Clinical Experience with Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy as a Method of Extracorporeal Elimination and as performed by Emergency Room Physicians for Patients with Poisoning.
- Author:
Jung Hwan AHN
1
;
Sang Cheon CHOI
;
Yoon Seok JUNG
;
Young Gi MIN
Author Information
1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, Korea. youngmd@ajou.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Continuous renal replacement therapy;
Extracorporeal elimination;
Poisoning
- MeSH:
Charcoal;
Emergencies;
Hemoperfusion;
Humans;
Lithium;
Paraquat;
Renal Dialysis;
Renal Replacement Therapy;
Retrospective Studies;
Salicylates;
Valproic Acid;
Vital Signs;
Writing
- From:Journal of The Korean Society of Clinical Toxicology
2009;7(2):150-155
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Extracorporeal elimination of drugs is a critical part of managing poisonings, although the indications and optimal method remain a matter of debate. The aim of this study is to report our clinical experiences with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), as performed by emergency room physicians, as method of extracorporeal drug elimination in patients with poisoning. METHODS: This study was a retrospective study of the consecutive patients who underwent CRRT, as performed by an emergency room physician, for acute poisoning. The patient characteristics, the kinds of drugs and the method of extracorporeal elimination were analyzed by reviewing the patients'charts. RESULTS: During eleven months, 26 patients with acute poisoning underwent extracorporeal elimination (2 patients; intermittent hemodialysis, 24 patients; CRRT). The mean time from the decision to performing extracorporeal elimination was 206.0+/-36.8 minutes for intermittent hemodialysis, 62.9+/-8.5 minutes for continuous venoveno-hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) and 56.6+/-6.8 minutes for charcoal hemoperfusion. For the patients with CRRT, CVVHDF was conducted in 10 patients (3 patients; valproic acid, 2 patients; Lithium, 1 patient; salicylates, 1 patient; methanol) and charcoal hemoperfusion by using CRRT was done in 14 patients (13 patients; paraquat, 1 patient; dapsone). For the 12 patients who required hemodialysis due to severe poisoning, 7 patients underwent CRRT because of their unstable vital signs. CONCLUSION: CRRT was an effective method of extracorporeal drug elimination in patients with acute poisoning, and especially for the cases with unstable vital sign and for those patients who required an early start of extracorporeal elimination according to the characteristics of the drug. (ED note: the writing of the abstract was not clear. Check it carefully.)
