Marc Ghannoum

Recommendations for the role of extracorporeal treatments in the management of acute methanol poisoning: a systematic review and consensus statement.

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 ⩽7.15, persistent metabolic acidosis despite adequate supportive measures and antidotes, serum anion gap higher than 24 mmol/L; or, serum methanol concentration 1) greater than 700 mg/L (21.8 mmol/L) in the context of fomepizole therapy, 2) greater than 600 mg/L or 18.7 mmol/L in the context of ethanol treatment, 3) greater than 500 mg/L or 15.6 mmol/L in the absence of an alcohol dehydrogenase blocker; in the absence of a methanol concentration, the osmolal/osmolar gap may be informative; or, in the context of impaired kidney function. Intermittent hemodialysis is the modality of choice and continuous modalities are acceptable alternatives. Extracorporeal treatment can be terminated when the methanol concentration is <200 mg/L or 6.2 mmol/L and a clinical improvement is observed. Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning inhibitors and folic/folinic acid should be continued during extracorporeal treatment. General considerations: Antidotes and extracorporeal treatment should be initiated urgently in the context of severe poisoning. The duration of extracorporeal treatment extracorporeal treatment depends on the type of extracorporeal treatment used and the methanol exposure. Indications for extracorporeal treatment are based on risk factors for poor outcomes. The relative importance of individual indications for the triaging of patients for extracorporeal treatment, in the context of an epidemic when need exceeds resources, is unknown. In the absence of severe poisoning but if the methanol concentration is elevated and there is adequate alcohol dehydrogenase blockade, extracorporeal treatment is not immediately required. Systemic anticoagulation should be avoided during extracorporeal treatment because it may increase the development or severity of intracerebral hemorrhage. Conclusion:Extracorporeal treatment has a valuable role in the treatment of patients with methanol poisoning. A range of clinical indications for extracorporeal treatment is provided and duration of therapy can be guided through the careful monitoring of biomarkers of exposure and toxicity. In the absence of severe poisoning, the decision to use extracorporeal treatment is determined by balancing the cost and complications of extracorporeal treatment to that of fomepizole or ethanol. Given regional differences in cost and availability of fomepizole and extracorporeal treatment, these decisions must be made at a local level.

The EXTRIP (EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning) workgroup: Guideline methodology

Abstract Extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis and hemoperfusion, are used in poisoning despite a lack of controlled human trials demonstrating efficacy. To provide uniform recommendations, the EXTRIP group was formed as an international collaboration among recognized experts from nephrology, clinical toxicology, critical care, or pharmacology and supported by over 30 professional societies. For every poison, the clinical benefit of ECTR is weighed against associated complications, alternative therapies, and costs. Rigorous methodology, using the AGREE instrument, was developed and ratified. Methods rely on evidence appraisal and, in the absence of robust studies, on a thorough and transparent process of consensus statements. Twenty-four poisons were chosen according to their frequency, available evidence, and relevance. A systematic literature search was performed in order to retrieve all original publications regardless of language. Data were extracted on a standardized instrument. Quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE as: High = A, Moderate = B, Low = C, Very Low = D. For every poison, dialyzability was assessed and clinical effect of ECTR summarized. All pertinent documents were submitted to the workgroup with a list of statements for vote (general statement, indications, timing, ECTR choice). A modified Delphi method with two voting rounds was used, between which deliberation was required. Each statement was voted on a Likert scale (1–9) to establish the strength of recommendation. This approach will permit the production of the first important practice guidelines on this topic.

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.

Extracorporeal treatment for digoxin poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

Abstract Background: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning. Here, we present our results for digoxin. Methods: 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. Results: Out of 435 articles screened, 77 met inclusion criteria. Only in-vitro, animal studies, case reports and case series were identified yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Based on data from 84 patients, including six fatalities, it was concluded that digoxin is slightly dialyzable (level of evidence = B), and that ECTR is unlikely to improve the outcome of digoxin-toxic patients whether or not digoxin immune Fab (Fab) is administered. Despite the lack of robust clinical evidence, the workgroup recommended against the use of ECTR in cases of severe digoxin poisoning when Fab was available (1D) and also suggested against the use of ECTR when Fab was unavailable (2D). Conclusion: ECTR, in any form, is not indicated for either suspected or proven digoxin toxicity, regardless of the clinical context, and is not indicated for removal of digoxin-Fab complex.

