Dominique Vodovar1,2,3, Sébastien Beaune3,4, Jérôme Langrand2,3, Eric Vicaut5, Laurence Labat6, Bruno Mégarbane1,3. 1. Department of Medical and Toxicological Critical Care, Federation of Toxicology APHP, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris-Diderot University, Paris, France. 2. Paris Poison Center, Federation of Toxicology APHP, Fernand-Widal Hospital, Paris, France. 3. Inserm UMRS 1144, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Ambroise Paré Hospital, Paris, France. 5. Department of Clinical Research and Biostatistics, Fernand-Widal Hospital, Paris, France. 6. Laboratory of Toxicology, Federation of Toxicology APHP, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess recommendations provided by the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup on extracorporeal toxin removal (ECTR) in lithium poisoning. METHODS: Retrospective assessment in a 128 lithium-poisoned patient cohort previously used to identify ECTR initiation criteria that could improve outcome (Paris criteria). ECTR requirement using EXTRIP criteria was compared to the actual practice or if Paris criteria were used. The potential impact on outcome if these different criteria were used was investigated. RESULTS: Using the recommended (Rec-EXTRIP) or recommended + suggested (All-EXTRIP) EXTRIP criteria, ECTR would have been indicated in more patients than was actually done (P < .001), or if Paris criteria were used (P < .01). The non-actually ECTR-treated patients fulfilling Rec-EXTRIP or All-EXTRIP criteria had shorter intensive care unit stay (P < .05) and no significant increase in fatalities and neurological impairment on discharge in comparison to the actually ECTR-treated patients. ECTR requirements using EXTRIP vs Paris criteria were not concordant (P < .001). In the non-actually ECTR-treated patients, 31/106 and 55/106 patients fulfilled Rec-EXTRIP or All-EXTRIP but not Paris criteria, respectively. Those patients had longer stay (P < .01) but no worse neurological impairment on discharge than the patients not fulfilling any of these criteria (50/106 and 26/106, respectively). In the non-actually ECTR-treated patients, 7/106 fulfilled Paris but not Rec-EXTRIP criteria. Those patients had longer stay (P < .05) and worse neurological impairment on discharge (P < .01) than the 50/106 patients not fulfilling any of these criteria. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of lithium poisonings, EXTRIP criteria may lead to more ECTR than actually performed or if the Paris criteria were used, with no demonstrated improvement in outcome.
AIMS: To assess recommendations provided by the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup on extracorporeal toxin removal (ECTR) in lithiumpoisoning. METHODS: Retrospective assessment in a 128 lithium-poisoned patient cohort previously used to identify ECTR initiation criteria that could improve outcome (Paris criteria). ECTR requirement using EXTRIP criteria was compared to the actual practice or if Paris criteria were used. The potential impact on outcome if these different criteria were used was investigated. RESULTS: Using the recommended (Rec-EXTRIP) or recommended + suggested (All-EXTRIP) EXTRIP criteria, ECTR would have been indicated in more patients than was actually done (P < .001), or if Paris criteria were used (P < .01). The non-actually ECTR-treated patients fulfilling Rec-EXTRIP or All-EXTRIP criteria had shorter intensive care unit stay (P < .05) and no significant increase in fatalities and neurological impairment on discharge in comparison to the actually ECTR-treated patients. ECTR requirements using EXTRIP vs Paris criteria were not concordant (P < .001). In the non-actually ECTR-treated patients, 31/106 and 55/106 patients fulfilled Rec-EXTRIP or All-EXTRIP but not Paris criteria, respectively. Those patients had longer stay (P < .01) but no worse neurological impairment on discharge than the patients not fulfilling any of these criteria (50/106 and 26/106, respectively). In the non-actually ECTR-treated patients, 7/106 fulfilled Paris but not Rec-EXTRIP criteria. Those patients had longer stay (P < .05) and worse neurological impairment on discharge (P < .01) than the 50/106 patients not fulfilling any of these criteria. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of lithium poisonings, EXTRIP criteria may lead to more ECTR than actually performed or if the Paris criteria were used, with no demonstrated improvement in outcome.
Authors: Valéry Lavergne; Thomas D Nolin; Robert S Hoffman; Darren Roberts; Sophie Gosselin; David S Goldfarb; Jan T Kielstein; Robert Mactier; Robert Maclaren; James B Mowry; Timothy E Bunchman; David Juurlink; Bruno Megarbane; Kurt Anseeuw; James F Winchester; Paul I Dargan; Kathleen D Liu; Lotte C Hoegberg; Yi Li; Diane P Calello; Emmanuel A Burdmann; Christopher Yates; Martin Laliberté; Brian Scott Decker; Carlos Augusto Mello-Da-Silva; Eric Lavonas; Marc Ghannoum Journal: Clin Toxicol (Phila) Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.467
Authors: Brian S Decker; David S Goldfarb; Paul I Dargan; Marjorie Friesen; Sophie Gosselin; Robert S Hoffman; Valéry Lavergne; Thomas D Nolin; Marc Ghannoum Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jonathan Baird-Gunning; Tom Lea-Henry; Lotte C G Hoegberg; Sophie Gosselin; Darren M Roberts Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 3.510