Search

Background: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly used to treat conditions such as arterial hypertension and supraventricular dysrhythmias. Poisoning from these drugs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in the management of CCB poisoning., Methods: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods., Results: A total of 83 publications (6 in vitro and 1 animal experiments, 55 case reports or case series, 19 pharmacokinetic studies, 1 cohort study and 1 systematic review) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of ECTR. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 210 patients (including 32 for amlodipine, 20 for diltiazem, and 52 for verapamil). Regardless of the ECTR used, amlodipine, bepridil, diltiazem, felodipine, isradipine, mibefradil, nifedipine, nisoldipine, and verapamil were considered not dialyzable, with variable levels of evidence, while no dialyzability grading was possible for nicardipine and nitrendipine. Data were available for clinical analysis on 78 CCB poisoned patients (including 32 patients for amlodipine, 16 for diltiazem, and 23 for verapamil). Standard care (including high dose insulin euglycemic therapy) was not systematically administered. Clinical data did not suggest an improvement in outcomes with ECTR. Consequently, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either amlodipine, diltiazem or verapamil (strong recommendations, very low quality of the evidence (1D)). There were insufficient clinical data to draft recommendation for other CCBs, although the workgroup acknowledged the low dialyzability from, and lack of biological plausibility for, ECTR., Conclusions: Both dialyzability and clinical data do not support a clinical benefit from ECTRs for CCB poisoning. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance the elimination of amlodipine, diltiazem, and verapamil in patients with severe poisoning.

Background: Although chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and quinine are used for a range of medical conditions, recent research suggested a potential role in treating COVID-19. The resultant increase in prescribing was accompanied by an increase in adverse events, including severe toxicity and death. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup sought to determine the effect of and indications for extracorporeal treatments in cases of poisoning with these drugs., Methods: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods., Results: A total of 44 studies (three in vitro studies, two animal studies, 28 patient reports or patient series, and 11 pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of extracorporeal treatments. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 61 patients (13 chloroquine, three hydroxychloroquine, and 45 quinine). Clinical data were available for analysis from 38 patients, including 12 with chloroquine toxicity, one with hydroxychloroquine toxicity, and 25 with quinine toxicity. All three drugs were classified as non-dialyzable (not amenable to clinically significant removal by extracorporeal treatments). The available data do not support using extracorporeal treatments in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either chloroquine or quinine (strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Although hydroxychloroquine was assessed as being non-dialyzable, the clinical evidence was not sufficient to support a formal recommendation regarding the use of extracorporeal treatments for this drug., Conclusions: On the basis of our systematic review and analysis, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance elimination of these drugs in patients with severe chloroquine or quinine poisoning., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) for poisonings with four non-traditionally dialysed toxins (NTDTs) is increasing in the United States. This study evaluated whether ECTRs are prescribed for toxin removal or the treatment of other medical illnesses or complications. We performed a 2-Phase retrospective analysis evaluating the main indication for ECTRs in patients with poisoning from a NTDT (defined for this study as acetaminophen, opioids, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or digoxin) and ECTR. The first phase assessed all cases from a single site (New York City Poison Control Center) between the years 2000 and 2016, and the second phase surveyed all United States Poison Control Centers (PCCs). In Phase 1, demographics, toxin ingested and main indication for ECTR were extracted. In Phase 2, a query to the National Poison Data System using the a pragmatic subset of inclusion criteria from Phase 1 restricted to single toxin ingestions over a narrower time frame (2014-2016) provided the cases for study. A structured online questionnaire was sent to all United States PCCs to request their database review regarding the indication for ECTR for their cases. In Phase 1, 92 cases met inclusion criteria. In Phase 2, 519 cases were screened and 425 met inclusion criteria. In Phase 1 91/92 (98.9%) and Phase 2 411/425 (96.7%), of extracorporeal treatments were used to treat underlying medical conditions or poisoning-related complications rather than accelerate toxin removal. The increasing number of ECTRs reported in patients who ingested one of the four NTDTs thus appears to be for medical indications rather than attempts at toxin removal, a distinction that is important., (© 2018 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).)

