Search

Background There are few reports of dextrose‐associated hepatic steatosis during insulin overdose treatment. Reports in nondiabetic patients are extremely rare. There is inadequate knowledge about the clinical course and treatment. Case Presentation A 37‐year‐old previously healthy, nondiabetic man self‐administered 5,925 IU of insulin. On admission, his liver function tests were normal. However, following continued dextrose treatment, they increased, and he was diagnosed with hepatic steatosis. The liver function tests improved with decreasing dextrose dosage, and he was asymptomatic on discharge. Conclusion Acute hepatic steatosis may occur in nondiabetic and diabetic patients during treatment requiring large doses of dextrose infusion, such as for an insulin overdose. In addition, the degree of liver damage might also be related to the dextrose dose. Therefore, careful glycemic control and minimization of the dextrose dosage are recommended for diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

Aim Intentional or unintentional acute drug poisoning occurs even in elderly people, but little is known about the factors influencing the intention to poisoning. A retrospective study was undertaken to describe the characteristics of acute drug poisoning in elderly people according to whether the poisoning was intentional or unintentional and the responsible agents. Methods The study was carried out in a single tertiary hospital in Japan. A total of 145 patients aged ≥65 years who were transferred by an ambulance service and were diagnosed with acute drug poisoning were included. Medical records were used to collect information on the intention behind poisoning and the responsible agents. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they experienced intentional or unintentional poisoning and were further classified according to the responsible agent. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between hospitalization for acute drug poisoning and the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs). Results Poisoning was unintentional in 102 (70.3%) patients and intentional in 43 (29.7%) patients. In total, 65 (44.8%) patients required hospitalization. Among patients in the unintentional poisoning group, those using non‐BzRAs were more likely to be hospitalized than those using BzRAs (odds ratio, 6.64; 95% confidence interval, 2.56–17.22). The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the unintentional poisoning group than in the intentional poisoning group (13.9 vs. 6.2 days; P = 0.013). Conclusions The proportion of unintentional poisoning in the elderly is high, and particularly with respect to poisoning with non‐BzRAs, the hospitalization rates are high.

Aim A lack of known guidelines for the provision of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has led to variability in practice between hospitals even in the same country. Because variability in ECPR practice has not been completely examined, we aimed to describe the variability in ECPR practice in patients with OHCA from the emergency department (ED) to the intensive care units (ICU). Methods An anonymous online questionnaire to examine variability in ECPR practice was completed in January 2020 by 36 medical institutions who participated in the SAVE‐J II study. Institutional demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, initial resuscitation management, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) initiation, initial ECMO management, intra‐aortic balloon pumping/endotracheal intubation/management during coronary angiography, and computed tomography criteria were recorded. Results We received responses from all 36 institutions. Four institutions (11.1%) had a hybrid emergency room. Cardiovascular surgery was always involved throughout the entire ECMO process in only 14.7% of institutions; 60% of institutions had formal inclusion criteria and 50% had formal exclusion criteria. In two‐thirds of institutions, emergency physicians carried out cannulation. Catheterization room was the leading location of cannulation (48.6%) followed by ED (31.4%). The presence of formal exclusion criteria significantly increased with increasing ECPR volume (P for trend