Activated charcoal in the home: helpful and important or simply a distraction?

Poison treatment in the home. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention

The ingestion of a potentially poisonous substance by a young child is a common event, with the American Association of Poison Control Centers reporting approximately 1.2 million such events in the United States in 2001. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has long concerned itself with this issue and has made poison prevention an integral component of its injury prevention initiatives. A key AAP recommendation has been to keep a 1-oz bottle of syrup of ipecac in the home to be used only on the advice of a physician or poison control center. Recently, there has been interest regarding activated charcoal in the home as a poison treatment strategy. After reviewing the evidence, the AAP believes that ipecac should no longer be used routinely as a home treatment strategy, that existing ipecac in the home should be disposed of safely, and that it is premature to recommend the administration of activated charcoal in the home. The first action for a caregiver of a child who may have ingested a toxic substance is to consult with the local poison control center.

Feasibility of prehospital treatment with activated charcoal: Who could we treat, who should we treat?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility and potential risk benefit of prehospital administration of activated charcoal.

METHODS

Review of deliberate self poisoning presentations to the emergency department (ED) of a toxicology unit by ambulance over six years. Data were extracted from a standardised prospective database of poisonings. Outcomes included: number of patients attended by ambulance and number arriving in emergency within one hour. Cases were stratified by ingestion type, based on toxicity and sedative activity.

RESULTS

2041 poisoning admissions were included. The median time to ambulance attendance was 1 h 23 min (IQR 37 min-3 h) and to hospital attendance was 2 h 15 min (IQR 1 h 25 min-4 h). In 774 cases (38%) ambulance attendance occurred within one hour, but in only 161 (8%) did ED attendance occur within one hour. Non-sedating, highly toxic substances were ingested in 55 cases, 24 (23 with GCS>14) with ambulance attendance, and five with ED attendance, within one hour. Conversely 439 patients ingested a less toxic, sedative agent, 160 with ambulance attendance, and 32 with ED attendance, within one hour. Limiting decontamination to patients ingesting highly toxic, non-sedating compounds (GCS<14) reduces the proportion requiring treatment to 23 of the 774 (3.0%), an additional 18 patients.

CONCLUSION

More patients could potentially be decontaminated if all patients attended by ambulance within one hour received charcoal. However, this would expose 128 patients with sedative, low risk poisonings to the risk of aspiration, and only treat 18 extra high risk poisonings. This small potential benefit of prehospital charcoal is unlikely to justify the expense in training and protocols required to implement it