The duration of hemodialysis (HD) sessions for the treatment of acute ethylene glycol poisoning is dependent on concentration, the operational parameters used during HD, and the presence and severity of metabolic acidosis. Ethylene glycol assays are not readily available, potentially leading to undue extension or premature termination of HD. We report a prediction model for the duration of high-efficiency HD sessions based retrospectively on a cohort study of 26 cases of acute ethylene glycol poisoning in 24 individuals treated by alcohol dehydrogenase competitive inhibitors, cofactors and HD. Two patients required HD for more than 14 days, and two died. In 19 cases, the mean ethylene glycol elimination half-life during high-efficiency HD was 165 minutes (95% confidence interval of 151-180 minutes). In a training set of 12 patients with acute ethylene glycol poisoning, using the 90th percentile half-life (195 minutes) and a target ethylene glycol concentration of 2 mmol/l (12.4 mg/dl) allowed all cases to reach a safe ethylene glycol under 3 mmol/l (18.6 mg/dl). The prediction model was then validated in a set of seven acute ethylene glycol poisonings. Thus, the HD session time in hours can be estimated using 4.7 x (Ln [the initial ethylene glycol concentration (mmol/l)/2]), provided that metabolic acidosis is corrected., (Copyright © 2017 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) are used for different conditions, including replacement of organ function and poisoning. Current recommendations for ECTRs in various poisonings suggest that intermittent haemodialysis (IHD) is the most efficient technique. However, the practicality of these recommendations is poorly defined in view of limited information on availability and cost worldwide., Methods: A survey invitation to an Internet-based questionnaire was emailed between January 2014 and March 2015 to members of international societies to determine the availability, time to initiation and cost of ECTRs (including filters, dialysate, catheter, anticoagulant and nursing/physician salary). The median cost ratio of every ECTR compared with IHD performed in the same institution were presented., Results: The view rate was estimated at 28.1% (2532/9000), the participation rate was 40.1% (1015/2532) and the completion rate was 16.0% (162/1015). Respondents originated from 89 countries, and nearly three-fourths practiced in a tertiary care centre. A total of 162 respondents provided sufficient data for in-depth analysis. IHD was the most available acute ECTR (96.9%), followed by therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE; 68.3%), continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT; 62.9%), peritoneal dialysis (PD; 44.8%), haemoperfusion (HP; 30.9%) and liver support devices (LSDs; 14.7%). IHD, CRRT and HP were the shortest to initiate (median = 60 min). The median cost ratios of each ECTR compared with IHD were 1.7 for CRRT and HP, 2.8 for TPE, 6.5 for LSDs and 1.4 for PD (P < 0.001 for all). The median cost ratio of a 4-h IHD treatment compared with 1 day in the intensive care unit was 0.6 (P =  0.2)., Conclusions: IHD appears to be the most widely available ECTR worldwide and is at least 30% less expensive than other ECTRs. The superior efficacy of IHD for enhanced elimination, added to its lower cost and wider availability, strengthens its preference as the ECTR of choice in most cases of acute poisoning., Keywords: costing, CRRT, EXTRIP, hemodialysis, hemoperfusion., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.)

We describe the case of a 52-year-old man who presented after having ingested an unknown quantity of phenytoin. Peak phenytoin concentration was 51.2 mg/L (therapeutic range 10-20 mg/L). Five days after admission, the patient became comatose and was intubated. Because of persistent toxic phenytoin levels and unchanged clinical status for 12 days, hemodialysis (HD) was prescribed to enhance elimination of phenytoin. HD was performed using a Gambro Theralite TM filter (Baxter International Inc., Deerfield, USA), a high cut-off filter that allows the removal of molecules of up to 45 kDa. Phenytoin concentration readily decreased during the 8-hour HD treatment from 38.9 mg/L to 27.8 mg/L (28.5% decrease); during HD, phenytoin half-life was 18.5h (compared to 1109.8h before HD and 56.3h after HD), phentyoin clearance averaged 80.1 mL/min and a total of 1.1 g of phenytoin was removed. Albumin removal from the Theralite filter was most important at the beginning of HD. The high clearance of phenytoin obtained with this filter was likely due to its high surface area rather than its capacity to remove the albumin-phenytoin complex., (© 2016 International Society for Hemodialysis.)

