No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The evidence for the efficacy of IFE in reducing mortality and improving hemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and neurological parameters in the poisoned patients is solely based on animal studies and human case reports. The safety of IFE has not been established.

Although the verbal numeric scale (VNS) is used frequently at patients' bedsides, it has never been formally validated in children with acute pain. In order to validate this scale, a prospective cohort study was performed in children between 8 and 17years presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) with acute pain. Pain was graded using the VNS, the visual analogue scale (VAS), and the verbal rating scale (VRS). A second assessment was done before discharge. We determined a priori that in order to be valid, the VNS would need to: correlate with the VAS (concurrent validity); decrease after intervention to reduce pain (construct validity); and be associated with the VRS categories (content validity). The VNS interchangeability with the VAS, its minimal clinically significant difference, and test-retest reliability were also determined. A total of 202 patients (mean age: 12.2+/-2.6years) were enrolled. The VNS correlated with the VAS: r(ic)=0.93, p<0.001. There were differences in the VNS before versus after interventions (p<0.001), and between VRS categories (mild versus moderate, p<0.001; moderate versus severe, p<0.001). The 95% limits of agreement (interchangeability) between VNS/VAS were outside the a priori set limit of +/-2.0: -1.8, 2.5. The VNS minimal clinically significant difference was 1. The VNS had good test-retest reliability with 95% limits of agreement of -0.9 and 1.2. In conclusion, the VNS provides a valid and reliable scale to evaluate acute pain in children aged 8-17years but is not interchangeable with the VAS.

Presently, available criteria are not very sensitive and may miss patients requiring transplantation. Future studies should further evaluate the efficacy of the APACHE II criteria.

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.

Background: Intoxication (or poisoning) that necessitates hospitalization remains an important source of morbidity in children.

The evidence supporting the use of glucagon in the management of patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker overdoses is limited to animal studies.