Assessment of Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning criteria for the decision of extracorporeal toxin removal in lithium poisoning. Issue 3 (30th August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vodovar, Dominique; Beaune, Sébastien; Langrand, Jérôme; Vicaut, Eric; Labat, Laurence; Mégarbane, Bruno
• Is Part Of: British journal of clinical pharmacology. Volume 86:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 560
• Page End: 568
• Publication Date: 2019-08-30
• Subjects: lithium -- poisoning -- extracorporeal toxin removal -- haemodialysis -- outcome -- EXTRIP; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; Drugs -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14087
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-5251

Abstract

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.