Introduction: Intentional dapsone intoxication can be life-threatening. There is limited data on the clinical effect of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) on dapsone elimination. We describe a case of severe dapsone toxicity treated with different ECTRs., Case Details: A 23-year-old woman was admitted 2.5 h after ingesting 2.2 g of dapsone. She developed methemoglobinemia (39.9%) and showed signs of toxicity (hemodynamic instability and altered mental status) despite multiple-activated charcoal, methylene blue, vasopressors and endotracheal intubation. Continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) was then initiated for 5 h, followed by intermittent hemodialysis with hemoperfusion (IHD-HP) for 4 h, and CVVH for another 48 h. The platelet count decreased to 32 × 10 9 /L 3 h after IHD-HP. The elimination half-life of dapsone was 2.0 h during IHD-HP, and 14.2 h during CVVH. Mean dapsone clearance with IHD was 62 mL/min versus 22 mL/min with CVVH. IHD removed 95.3 mg, and CVVH removed 67.8 mg over 3.8 h. No rebound occurred following ECTR cessation. The toxicokinetics of dapsone metabolites were also accelerated during ECTR. The patient was extubated after 3.5 days and discharged without sequelae after 7 days., Discussion: Dapsone clearance was enhanced by ECTR, especially by IHD-HP. However, HP was associated with severe asymptomatic thrombocytopenia.

Context: Early onset acidosis from mitochondrial toxicity can be observed in massive acetaminophen poisoning prior to the development of hepatotoxicity. In this context, the efficacy of acetylcysteine to reverse mitochondrial toxicity remains unclear and hemodialysis may offer prompt correction of acidosis. Unfortunately, toxicokinetics of acetaminophen and acetylcysteine during extracorporeal treatments hemodialysis have seldom been described., Case Details: An 18-year-old woman presented to the emergency department 60 minutes after ingestion of 100 g of acetaminophen, and unknown amounts of ibuprofen and ethanol. Initial assessment revealed an agitated patient. Her mental status worsened and she required intubation for airway protection. Investigations showed metabolic acidosis with lactate peaking at 8.6 mmol/L. Liver and coagulation profiles remained normal. Acetaminophen concentration peaked at 981 μg/ml (6496 μmol/L). Pending hemodialysis, the patient received 100 g of activated charcoal and an acetylcysteine infusion at 150 mg/kg over 1 hour, followed by 12.5 mg/kg/h for 4 hours. During hemodialysis, the infusion was maintained at 12.5 mg/kg/h to compensate for expected removal before it was decreased to 6.25 mg/kg for 20 hours after hemodialysis. The patient rapidly improved during hemodialysis and was discharged 48 hours post-admission., Toxicokinetics: The acetaminophen elimination half-life was 5.2 hours prior to hemodialysis, 1.9-hours during hemodialysis and 3.6 hours post hemodialysis. The acetaminophen and acetylcysteine clearances by A-V gradient during hemodialysis were 160.4 ml/min and 190.3 ml/min, respectively. Hemodialysis removed a total of 20.6 g of acetaminophen and 17.9 g of acetylcysteine., Conclusion: This study confirms the high dialyzability of both acetaminophen and acetylcysteine. Hemodialysis appears to be a beneficial therapeutic option in cases of massive acetaminophen ingestion with coma and lactic acidosis. Additionally, these results suggest that the infusion rate of acetylcysteine must be more than double during hemodialysis to compensate for its ongoing removal and provide similar plasma concentrations to the usual acetylcysteine regimen.

