Faculty Bibliography

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. Here, the EXTRIP workgroup presents its recommendations for lithium poisoning. After a systematic literature search, clinical and toxicokinetic data were extracted and summarized following a predetermined format. The entire workgroup voted through a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement, and anonymous votes were compiled and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations. In total, 166 articles met inclusion criteria, which were mostly case reports, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. A total of 418 patients were reviewed, 228 of which allowed extraction of patient-level data. The workgroup concluded that lithium is dialyzable (Level of evidence=A) and made the following recommendations: Extracorporeal treatment is recommended in severe lithium poisoning (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is recommended if kidney function is impaired and the [Li(+)] is >4.0 mEq/L, or in the presence of a decreased level of consciousness, seizures, or life-threatening dysrhythmias irrespective of the [Li(+)] (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is suggested if the [Li(+)] is >5.0 mEq/L, significant confusion is present, or the expected time to reduce the [Li(+)] to <1.0 mEq/L is >36 hours (2D). Extracorporeal treatment should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent or [Li(+)] is <1.0 mEq/L (1D). Extracorporeal treatments should be continued for a minimum of 6 hours if the [Li(+)] is not readily measurable (1D). Hemodialysis is the preferred extracorporeal treatment (1D), but continuous RRT is an acceptable alternative (1D). The workgroup supported the use of extracorporeal treatment in severe lithium poisoning. Clinical decisions on when to use extracorporeal treatment should take into account the [Li(+)], kidney function, pattern of lithium toxicity, patient's clinical status, and availability of extracorporeal treatments.

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 mumol/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 mumol/L) (2D) or if the [theophylline] > 50 mg/L (278 mumol/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 mumol/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.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Hemoperfusion (HP) or dialysis is occasionally used following carbamazepine (CBZ) toxicity but it remains unclear which is the most efficient modality. We describe a case of severe CBZ intoxication treated with different extracorporeal modalities during which CBZ toxicokinetics were compared. CASE DETAILS/METHODS:A 58-year-old man was transferred to our facility 24 hours after ingesting over 14 g of sustained-release CBZ. Because of worsening neurological condition requiring mechanical ventilation and CBZ levels reaching 47.6 μg/mL, he underwent three intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), two continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH), and one IHD with HP (IHD-HP). IHD and CVVH removed 1.73 g of carbamazepine over 43 hours. Mean apparent half-life was 8.8 hours during IHD 49.1 hours during CVVH, and 5.1 hours during IHD-HP, while measured endogenous half-life after extracorporeal therapies was 81.4 hours. Mean CBZ clearances were 106.2 mL/min during IHD and 21.2 mL/ min during CVVH. His neurological status improved during extracorporeal elimination, and he was discharged without sequela after 16 days. Treatments were well tolerated aside from thrombocytopenia during IHDHP. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:All extracorporeal treatments facilitated CBZ elimination, although CVVH was significantly less efficient than IHD and IHD-HP. IHD-HP may be better than IHD alone but must be weighed against its risks. IHD appears sufficient to eliminate CBZ and may need to be repeated or prolonged according to the clinical context if CBZ absorption is delayed.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Severe bleeding associated with dabigatran frequently requires intensive care management. An antidote is currently unavailable and data reporting the effect of dialysis on elimination of dabigatran are encouraging, but limited. Objective. To report the effect of intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) at enhancing elimination of dabigatran. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients were identified by existing collaborative networks. Pre-filter dabigatran plasma concentrations were measured in all patients, and in dialysate of three patients. RESULTS:Seven patients received dialysis, five with active bleeding and two requiring emergent surgery. Five received IHD and two received CRRT. The plasma elimination half-life of dabigatran was 1.5-4.9 h during IHD, and 14.0-27.5 h during CRRT. Mean dabigatran plasma clearance during IHD was 85-169 mL/min in three patients. Time to obtain a subtherapeutic dabigatran concentration depended on the initial concentration, being 8-18 h for IHD in three patients while 4 h was insufficient in a supratherapeutic case. A 38% rebound in dabigatran levels occurred after one case during IHD, and thrombin time increased after IHD in another, but not after 144 h CRRT or 17 h IHD in two others; data were incomplete in three cases. The amount removed during IHD was proportional to the pre-IHD concentration and clearance, but was consistently low at 3.3-17.4 mg in three patients where this was determined. Moderate bleeding occurred while obtaining vascular access in one patient. Two patients died from intracerebral bleeding, and the influence of treatments could not be determined in these cases. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS/CONCLUSIONS:IHD enhanced elimination of dabigatran more efficiently than CRRT, but their net effect remains poorly defined. Dialysis decisions, including modality and duration, must be individualized based on a risk-benefit assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Methanol poisoning can induce death and disability. Treatment includes the administration of antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole and folic/folinic acid) and consideration of extracorporeal treatment for correction of acidemia and/or enhanced elimination. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning workgroup aimed to develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for extracorporeal treatment in methanol poisoning. DESIGN AND METHODS: Utilizing predetermined methods, we conducted a systematic review of the literature. Two hundred seventy-two relevant publications were identified but publication and selection biases were noted. Data on clinical outcomes and dialyzability were collated and a two-round modified Delphi process was used to reach a consensus. RESULTS: Recommended indications for extracorporeal treatment: Severe methanol poisoning including any of the following being attributed to methanol: coma, seizures, new vision deficits, metabolic acidosis with blood pH