Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Lithium is a commonly prescribed treatment for bipolar affective disorder. However, treatment is complicated by lithium's narrow therapeutic index and the influence of kidney function, both of which increase the risk of toxicity. Therefore, careful attention to dosing, monitoring, and titration is required. The cause of lithium poisoning influences treatment and 3 patterns are described: acute, acute-on-chronic, and chronic. Chronic poisoning is the most common etiology, is usually unintentional, and results from lithium intake exceeding elimination. This is most commonly due to impaired kidney function caused by volume depletion from lithium-induced nephrogenic diabetes insipidus or intercurrent illnesses and is also drug-induced. Lithium poisoning can affect multiple organs; however, the primary site of toxicity is the central nervous system and clinical manifestations vary from asymptomatic supratherapeutic drug concentrations to clinical toxicity such as confusion, ataxia, or seizures. Lithium poisoning has a low mortality rate; however, chronic lithium poisoning can require a prolonged hospital length of stay from impaired mobility and cognition and associated nosocomial complications. Persistent neurological deficits, in particular cerebellar, are described and the incidence and risk factors for its development are poorly understood, but it appears to be uncommon in uncomplicated acute poisoning. Lithium is readily dialyzable, and rationale support extracorporeal treatments to reduce the risk or the duration of toxicity in high-risk exposures. There is disagreement in the literature regarding factors that define patients most likely to benefit from treatments that enhance lithium elimination, including specific plasma lithium concentration thresholds. In the case of extracorporeal treatments, there are observational data in its favor, without evidence from randomized controlled trials (none have been performed), which may lead to conservative practices and potentially unnecessary interventions in some circumstances. More data are required to define the risk-benefit of extracorporeal treatments and their use (modality, duration) in the management of lithium poisoning.

on behalf of the EXTRIP Workgroup Abstract 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).

ContextCalcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion.ObjectiveTo evaluate the reported effects of treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and hemodynamic parameters. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital, length of stay in intensive care unit, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations.MethodsMedline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, International pharmaceutical abstracts, Google Scholar, and the gray literature up to December 31, 2013 were searched without time restriction to identify all types of studies that examined effects of various treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning for the outcomes of interest. The search strategy included the following Keywords: [calcium channel blockers OR calcium channel antagonist OR calcium channel blocking agent OR (amlodipine or bencyclane or bepridil or cinnarizine or felodipine or fendiline or flunarizine or gallopamil or isradipine or lidoflazine or mibefradil or nicardipine or nifedipine or nimodipine or nisoldipine or nitrendipine or prenylamine or verapamil or diltiazem)] AND [overdose OR medication errors OR poisoning OR intoxication OR toxicity OR adverse effect]. Two reviewers independently selected studies and a group of reviewers abstracted all relevant data using a pilot-tested form. A second group analyzed the risk of bias and overall quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist and the Thomas tool for observational studies, the Institute of Health Economics tool for Quality of Case Series, the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, and the modified NRCNA (National Research Council for the National Academies) list for animal studies. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence. Of 15,577 citations identified in the initial search, 216 were selected for analysis, including 117 case reports. The kappa on the quality analysis tools was greater than 0.80 for all study types.ResultsThe only observational study in humans examined high-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support. The risk of bias across studies was high for all interventions and moderate to high for extracorporeal life support. High-dose insulin. High-dose insulin (bolus of 1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5–2.0 units/kg/h) was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, at the risks of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia (low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal life support. Extracorporeal life support was associated with improved survival in patients with severe shock or cardiac arrest at the cost of limb ischemia, thrombosis, and bleeding (low quality of evidence). Calcium, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These agents improved hemodynamic parameters and survival without documented severe side effects (very low quality of evidence). 4-Aminopyridine. Use of 4-aminopyridine was assoc...

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.

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.

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.

The emerging use of ILE administration in clinical toxicology warrants careful attention to its potential adverse effects. The dosing regimen and context of administration leading to the adverse events documented in this review are not generalizable to all clinical toxicology scenarios. Adverse effects seem to be proportional to the rate of infusion as well as total dose received. Further safety studies in humans and reporting of adverse events associated with ILE administration at the doses advocated in current clinical toxicology literature are needed.