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup conducted a systematic literature review using a standardized process to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in patients with phenytoin poisoning. The authors reviewed all articles, extracted data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A 2-round modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. 51 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only case reports, case series, and pharmacokinetic studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence. Clinical data from 31 patients and toxicokinetic grading from 46 patients were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that phenytoin is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = C) despite its high protein binding and made the following recommendations. ECTR would be reasonable in select cases of severe phenytoin poisoning (neutral recommendation, 3D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma is present or expected (graded 2D) and it would be reasonable if prolonged incapacitating ataxia is present or expected (graded 3D). If ECTR is used, it should be discontinued when clinical improvement is apparent (graded 1D). The preferred ECTR modality in phenytoin poisoning is intermittent hemodialysis (graded 1D), but hemoperfusion is an acceptable alternative if hemodialysis is not available (graded 1D). In summary, phenytoin appears to be amenable to extracorporeal removal. However, because of the low incidence of irreversible tissue injury or death related to phenytoin poisoning and the relatively limited effect of ECTR on phenytoin removal, the workgroup proposed the use of ECTR only in very select patients with severe phenytoin poisoning., (Copyright © 2016 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) such as hemodialysis (HD), enhance the elimination of a small number of toxins. Changes in overdose trends, prescribing practices, antidotes, and dialysis techniques may alter the indications and rates of ECTR use over time. This study analyzed trends in ECTR for poisonings in four countries. A retrospective study of national poison center databases from the United States, Denmark, United Kingdom, and five regional databases within Canada was performed. All cases of patients receiving an ECTR were included. ECTR cases were totalled annually and reported as annual rates per 100,000 exposures with stratification per types of ECTR and toxins. The data collection varied by countries. United States, 1985-2014; United Kingdom, 2011-2013; Denmark, 2005-2014, and regions of Canada as follows: Alberta, 1991-2015; Saskatchewan, 2001-2015; Nova Scotia-PEI, 2006-2015; Quebec, 2008-2014; Ontario-Manitoba, 2009-2015; British Columbia, 2012-2015. During the study period, the total number of ECTRs and rates per 100,000 exposures, respectively, were: United States, 40,258 and 65.7; United Kingdom, 343 and 232.6; Denmark, 616 and 305.5; Canada, 2709 and 177.5; case rates increased over time for the United States, Denmark, and Canada, but decreased in the United Kingdom. Across the United States and Denmark, HD was the preferred modality used. Toxins for which ECTR was most often used were: United States, ethylene glycol; Canada, methanol; United Kingdom, ethylene glycol; Denmark, salicylates. A high number of ECTRs were performed for atypical toxins such as acetaminophen and benzodiazepines. These data demonstrate a growing use of HD for poisoning with significant regional variations in the overall rates and indications., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The duration of hemodialysis (HD) in methanol poisoning (MP) is dependent on the methanol concentration, the operational parameters used during HD, and the presence and severity of metabolic acidosis. However, methanol assays are not easily available, potentially leading to undue extension or premature termination of treatment. Here we provide a prediction model for the duration of high-efficiency HD in MP. In a retrospective cohort study, we identified 71 episodes of MP in 55 individuals who were treated with alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition and HD. Four patients had residual visual abnormality at discharge and only one patient died. In 46 unique episodes of MP with high-efficiency HD the mean methanol elimination half-life (T1/2) during HD was 108 min in women, significantly different from the 129 min in men. In a training set of 28 patients with MP, using the 90th percentile of gender-specific elimination T1/2 (147 min in men and 141 min in women) and a target methanol concentration of 4 mmol/l allowed all cases to reach a safe methanol of under 6 mmol/l. The prediction model was confirmed in a validation set of 18 patients with MP. High-efficiency HD time in hours can be estimated using 3.390 × (Ln (MCi/4)) for women and 3.534 × (Ln (MCi/4)) for men, where MCi is the initial methanol concentration in mmol/l, provided that metabolic acidosis is corrected.

