Gastrointestinal decontamination in the acutely poisoned patient

ObjectiveTo define the role of gastrointestinal (GI) decontamination of the poisoned patient.Data sourcesA computer-based PubMed/MEDLINE search of the literature on GI decontamination in the poisoned patient with cross referencing of sources.Study selection and data extractionClinical, animal and in vitro studies were reviewed for clinical relevance to GI decontamination of the poisoned patient.Data synthesisThe literature suggests that previously, widely used, aggressive approaches including the use of ipecac syrup, gastric lavage, and cathartics are now rarely recommended. Whole bowel irrigation is still often recommended for slow-release drugs, metals, and patients who "pack" or "stuff" foreign bodies filled with drugs of abuse, but with little quality data to support it. Activated charcoal (AC), single or multiple doses, was also a previous mainstay of GI decontamination, but the utility of AC is now recognized to be limited and more time dependent than previously practiced. These recommendations have resulted in several treatment guidelines that are mostly based on retrospective analysis, animal studies or small case series, and rarely based on randomized clinical trials.ConclusionsThe current literature supports limited use of GI decontamination of the poisoned patient

Plasma sodium measurements by direct ion selective methods in laboratory and point of care may not be clinically interchangeable

An estimated 25 % of indirect ion selective electrode (ISE) ICU plasma sodium measurements differ from corresponding direct ISE values by at least 4 mmol/L, the dominant factor being indirect ISE over-estimation driven by hypoproteinemia. Since direct measurements are considered unaffected by protein concentrations, we investigated whether direct ISE plasma sodium measurements in the laboratory and at point of care in ICU show sufficient agreement to be clinically interchangeable. From a 5 year clinical chemistry database, 9910 ICU plasma samples were assessed for agreement between direct ISE sodium measurements in ICU (ABL 700) and in the central laboratory (Vitros Fusion). The relationship between differences in paired plasma sodium measurements (Vitros–ABL) and total plasma protein concentrations was evaluated by generalized estimating equation linear regression. Patients were hypo-proteinemic [mean (SD) total protein concentration 56.9 (9.04) g/L]. Mean (SD) paired Vitros–ABL sodium measurements was −0.087 (1.74) mmol/L, range −14 to +10 mmol/L. Disagreement at ≥|4|mmol/L, ≥|3|mmol/L and ≥|2|mmol/L was present in 409 (4.1 %), 1333 (13.4 %) and 3591 (36.2 %) pairs respectively. Test–retest disagreement estimates within either source alone were substantially lower. Small negative Vitros–ABL differences associated with low plasma protein concentrations were reversed at high protein concentrations. Disagreement between plasma sodium concentrations monitored by two common direct ISE analyzers was substantially less than reported between direct and indirect ISE devices, although a protein influence of low clinical importance persisted. Disagreement was sufficient to jeopardize safe interchangeable interpretation in situations with a low tolerance for imprecision, such as hyponatremia correction