.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search using multiple databases was performed for articles published with concentration on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Excess coffee consumption is also a risk of primary cardiac arrest especially in young people. Treatment modalities include activated charcoals, beta-blockers, vasopressin and hemodialysis when necessary.

CONCLUSION

Coffee consumers should be advised not to routinely take more than moderate coffee.

Extracorporeal treatment for barbiturate poisoning: recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

The EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning) Workgroup conducted a systematic review of barbiturate poisoning using a standardized evidence-based process to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in patients with barbiturate poisoning. The authors reviewed all articles, extracted data, summarized key findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A 2-round modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. 617 articles met the search inclusion criteria. Data for 538 patients were abstracted and evaluated. Only case reports, case series, and nonrandomized observational studies were identified, yielding a low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Using established criteria, the workgroup deemed that long-acting barbiturates are dialyzable and short-acting barbiturates are moderately dialyzable. Four key recommendations were made. (1) The use of ECTR should be restricted to cases of severe long-acting barbiturate poisoning. (2) The indications for ECTR in this setting are the presence of prolonged coma, respiratory depression necessitating mechanical ventilation, shock, persistent toxicity, or increasing or persistently elevated serum barbiturate concentrations despite treatment with multiple-dose activated charcoal. (3) Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred mode of ECTR, and multiple-dose activated charcoal treatment should be continued during ECTR. (4) Cessation of ECTR is indicated when clinical improvement is apparent. This report provides detailed descriptions of the rationale for all recommendations. In summary, patients with long-acting barbiturate poisoning should be treated with ECTR provided at least one of the specific criteria in the first recommendation is present.

Hemoperfusion for the treatment of poisoning: technology, determinants of poison clearance, and application in clinical practice

Hemoperfusion is an extracorporeal treatment based on adsorption, historically reserved for the treatment of acute poisonings. Its use was popularized in the 1970s after several in vitro and animal experiments had demonstrated its efficacy, and was even preferred over hemodialysis in the management of overdosed patients. With the advent of new and more efficient dialytic modalities, hemoperfusion is now less frequently performed in the Western world. However, hemoperfusion still remains popular in developing countries. The present article reviews the technique of hemoperfusion, the factors influencing poison clearance through adsorption and its current applications.

A stepwise approach for the management of poisoning with extracorporeal treatments

The use of an extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in a poisoned patient may be life-saving in a limited number of scenarios. The decision-processes surrounding the use of ECTR in poisoning is complex: most nephrologists are not trained to assess a poisoned patient while clinical toxicologists rarely prescribe ECTRs. Deciding on which ECTR is most appropriate for a poison requires a good understanding of the poison's physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties. Further, a detailed understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the different ECTRs can be useful to select the most appropriate ECTR for a given clinical situation. This manuscript provides a stepwise approach to assess the usefulness of ECTRs in poisoning.

Available extracorporeal treatments for poisoning: overview and limitations

Poisoning is a significant public health problem. In severe cases, extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) may be required to prevent or reverse major toxicity. Available ECTRs include intermittent hemodialysis, sustained low-efficiency dialysis, intermittent hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration, continuous renal replacement therapy, hemoperfusion, therapeutic plasma exchange, exchange transfusion, peritoneal dialysis, albumin dialysis, cerebrospinal fluid exchange, and extracorporeal life support. The aim of this article was to provide an overview of the technical aspects, as well as the potential indications and limitations of the different ECTRs used for poisoned patients.

Enhanced poison elimination in critical care

Nephrologists and critical care physicians are commonly involved in the treatment of severely poisoned patients. Various techniques exist presently to enhance the elimination of poisons. Corporeal treatments occur inside of the body and include multiple-dose activated charcoal, resin binding, forced diuresis, and urinary pH alteration. Extracorporeal treatments include hemodialysis, hemoperfusion, peritoneal dialysis, continuous renal replacement therapy, exchange transfusion, and plasmapheresis. This review illustrates the potential indications and limitations in the application of these modalities as well as the pharmacological characteristics of poisons amenable to enhanced elimination.

An Introduction to Extracorporeal Blood Purification in Critical Illness

Critical care nephrology is an emerging sub-specialty with rapid technological advancement and a growing body of dedicated literature in blood purification techniques. Their applications have been extended to improve morbidity and survival in multiple organ dysfunctions. Novel techniques have also allowed us to push the frontiers in transplant medicine, giving high-immunological risk patients a chance at a kidney transplant where this was previously precluded by hyperacute antibody-mediated rejection. We aim to review the myriad extracorporeal blood purification techniques now available for treating various critical illnesses in our clinical practice. Some of these techniques will still require further clinical research to determine the optimal timing and dose in order to achieve significant improvement in clinical outcomes.