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.

Study Objective: Salicylate poisoning is a challenging clinical entity associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The indications for extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis are poorly defined. We present a systematic review of the literature along with evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment in salicylate poisoning., Methods: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup is a multidisciplinary group with international representation whose aim is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. We conducted a systematic literature review followed by data extraction and summarized findings, following a predetermined format. The entire work group voted by a 2-round modified Delphi method to reach consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations., Results: Eighty-four articles met inclusion criteria, including 1 controlled clinical trial, 3 animal studies, and 80 case reports or case series, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 143 patients (130 sets of which could be analyzed for patient-level entry data), including 14 fatalities, were reviewed. Toxicokinetic data on 87 patients were also included. After the second round of voting, the workgroup concluded that salicylates are dialyzable by hemodialysis and hemoperfusion (level of evidence=B) and recommended extracorporeal treatment in patients with severe salicylate poisoning (1D), including any patient with altered mental status (1D), with acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring supplemental oxygen (1D), and for those in whom standard therapy is deemed to be failing (1D) regardless of the salicylate concentration. High salicylate concentrations warrant extracorporeal treatment regardless of signs and symptoms (>7.2 mmol/L [100 mg/dL] [1D]; and >6.5 mmol/L [90 mg/dL] [2D]), with lower thresholds applied for patients with impaired kidney function (>6.5 mmol/L [90 mg/dL] [1D]; >5.8 mmol/L [80 mg/dL] [2D]). Extracorporeal treatment is also suggested for patients with severe acidemia (pH ≤7.20 in the absence of other indications) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred modality (1D), although hemoperfusion (1D) and continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are acceptable alternatives if hemodialysis is unavailable, as is exchange transfusion in neonates (1D)., Conclusion: Salicylates are readily removed by extracorporeal treatment, with intermittent hemodialysis being the preferred modality. The signs and symptoms of salicylate toxicity listed warrant extracorporeal treatment, as do high concentrations regardless of clinical status., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup presents its systematic review and clinical recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in valproic acid (VPA) poisoning., Methods: The lead authors reviewed all of the articles from a systematic literature search, extracted the data, summarized the key findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined 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 in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations., Results: The latest literature search conducted in November 2014 retrieved a total of 79 articles for final qualitative analysis, including one observational study, one uncontrolled cohort study with aggregate analysis, 70 case reports and case series, and 7 pharmacokinetic studies, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data were reported for 82 overdose patients while pharmaco/toxicokinetic grading was performed in 55 patients. The workgroup concluded that VPA is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = B) and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe VPA poisoning (1D); recommendations for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 1300 mg/L (9000 μmol/L)(1D), the presence of cerebral edema (1D) or shock (1D); suggestions for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 900 mg/L (6250 μmol/L)(2D), coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation (2D), acute hyperammonemia (2D), or pH ≤ 7.10 (2D). Cessation of ECTR is indicated when clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum VPA concentration is between 50 and 100 mg/L (350-700 μmol/L)(2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR in VPA poisoning (1D). If hemodialysis is not available, then intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapy (2D) is an acceptable alternative., Conclusions: VPA is moderately dialyzable in the setting of overdose. ECTR is indicated for VPA poisoning if at least one of the above criteria is present. Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR modality in VPA poisoning.

