Gastrointestinal transit times of a charcoal/sorbitol slurry in overdose patients

The Role of Activated Charcoal in Prehospital Care

Background

Administration of a single-dose activated charcoal (SDAC) is an effective method used for gastric decontamination and for other types of poisoning and overdose. This is only true when given within the first hour of poison ingestion as the effectivity of SDAC reduces over time. In addition, generally, not all patients are able to avail treatment within the specified period. Hence, multi-dose activated charcoal is regarded as a solution to a delayed process, although, no proof outweighs the use of SDAC.

Objective

This study aimed to review and assess the adequacy of the past and current use of AC. The author also aimed to offer recommendations believed to be the best method to consider for prehospital care.

Methods

The author conducted 6,337 online literature searches for this review, wherein seven papers met eligibility criteria for inclusion and analysis.

Results

In this review, routine administration of AC in poisoning was found not related to the duration of hospital stay nor any other subsequent outcomes following poison ingestion. Further, this review did not establish that administration of AC could improve patient's clinical outcome. Further research and clinical trials is required to determine the efficacy of this therapy to appropriate patients in the prehospital setting.

Conclusion

Activated charcoal can be used to treat highly acute to life-threatening poisoning if it is administered within the first hour of ingestion. Further studies would be necessary to investigate if this would affect clinical outcome..

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.

Effect of single dose administration activated charcoal containing sorbitol on serum sodium concentration and hydration status in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To assess the administration of a commercially available activated charcoal suspension with sorbitol (ACS) on serum sodium concentrations and hydration status in healthy dogs.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Private referral hospital.

ANIMALS

Nine healthy adult dogs.

INTERVENTIONS

Dogs were administered 1 mg/kg maropitant (Cerenia; Pfizer Animal Health, New York, NY) intravenously 1 hour prior to charcoal administration. Dogs were administered a single dose of 2 g/kg ACS.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Blood samples and body weights were obtained prior to charcoal administration and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 hours post ACS administration. Venous sodium, potassium, chloride, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, lactate, packed cell volume, and total plasma protein were measured at each time interval. All dogs returned 2-4 weeks after ACS administration for a 12 hour period of water restriction and to serve as their own control group. The same measurements were repeated during water restriction period as following ACS administration. The increase in serum sodium concentration was significantly higher following ACS administration when compared to control period (P = 0.0002). All dogs administered ACS experienced a significant degree of weight loss (P = 0.0371) when compared to the control period. Following administration of ACS, the hematocrit of the dogs administered ACS was found to be significantly increased (P = 0.0001), when compared to the control period.

CONCLUSION

Patients that are administered a single dose of ACS are at risk of developing dehydration and secondary hypernatremia as observed in the dogs during the study period. Patients receiving ACS should have electrolytes monitored and would benefit from fluid therapy as previously recommended.

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.

Position Paper: Cathartics

The administration of a cathartic alone has no role in the management of the poisoned patient and is not recommended as a method of gut decontamination. Experimental data are conflicting regarding the use of cathartics in combination with activated charcoal. No clinical studies have been published to investigate the ability of a cathartic, with or without activated charcoal, to reduce the bioavailability of drugs or to improve the outcome of poisoned patients. Based on available data, the routine use of a cathartic in combination with activated charcoal is not endorsed. If a cathartic is used, it should be limited to a single dose in order to minimize adverse effects of the cathartic. A review of the literature since the preparation of the 1997 Cathartics Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of the Statement.

Risk factors for emesis after therapeutic use of activated charcoal in acutely poisoned children

OBJECTIVES

Vomiting frequently complicates the administration of activated charcoal. The incidence of such vomiting is not defined precisely in the pediatric population. Little is known about the patient-, poison-, or procedure-specific factors that contribute to emesis of charcoal. This study aimed to estimate the incidence of vomiting subsequent to therapeutic administration of charcoal to poisoned children < or =18 years of age and to examine the relative contributions of several risk factors to the occurrence of vomiting.