Intoxications amenable to extracorporeal removal

Extracorporeal removal of drugs was first attempted in 1913, by John Jacob Abel. Previously known to be a rarity, dialysis and to a lesser extent hemoperfusion have now become obvious tools for nephrologists in treating life-threatening cases of poisoning. Moreover, for dialysis patients, dialysis along with chelation therapy for removal of aluminum, once known to be common in the United States, is resurging in some countries. This article will discuss the principles of drug removal, the indications for dialysis, and give a brief outline of poisons amenable to dialysis.

Management of toxic ingestions with the use of renal replacement therapy

Although rare, renal replacement therapy (RRT) for the treatment of the metabolic, respiratory and hemodynamic complications of intoxications may be required. Understanding the natural clearance of the medications along with their volume of distribution, protein binding and molecular weight will help in understanding the benefit of commencing RRT. This information will aid in choosing the optimal forms of RRT in an urgent setting. Overdose of common pediatric medications are discussed with suggestions on the type of RRT within this educational review.

The role of continuous renal replacement therapy in the treatment of poisoning

Extracorporeal elimination of drugs and toxins is a critical component in the management of poisonings, though specific techniques and indications remain a matter of debate. Conventional hemodialysis is frequently the treatment of choice because of its widespread availability and proven effectiveness for certain drugs and toxins. With the increased availability of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) modalities, there is yet another therapeutic option, but one that has yet to find a definitive role in this field. The continuous nature of these therapies is attractive for the management of acute renal failure, but the relatively slower clearance rates as compared to conventional hemodialysis is a distinct drawback in patients with acute xenobiotic-induced toxicity. There are abundant case reports as well as a few small case series in the medical literature documenting the use of CRRT, but specific techniques and the clinical outcomes vary considerably. Therefore one cannot draw definitive conclusions regarding benefit. Some patients, particularly those who are hemodynamically unstable and are not candidates for conventional hemodialysis, may warrant a trial of CRRT. However, at the present time, routine use for the treatment of poisoning is not supported. Controlled trials to better clarify its role would be beneficial, though such studies would be extremely difficult to conduct in this field. We believe that the intelligent application of extracorporeal modalities requires a thorough knowledge of drug pharmacokinetics, of the techniques utilized, and a skeptical analysis of the available literature.

Three Controversial Issues in Extracorporeal Toxin Removal

The optimal method of extracorporeal removal of many toxic compounds is often a matter of debate. Due to the lack of well-designed studies, we are often left with circumstantial evidence, and we must exercise our best clinical judgment as to whether extracorporeal drug removal is beneficial and if so, by what method. It is clear, however, that rapidity in toxin removal is beneficial. We present three issues dealing with extracorporeal removal of toxins for which there is no definitive answer but which may arise in clinical practice. The first is whether continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is better at removing dialyzable toxins than classic hemodialysis. The second is whether charcoal hemoperfusion is at all useful in treating paraquat poisoning. Finally, is any modality of extracorporeal treatment useful in the treatment of amatoxin poisoning? After a thorough literature review, it is evident that definitive answers are not strikingly apparent. However, extracorporeal treatment in the latter two instances may have potential benefit and may be the only hope for patient survival. Due to the urgent nature of treatment for poisoning, as well as the somewhat obscure nature of these issues, there may never be well-designed evidence-based studies to help guide us. In the meantime, we must continue to use less than ideal evidence and our own experience in dealing with these controversial issues to guide our decision-making process.

The Availability and Use of Charcoal Hemoperfusion in the Treatment of Poisoned Patients

BACKGROUND

Charcoal hemoperfusion (CHP) has been one of the preferred methods to enhance the elimination of certain toxins in selected poisoned patients. However, the availability of CHP may be limited because of the expense of cartridges, their narrow indications, and their limited shelf life. Improvements in hemodialysis (HD) technology may contribute to making CHP obsolete. We investigated the availability of CHP in in-hospital HD units at hospitals receiving ambulances dispatched through New York City's emergency response system, hereafter referred to as 911-receiving hospitals, and their recent history of CHP use in poisoned patients.

METHODS

The medical directors or managers of all in-hospital HD units in the 911-receiving hospitals of New York City were contacted by E-mail and/or telephone. Participants were administered a standard survey that included questions regarding the availability of CHP cartridges and the date and indication for last CHP use. Participants at institutions that did not stock CHP cartridges were questioned about their opinions on the utility of CHP.