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., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

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

Context: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning., Objectives: To perform a systematic review and provide clinical recommendations for ECTR in carbamazepine poisoning., Methods: After a systematic literature search, the subgroup extracted the data and summarized the findings following a pre-determined format. The entire workgroup voted via a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations., Results: Seventy-four articles met inclusion criteria. Articles included case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in-vitro studies; two poor-quality observational studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 173 patients, including 6 fatalities, were reviewed. The workgroup concluded that carbamazepine is moderately dialyzable and made the following recommendations: ECTR is suggested in severe carbamazepine poisoning (2D). ECTR is recommended if multiple seizures occur and are refractory to treatment (1D), or if life-threatening dysrhythmias occur (1D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation are present (2D) or if significant toxicity persists, particularly when carbamazepine concentrations rise or remain elevated, despite using multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC) and supportive measures (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum carbamazepine concentration is below 10 mg/L (42 the μ in μmol/L looks weird.) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR (1D), but both intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are alternatives if hemodialysis is not available. MDAC therapy should be continued during ECTR (1D)., Conclusion: Despite the low quality of the available clinical evidence and the high protein binding capacity of carbamazepine, the workgroup suggested extracorporeal removal in cases of severe carbamazepine poisoning.

The EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning) Workgroup conducted a systematic review of barbiturate poisoning using a standardized evidence-based process to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in patients with barbiturate poisoning. The authors reviewed all articles, extracted data, summarized key findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A 2-round modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. 617 articles met the search inclusion criteria. Data for 538 patients were abstracted and evaluated. Only case reports, case series, and nonrandomized observational studies were identified, yielding a low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Using established criteria, the workgroup deemed that long-acting barbiturates are dialyzable and short-acting barbiturates are moderately dialyzable. Four key recommendations were made. (1) The use of ECTR should be restricted to cases of severe long-acting barbiturate poisoning. (2) The indications for ECTR in this setting are the presence of prolonged coma, respiratory depression necessitating mechanical ventilation, shock, persistent toxicity, or increasing or persistently elevated serum barbiturate concentrations despite treatment with multiple-dose activated charcoal. (3) Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred mode of ECTR, and multiple-dose activated charcoal treatment should be continued during ECTR. (4) Cessation of ECTR is indicated when clinical improvement is apparent. This report provides detailed descriptions of the rationale for all recommendations. In summary, patients with long-acting barbiturate poisoning should be treated with ECTR provided at least one of the specific criteria in the first recommendation is present., (Copyright © 2014 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

There are currently limited data on the trends in case reporting of poisoned patients undergoing enhanced elimination with an extracorporeal treatment (ECTR). The present manuscript specifically reviews the longitudinal trends of reports according to technique, poison, and country of publication. To identify case reports of ECTR use in the management of poisoning, multiple databases were searched. There were no limitations on language and year of publication. All case reports describing individual patients undergoing ECTR with the intent of enhancing the elimination of a poison were included in the analysis. Since 1913, 2908 reports were identified. There were an increasing number of published reports with time except for a slight decrease during the 1990s. Hemodialysis was by far the most commonly used ECTR in poisoning, followed by hemoperfusion. The number of reported peritoneal dialyses decreased steadily since 1980s. Methanol, ethylene glycol, lithium, and salicylates remained among the most commonly reported poisons in every decade. The large majority of publications originated from either Europe or North America, and more specifically from the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and China. Despite the emerging apparition of new techniques, hemodialysis remains to this day the favoured ECTR in the treatment of poisoned patients., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The Extracorporeal Treatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning. Here, the workgroup presents its results for tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). After an extensive literature search, using a predefined methodology, the subgroup responsible for this poison reviewed the articles, extracted the data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Blinded votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person at a meeting. A second vote determined the final recommendations. Seventy-seven articles met inclusion criteria. Only case reports, case series, and one poor-quality observational study were identified yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 108 patients, including 12 fatalities, were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that TCAs are not dialyzable and made the following recommendation: ECTR is not recommended in severe TCA poisoning (1D). The workgroup considers that poisoned patients with TCAs are not likely to have a clinical benefit from extracorporeal removal and recommends it NOT to be used in TCA poisoning., (© 2014 The Authors. Seminars in Dialysis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: Dialysis-dependent patients are particularly susceptible to the toxic effects of aluminum (Al) because of their impaired ability to eliminate it. Al contamination of dialysis fluid remains a threat in this population. The mechanism for Al diffusion across dialysis membranes is not well established. Our objective is to verify, in AL-exposed patients, the postulate that the direction of Al transfer is predicted by the concentration gradient between free diffusible plasma Al and dialysate Al., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Only papers which included Al plasma concentration ([Al]p), Al dialysate concentration ([Al]d) and direction of Al transfer (positive = from dialysate to plasma, negative = from plasma to dialysate) were selected. We also included four patients from our own cohort. Assuming that [Al]p has an ultrafiltrable fraction between 17 and 23%, cases were considered in keeping with our hypothesis if any of the following scenarios was present: negative Al transfer when [Al]d < [Al]p*23% and positive Al transfer when [Al]d > [Al]p*17%., Results: The search yielded 409 articles, of which 12 were selected for review. When reviewing individual patients for analysis, 108 out of 115 (94%) patients followed our hypothesis. By further excluding cases in which Al transfer could not be determined, only three out of 111 patients were contrary to out hypothesis., Conclusion: Comparing ultrafiltrable Al to dialysate Al permits to accurately predict the direction of Al transfer. The optimal [Al]d should be <20% of the maximally acceptable [Al]p. In order to follow K/DOQI guidelines ([Al]p < 20 μg/L), the [Al]d should therefore not exceed 4 μg/L. At the level presently supported by K/DOQI ([Al]d < 10 μg/L), [Al]p could realistically reach 50 μg/L and potentially cause toxicity.

