Management of cardiovascular instability resulting from calcium channel antagonist (CCB) or beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist (BB) poisoning follows similar principles. Significant myocardial depression, bradycardia and hypotension result in both cases. CCBs can also produce vasodilatory shock. Additionally, CCBs, such as verapamil and diltiazem, are commonly ingested in sustained-release formulations. This can also be the case for some BBs. Peak toxicity can be delayed by several hours. Provision of early gastrointestinal decontamination with activated charcoal and whole-bowel irrigation might mitigate this. Treatment of shock requires a multimodal approach to inotropic therapy that can be guided by echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic assessment of myocardial function. High-dose insulin euglycaemia is commonly recommended as a first-line treatment in these poisonings, to improve myocardial contractility, and should be instituted early when myocardial dysfunction is suspected. Catecholamine infusions are complementary to this therapy for both inotropic and chronotropic support. Catecholamine vasopressors and vasopressin are used in the treatment of vasodilatory shock. Optimizing serum calcium concentration can confer some benefit to improving myocardial function and vascular tone after CCB poisoning. High-dose glucagon infusions have provided moderate chronotropic and inotropic benefits in BB poisoning. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors and levosimendan have positive inotropic effects but also produce peripheral vasodilation, which can limit blood pressure improvement. In cases of severe cardiogenic shock and/or cardiac arrest post-poisoning, extracorporeal cardiac assist devices have resulted in successful recovery. Other treatments used in refractory hypotension include intravenous lipid emulsion for lipophilic CCB and BB poisoning and methylene blue for refractory vasodilatory shock.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Although intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) was first used to treat life-threatening local anesthetic (LA) toxicity, its use has expanded to include both non-local anesthetic (non-LA) poisoning and less severe manifestations of toxicity. A collaborative workgroup appraised the literature and provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of ILE in poisoning. Methods: Following a systematic review of the literature, data were summarized in four publications: LA and non-LA poisoning efficacy, adverse effects, and analytical interferences. Twenty-two toxins or toxin categories and three clinical situations were selected for voting. Voting statements were proposed using a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus on the voting statements. Disagreement was quantified using RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Results: For the management of cardiac arrest, we recommend using ILE with bupivacaine toxicity, while our recommendations are neutral regarding its use for all other toxins. For the management of life-threatening toxicity, (1) as first line therapy, we suggest not to use ILE with toxicity from amitriptyline, non-lipid soluble beta receptor antagonists, bupropion, calcium channel blockers, cocaine, diphenhydramine, lamotrigine, malathion but are neutral for other toxins, (2) as part of treatment modalities, we suggest using ILE in bupivacaine toxicity if other therapies fail, but are neutral for other toxins, (3) if other therapies fail, we recommend ILE for bupivacaine toxicity and we suggest using ILE for toxicity due to other LAs, amitriptyline, and bupropion, but our recommendations are neutral for all other toxins. In the treatment of non-life-threatening toxicity, recommendations are variable according to the balance of expected risks and benefits for each toxin. For LA-toxicity we suggest the use of Intralipid V R 20% as it is the formulation the most often reported. There is no evidence to support a recommendation for the best formulation of ILE for non-LAs. The voting panel is neutral regarding ILE dosing and infusion duration due to insufficient data for non-LAs. All recommendations were based on very low quality of evidence. Conclusion: Clinical recommendations regarding the use of ILE in poisoning were only possible in a small number of scenarios and were based mainly on very low quality of evidence, balance of expected risks and benefits, adverse effects, laboratory interferences as well as related costs and resources. The workgroup emphasizes that dose-finding and controlled studies reflecting human poisoning scenarios are required to advance knowledge of limitations, indications, adverse effects, effectiveness, and best regimen for ILE treatment.

To investigate the pharmacokinetics of naloxone in healthy volunteers, we undertook an open-label crossover study in which six male volunteers received naloxone on five occasions: intravenous (0.8 mg), intramuscular (0.8 mg), intranasal (0.8 mg), intravenous (2 mg), and intranasal (2 mg). Samples were collected for 4 hours after administration for 128 samples in total. A population pharmacokinetic analysis was undertaken using NONMEM. The data were best described by a three-compartment model with first-order absorption for intramuscular and intranasal administration, between-subject variability on clearance and central volume, lean body weight on clearance, and weight on central volume. Relative bioavailability of intramuscular and intranasal naloxone was 36% and 4%, respectively. The final parameter estimates were clearance, 91 L/hr; central volume, 2.87 L; first peripheral compartment volume, 1.49 L, second peripheral compartment volume, 33.6 L; first intercompartmental clearance, 5.66 L/hr; second intercompartmental clearance, 29.8 L/hr; Ka (intramuscular), 0.65; and Ka (intranasal), 1.52. Median time to peak concentration for intramuscular naloxone was 12 minutes and for intranasal, 6 to 9 minutes. A combination of intravenous and intramuscular naloxone provided immediate high and then detectable concentrations for 4 hours. Intranasal naloxone had poor bioavailability compared with intramuscular. Combined intravenous and intramuscular administration may be a useful alternative to naloxone infusions.

Intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) has been demonstrated to be effective in amelioration of cardiovascular and central nervous system sequelae of local-anaesthetic and non-local-anaesthetic drug toxicity in animal models. Sequestration of lipophilic toxins to an expanded plasma lipid phase is credited as the predominant beneficial mechanism of action of ILE. Systematic review of published human experience is however lacking. We determined to report a comprehensive literature search of all human reports of ILE application in drug poisoning. Forty-two cases of ILE use (19 local-anaesthetic, 23 non-local-anaesthetic) were identified, with anecdotal reports of successful resuscitation from cardiovascular collapse and central nervous system depression associated with ILE administration in lipophilic toxin overdose. Although significant heterogeneity was observed in both agents of intoxication, and reported outcomes; case report data suggest a possible benefit of ILE in potentially life-threatening cardio-toxicity from bupivacaine, mepivacaine, ropivacaine, haloperidol, tricyclic antidepressants, lipophilic beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. Further controlled study and systematic evaluation of human cases is required to define the clinical role of ILE in acute poisonings.