RESULTS

Forty-two in-hospital HD units were surveyed, of which 34 (81%) completed the survey. Ten units (29%) had CHP cartridges available for immediate use. Each of these 10 units stocked between 1 and 4 adult-size CHP cartridges, and 1 unit stocked 2 pediatric-size CHP cartridges. Nine units had in-date CHP cartridges, and 1 unit had only expired CHP cartridges. Only 3 units performed CHP in the past 5 years (2 units, theophylline poisonings; 1 unit, aluminum overload). In the 24 units without CHP cartridges, 21 directors believed that most common toxins could be removed effectively through HD and thus CHP rarely was indicated. Only 1 director cited expense as a factor in not stocking CHP cartridges. Two directors reported no specific reason for not stocking the cartridges.

CONCLUSION

CHP cartridges are available in only approximately one third of 911-receiving hospitals in New York City. CHP is infrequently performed to enhance toxin elimination in poisoned patients.

Dialysis Rounds A Dialysis Case Presentation and Discussion Edited by Roger A. Rodby: Severe Lactic Acidosis Treated with Prolonged Hemodialysis: Recovery After Massive Overdoses of Metformin

We report two cases of severe lactic acidosis due to massive metformin ingestion. The first case was a 37-year-old man who was discovered several hours after ingesting 45 g of metformin. He had severe lactic acidosis (blood pH 6.81, bicarbonate 4 mEq/L, lactate 25.7 mEq/L). Despite intravenous bicarbonate therapy, he decompensated and was placed on a combination of hemodialysis and charcoal hemoperfusion for a continuous time of 25 hours. His hospital course was complicated by acute renal failure requiring a period of intermittent hemodialysis. He has since made a complete recovery. The second case was a 53-year-old man who ingested 50 g of metformin. He also presented with severe lactic acidosis (blood pH 6.85, bicarbonate 3 mEq/L and lactate 28.4 mEq/L) and deteriorated despite intravenous bicarbonate therapy. He was placed on hemodialysis as a continuous therapy for 21 hours. His hospital course was complicated by acute renal failure requiring a period of intermittent hemodialysis. He has subsequently made a complete recovery. Metformin-associated lactic acidosis carries a high mortality rate. Prolonged hemodialysis should be considered as an early treatment option in these cases.

Efficiency of the Genius batch hemodialysis system with low serum solute concentrations: the case of lithium intoxication therapy

BACKGROUND

The Genius batch system consists of a 90-L closed reservoir, from which fresh dialysate is extracted at the top and to which spent dialysate is returned at the bottom. It was shown in long-term hemodialysis patients that almost the entire amount of unspent dialysate can be used before contamination of fresh with spent dialysate occurs. Separation is caused by differences in density, partly because of the presence of uremic solutes in spent dialysate. The question is raised whether this separation can be maintained during dialysis of patients who experience an intoxication without renal failure.

METHODS

A patient intoxicated with lithium was dialyzed using the Genius system, prepared at 37 degrees C, during 300 minutes. With dialysate flow set at 300 mL/min (5 mL/s) and in the absence of mixing, urea is not expected at the inlet dialysate tubing before minute 300.

RESULTS

In the dialysate inlet tubing, an abrupt increase in lithium and urea concentrations was observed 210 minutes after the start of the session, reflecting contamination of fresh with spent dialysate. At minute 210, only 60.9 L of 90 L of dialysate had crossed the dialyzer. In a control dialysis treatment in a patient with marked renal failure, this mixing occurred only at 300 minutes.

CONCLUSION

In the present observation, it is shown that during Genius dialysis in a patient without renal failure, an earlier contamination of fresh with spent dialysate can occur, compared to conditions of renal failure.

Massive Caffeine Overdose Requiring Vasopressin Infusion and Hemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Massive caffeine overdose is associated with life-threatening hemodynamic complications that present challenges for clinicians. We describe the highest-reported serum concentration of caffeine in a patient who survived and discuss the first-reported use of vasopressin and hemodialysis in a caffeine-poisoned patient.

CASE REPORT

A 41-yr-old woman presented 3 h after ingesting approximately 50 g of caffeine. She subsequently underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation and received multiple medications in an attempt to raise her blood pressure and control her heart rate without success. Vasopressin infusion increased her blood pressure to the point where hemodialysis could be performed. Despite ensuing multisystem organ failure, she survived and has made a complete recovery.

CONCLUSION

Hemodialysis and vasopressin infusions may be of benefit in the management of caffeine-intoxicated patients who fail to respond to standard therapies.

Extracorporeal therapies for acute intoxications

Intoxications frequently perturb acid-base and electrolyte status, intravascular volume, and renal function. In selected cases, extracorporeal techniques effectively restore homeostasis and augment intoxicant removal. The use of 4-methylpyrazole, an inhibitor of alcohol dehydrogenase, is a new and effective treatment for patients exposed to toxic alcohols. In this section, practical approaches to commonly encountered intoxicants and the use of extracorporeal techniques are critically reviewed.