Morbidity and mortality from toxic alcohols like ethylene glycol and methanol remain prevalent worldwide. The introduction of fomepizole, a potent blocker of alcohol dehydrogenase, has modified current practice over the last 15 years. The aim of the study was to describe the characteristics of toxic alcohol poisoning reported to US poison centers, the trends in the incidence of antidote use and hemodialysis treatment, as well as the related mortality. A retrospective study of all electronic entries from the AAPCC National Poison Data System database, from the years 2000 to 2013 was reviewed. When considering all exposures, the great majority of patients had a benign outcome. Major effects (e.g., life threatening) occurred in 2.1% and 4.9% of methanol and ethylene glycol cases, respectively. Mortality rates were similar for both toxic alcohols, approximately 0.6%. When only considering ingestions reported to healthcare facilities, a major effect was reported in 9.5% and 20.5%, and the mortality rate was 2.9% and 2.4% for methanol and ethylene glycol exposures, respectively, and remained constant over time. The use of fomepizole increased statistically over the study period while that of ethanol decreased, until it became proportionally negligible by 2012-2013. The use of hemodialysis significantly decreased in "Early" ethylene glycol exposures during the study period. Similar to other reports, it appears that the use of fomepizole has largely supplanted ethanol as the antidote of choice in toxic alcohol exposures and may decrease the requirements for hemodialysis in patients poisoned with ethylene glycol who have no acidosis and normal kidney function., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The use of an extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in a poisoned patient may be life-saving in a limited number of scenarios. The decision-processes surrounding the use of ECTR in poisoning is complex: most nephrologists are not trained to assess a poisoned patient while clinical toxicologists rarely prescribe ECTRs. Deciding on which ECTR is most appropriate for a poison requires a good understanding of the poison's physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties. Further, a detailed understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the different ECTRs can be useful to select the most appropriate ECTR for a given clinical situation. This manuscript provides a stepwise approach to assess the usefulness of ECTRs in poisoning., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