METHODS

Data were collected on a prospective cohort of 275 consecutive children who were treated with activated charcoal for acute poisoning exposure. The study was set in the emergency department of an urban, tertiary-care children's hospital. Sorbitol content of the charcoal was alternately assigned. Potential risk factors for vomiting were recorded prospectively, and the occurrence of vomiting within 2 hours of charcoal administration was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 56 (20.4%) of 275 patients vomited. Median time to vomiting was 10 minutes. Previous vomiting (relative risk: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.48-7.85) and nasogastric tube administration (relative risk: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.13-5.09) were found to be the most significant independent risk factors for vomiting. The increased risk among children >12 years of age, compared with younger children, approached significance. Sorbitol content, large charcoal volumes, or fast administration rates did not increase vomiting risk significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

One of every 5 children who are given activated charcoal within our pediatric emergency department vomited. Children with previous vomiting or nasogastric tube administration were at highest risk, and these factors should be accounted for in future investigation of antiemetic strategies. Sorbitol content of charcoal was not a significant risk factor for emesis.

Acupressure for prevention of emesis in patients receiving activated charcoal

OBJECTIVE

Vomiting after activated charcoal decontamination is problematic. Acupressure (traditional Chinese medicine) is an effective treatment for emesis, but has not been tested in overdose patients. We sought to determine (1) the incidence of emesis after activated charcoal and (2) the ability of acupressure to prevent emesis due to activated charcoal.

METHODS

Consecutive overdose patients were enrolled in a preliminary, prospective study to determine the incidence of emesis after activated charcoal. Awake patients, > 18 years, received 1 g/kg activated charcoal orally or via nasogastric tube, and then observedfor 1 hour. These patients served as controls forpart 2 of the study, where acupressure bands were placed on overdose patients at the Nei-Guan P-6 point of both wrists prior to activated charcoal, followed by 1 hour observation. Exclusion criteria included: ipecac decontamination, antiemetic drug ingestion, antiemetic drug therapy within 1 hour of activated charcoal, or intubation.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were included in the control group and 106 patients in the acupressure treatment group. Demographics and ingested substances were similar in both groups. 21/81 (25.9%) in the control group vomited and 15/106 (14.2%) in the acupressure group vomited. Acupressure reduced emesis by 46% (p = 0.043; chi2). Within the acupressure group, the median duration of prophylactic acupressure was 5 minutes in those patients without vomiting compared to 4 minutes in those patients with vomiting (NS; Wilcoxon rank sum test).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of emesis after activated charcoal at our institution was 26%. Prophylactic acupressure reduced activated charcoal-induced vomiting by 46%. Investigators suggest 5 minutes of acupressure prior to activated charcoal.

Position statement: single-dose activated charcoal. 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. Single-dose activated charcoal should not be administered routinely in the management of poisoned patients. Based on volunteer studies, the effectiveness of activated charcoal decreases with time; the greatest benefit is within 1 hour of ingestion. The administration of activated charcoal may be considered if a patient has ingested a potentially toxic amount of a poison (which is known to be adsorbed to charcoal) up to 1 hour previously; there are insufficient data to support or exclude its use after 1 hour of ingestion. There is no evidence that the administration of activated charcoal improves clinical outcome. Unless a patient has an intact or protected airway, the administration of charcoal is contraindicated.

Position statement: cathartics. 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. The administration of a cathartic alone has no role in the management of the poisoned patient and is not recommended as a method of gut decontamination. Experimental data are conflicting regarding the use of cathartics in combination with activated charcoal. No clinical studies have been published to investigate the ability of a cathartic, with or without activated charcoal, to reduce the bioavailability of drugs or to improve the outcome of poisoned patients. Based on available data, the routine use of a cathartic in combination with activated charcoal is not endorsed. If a cathartic is used, it should be limited to a single dose in order to minimize adverse effects.

Approach to the poisoned patient

Routine poison management involves the following: (1) stabilization, (2) toxidrome recognition, (3) decontamination, (4) antidote administration, (5) enhanced elimination of toxin, and (6) supportive care. Stabilization involves airway, ventilation, and circulation support. In the patient with altered mental status, oxygen, naloxone, glucose, and thiamine should be administered. Symptom complexes that relate to specific classifications of toxins are referred to as toxidromes. Emesis by means of syrup of ipecac is rarely used for in-hospital gastric decontamination. Activated charcoal is a useful adsorbent for gastric decontamination. Whole bowel irrigation is useful for iron, lead, and lithium poisoning and for the body packer phenomenon. Enhancement of elimination may involve multiple doses of activated charcoal, hemodialysis, or charcoal hemoperfusion.