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

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, patients clinical status, and availability of extracorporeal treatments.

Extracorporeal treatment for acetaminophen poisoning: Recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Abstract Background. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning and the results are presented here for acetaminophen (APAP). Methods. After a systematic review of the literature, a subgroup selected and reviewed the articles and summarized clinical and toxicokinetic data in order to propose 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. Following discussion, a second vote determined the final recommendations. Results. Twenty-four articles (1 randomized controlled trial, 1 observational study, 2 pharmacokinetic studies, and 20 case reports or case series) were identified, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 135 patients and toxicokinetic data on 54 patients were analyzed. Twenty-three fatalities were reviewed. The workgroup agreed that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is the mainstay of treatment, and that ECTR is not warranted in most cases of APAP poisoning. However, given that APAP is dialyzable, the workgroup agreed that ECTR is suggested in patients with excessively large overdoses who display features of mitochondrial dysfunction. This is reflected by early development of altered mental status and severe metabolic acidosis prior to the onset of hepatic failure. Specific recommendations for ECTR include an APAP concentration over 1000 mg/L if NAC is not administered (1D), signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 700 mg/L (4630 mmol/L) if NAC is not administered (1D) and signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 900 mg/L (5960 mmol/L) if NAC is administered (1D). Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) is the preferred ECTR modality in APAP poisoning (1D). Conclusion. APAP is amenable to extracorporeal removal. Due to the efficacy of NAC, ECTR is reserved for rare situations when the efficacy of NAC has not been definitively demonstrated.

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.

Blood purification in toxicology: nephrology's ugly duckling.

Contrary to popular opinion, application of extracorporeal therapies for poisonings predates their use for ESRD. Despite this observation, the science of blood purification in toxicology remains desperately stagnant today. In fact, much of our current knowledge is derived from George Schreiners 1958 review. Original publications are almost exclusively composed of case reports and case series, from which good inference is impossible. Until randomized controlled trials become available, the medical community would be well served by a group mandated to systematically review available literature, extract relevant information, provide recommendations based on current evidence, and propose research initiatives. The EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning workgroup, formed by several international experts in different medical fields and represented by over 20 societies, now has this mission.

Principles and Operational Parameters to Optimize Poison Removal with Extracorporeal Treatments

A role for nephrologists in the management of a poisoned patient involves evaluating the indications for, and methods of, enhancing the elimination of a poison. Nephrologists are familiar with the various extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) used in the management of impaired kidney function, and their respective advantages and disadvantages. However, these same skills and knowledge may not always be considered, or applicable, when prescribing ECTR for the treatment of a poisoned patient. Maximizing solute elimination is a key aim of such treatments, perhaps more so than in the treatment of uremia, because ECTR has the potential to reverse clinical toxicity and shorten the duration of poisoning. This manuscript reviews the various principles that govern poison elimination by ECTR (diffusion, convection, adsorption, and centrifugation) and how components of the ECTR can be adjusted to maximize clearance. Data supporting these recommendations will be presented, whenever available.

The impact of various platelet indices as prognostic markers of septic shock.

Introduction Platelet indices, including mean platelet volume (MPV), are readily available blood tests, although their prognostic value in patients with septic shock has not been fully explored. Current evidence has found contradictory results. This study aims to explore the behavior of platelet indices in septic shock and their clinical prognostic value. Methods Charts of septic shock patients from January to December 2012 in a tertiary medical center in Northern China were reviewed retrospectively. Platelet indices were recorded during the first five consecutive days after admission, as well as the penultimate and the last day of hospital stay. The data were compared between surviving and non-surviving patients. Results A total of 124 septic shock patients were enrolled. Thirty-six of the patients survived and 88 of them expired. MPV in the non-survivor group was higher than that of the survivor group, especially on the last day. PDW and PLCR showed increased trends, while PCT and PLT decreased in the non-survivor group. Among the PLT indices, MPV had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.81) with a precision rate of 75.6% at a cut-off of 10.5.Compared with other more usual septic shock prognostic markers, MPV is second only to lactate for the highest area under the curve. Conclusion A statistically significant difference was seen between survivors and non-survivors for platelet indices which make them easily available and useful prognostic markers for patients in septic shock.