A literature review performed by the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup highlighted deficiencies in the existing literature, especially the reporting of case studies. Although general reporting guidelines exist for case studies, there are none in the specific field of extracorporeal treatments in toxicology. Our goal was to construct and propose a checklist that systematically outlines the minimum essential items to be reported in a case study of poisoned patients undergoing extracorporeal treatments. Through a modified two-round Delphi technique, panelists (mostly chosen from the EXTRIP workgroup) were asked to vote on the pertinence of a set of items to identify those considered minimally essential for reporting complete and accurate case reports. Furthermore, independent raters validated the clarity of each selected items between each round of voting. All case reports containing data on extracorporeal treatments in poisoning published in Medline in 2011 were reviewed during the external validation rounds. Twenty-one panelists (20 from the EXTRIP workgroup and an invited expert on pharmacology reporting guidelines) participated in the modified Delphi technique. This group included journal editors and experts in nephrology, clinical toxicology, critical care medicine, emergency medicine, and clinical pharmacology. Three independent raters participated in the validation rounds. Panelists voted on a total of 144 items in the first round and 137 items in the second round, with response rates of 96.3% and 98.3%, respectively. Twenty case reports were evaluated at each validation round and the independent raters' response rate was 99.6% and 98.8% per validation round. The final checklist consists of 114 items considered essential for case study reporting. This methodology of alternate voting and external validation rounds was useful in developing the first reporting guideline for case studies in the field of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. We believe that this guideline will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports may provide early signals of effectiveness and/or harm, thereby improving healthcare decision-making., (© 2014 The Authors. Seminars in Dialysis Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in poisoning. To test and validate its methods, the workgroup reviewed data for thallium (Tl)., Methods: After an extensive search, the co-chairs reviewed the articles, extracted the data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Blinded votes were compiled, returned, and discussed during a conference call. A second vote determined the final recommendations., Results: Forty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Only case reports and case series were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 74 patients, including 11 who died, were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that Tl is slightly dialyzable and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe Tl poisoning (1D). ECTR is indicated if Tl exposure is highly suspected on the basis of history or clinical features (2D) or if the serum Tl concentration is >1.0 mg/L (2D). ECTR should be initiated as soon as possible, ideally within 24-48 hours of Tl exposure (1D), and be continued until the serum Tl concentration is <0.1 mg/L for a minimal duration of 72 hours (2D)., Conclusion: Despite Tl's low dialyzability and the limited evidence, the workgroup strongly recommended extracorporeal removal in the case of severe Tl poisoning.

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.

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 Schreiner's 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., (Copyright © 2011 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We describe the case of a 42-year-old female who presented to our care 1 hour after ingesting 3.6 g of phenytoin. She was stuporous 48 hours after admission despite supportive therapy. She was treated with hemodialysis (HD) for nearly 6 hours in order to remove phenytoin. Her level of consciousness improved markedly during the procedure. During HD, phenytoin levels decreased by 47% and measured half-life was 6.8 hours as compared to 116 hours when not on HD. Finally, we were able to remove 547 mg of phenytoin (directly measured from the dialysate), representing approximately a third of estimated body stores. The use of extracorporeal therapy in phenytoin overdose is reviewed here. We believe that in severe cases of phenytoin intoxication, hemodialysis can be used to accelerate total body burden of the drug, even if protein binding is significant.

Background/aims: Vascular access-related bloodstream infection (BSI) is frequent among patients undergoing hemodialysis increasing their morbidity and mortality, but its occurrence across various dialysis centre types is not known. The aims of this study were to describe the incidence rates and assess the variability in BSI risk between dialysis centre types and other centre-level variables., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 621 patients initiating hemodialysis in 7 Canadian dialysis centres. Cox regression models, where access type was continuously updated, were used to identify predictors of BSI occurrence., Results: During follow-up of the cohort (median age 68.1 years, 41.7% female, and 76.7% initiating with a central venous catheter, CVC), 73 patients had a BSI (rate: 0.21/1000 person-days). The BSI risk was not different in First Nation units (adjusted relative risk: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.06-3.72) and teaching hospitals (1.33, 0.70-2.54) compared to community hospitals. No other centre-related variables were associated with the risk of BSI., Conclusion: We did not find differences in the BSI risk among dialysis unit types, or any other centre-related variables. The rates of BSI in our population were lower than those observed in other settings, but the high proportion of patients using CVCs is concerning., (Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.)