KAKurt Anseeuw

Kurt Anseeuw

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Kurt Anseeuw has a total of 106 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Diagnosis and practical management of digoxin toxicity: a narrative review and consensus

    by Paul Andrews, Kurt Anseeuw, Dipak Kotecha, Frédéric Lapostolle, Ruben Thanacoody

    There are currently no universally accepted guidelines for the management of digoxin toxicity. In the absence of clinical practice guidelines, a set of consensus recommendations for management of digoxin toxicity in the clinical setting were developed through a modified Delphi approach. The recommendations highlight the importance of early recognition of signs of potentially life-threatening toxicity that requires immediate treatment with digoxin-specific antibodies. The consensus identifies a straightforward approach to dosing immune antibody fragments according to the presence or absence of signs of life-threatening toxicity. Supportive measures and management of specific signs of toxicity are also covered.


  • Preparing for venomous snake bites in Europe

    by Leen D’hOore, Kurt Anseeuw

    An abstract is unavailable. This article is available as a PDF only.


  • Cerebral saturation in cardiac arrest patients measured with near-infrared technology during pre-hospital advanced life support. Results from Copernicus I cohort study

    by Cornelia Genbrugge, Cathy De Deyne, Ward Eertmans, Kurt Anseeuw, Dirk Voet, Ilse Mertens, Marc Sabbe, Jan Stroobants, Liesbeth Bruckers, Dieter Mesotten, et al.


  • Are Tertiary Care Paediatricians Prepared for Disaster Situations?

    by Luc J.M. Mortelmans, Sofie Maebe, Greet Dieltiens, Kurt Anseeuw, Marc B. Sabbe, Patrick Van de Voorde

    Introduction Children, with their specific vulnerabilities and needs, make up to more than 20% of society, so they are at risk of getting involved in disasters. Are the specialists treating them for medical problems in daily life also capable to deal with them in disaster situations? Hypothesis/Problem The goals of this study were to evaluate perceived knowledge and capability of tertiary pediatricians to deal with disasters, to identify promoting factors, and to evaluate education need and willingness to work. Methods A survey looking for demographics, hospital disaster planning, estimated risk and capability for disasters, training, and willingness to work, and a set of six content assessment questions to evaluate knowledge, were presented to emergency pediatricians and pediatric emergency physicians in specialized tertiary centers. Results The response rate was 51%. Thirty-five percent had disaster training and 53% felt that disaster education should be obligatory in their curriculum. Risk for disasters was estimated from 2.4/10 for nuclear incidents to 7.6/10 for major trauma. Self-estimated capability for these situations ranged from 1.8/10 in nuclear incidents to 7.6/10 in major trauma. Unconditional willingness to work ranged from 37% in nuclear situations to 68% in pandemics. Mean score on the questions was 2.06/6. Training, knowledge of antidote and personal protective equipment (PPE) use, self-estimated capability, and exposure were significant predictors for higher scores. Willingness to work correlated significantly with age, self-estimated capability, and risk estimation. In case of chemical and nuclear incidents, there was correlation with knowledge on the use of decontamination, PPE, and radio-detection devices. Conclusion Despite a clear perception of the risks and a high willingness to work, preparedness is limited. The major conclusion is that basics of disaster management should be included in pediatric training. Mortelmans LJM , Maebe S , Dieltiens G , Anseeuw K , Sabbe MB , Van de Voorde P . Are Tertiary Care Paediatricians Prepared for Disaster Situations? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(2):126–131.


  • Extracorporeal Treatment in Phenytoin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning) Workgroup

    by Kurt Anseeuw, James B. Mowry, Emmanuel A. Burdmann, Marc Ghannoum, Robert S. Hoffman, Sophie Gosselin, Valery Lavergne, Thomas D. Nolin


  • Extracorporeal treatment for digoxin poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

    by James B. Mowry, Emmanuel A. Burdmann, Kurt Anseeuw, Paul Ayoub, Marc Ghannoum, Robert S. Hoffman, Valery Lavergne, Thomas D. Nolin, Sophie Gosselin, On Behalf Of The Extrip Workgroup

    Background: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning. Here, we present our results for digoxin. Methods: 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. Results: Out of 435 articles screened, 77 met inclusion criteria. Only in-vitro, animal studies, case reports and case series were identified yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Based on data from 84 patients, including six fatalities, it was concluded that digoxin is slightly dialyzable (level of evidence = B), and that ECTR is unlikely to improve the outcome of digoxin-toxic patients whether or not digoxin immune Fab (Fab) is administered. Despite the lack of robust clinical evidence, the workgroup recommended against the use of ECTR in cases of severe digoxin poisoning when Fab was available (1D) and also suggested against the use of ECTR when Fab was unavailable (2D). Conclusion: ECTR, in any form, is not indicated for either suspected or proven digoxin toxicity, regardless of the clinical context, and is not indicated for removal of digoxin-Fab complex.


  • Open Access

    Dutch senior medical students and disaster medicine: a national survey

    by Luc J. M. Mortelmans, Stef J. M. Bouman, Menno I. Gaakeer, Greet Dieltiens, Kurt Anseeuw, Marc B. Sabbe

    Medical students have been deployed in victim care of several disasters throughout history. They are corner stones in first-line care in recent pandemic planning. Furthermore, every physician and senior medical student is expected to assist in case of disaster situations, but are they educated to do so? Being one of Europe’s densest populated countries with multiple nuclear installations, a large petrochemical industry and also at risk for terrorist attacks, The Netherlands bear some risks for incidents. We evaluated the knowledge on Disaster Medicine in the Dutch medical curriculum. Our hypothesis is that Dutch senior medical students are not prepared at all. Senior Dutch medical students were invited through their faculty to complete an online survey on Disaster Medicine, training and knowledge. This reported knowledge was tested by a mixed set of 10 theoretical and practical questions. With a mean age of 25.5 years and 60 % females, 999 participants completed the survey. Of the participants, 51 % considered that Disaster Medicine should absolutely be taught in the regular medical curriculum and only 2 % felt it as useless; 13 % stated to have some knowledge on disaster medicine. Self-estimated capability to deal with various disaster situations varied from 1.47/10 in nuclear incidents to 3.92/10 in influenza pandemics. Self-estimated knowledge on these incidents is in the same line (1.71/10 for nuclear incidents and 4.27/10 in pandemics). Despite this limited knowledge and confidence, there is a high willingness to respond (ranging from 4.31/10 in Ebola outbreak over 5.21/10 in nuclear incidents to 7.54/10 in pandemics). The case/theoretical mix gave a mean score of 3.71/10 and raised some food for thought. Although a positive attitude, 48 % will place contaminated walking wounded in a waiting room and 53 % would use iodine tablets as first step in nuclear decontamination. Of the participants, 52 % even believes that these tablets protect against external radiation, 41 % thinks that these tablets limit radiation effects more than shielding and 57 % believes that decontamination of chemical victims consists of a specific antidote spray in military cabins. Despite a high willingness to respond, our students are not educated for disaster situations.


  • Extracorporeal Treatment for Salicylate Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the EXTRIP Workgroup

    by David N. Juurlink, Sophie Gosselin, Jan T. Kielstein, Marc Ghannoum, Valéry Lavergne, Thomas D. Nolin, Robert S. Hoffman, Kurt Anseeuw, Ashish Bhalla, Emmanuel A. Burdmann, et al.


  • Open Access

    A Non-Fatal Self-Poisoning Attempt with Sildenafil

    by Veerle Matheeussen, Kristof E. Maudens, Kurt Anseeuw, Hugo Neels

    The phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, sildenafil, is not generally known for its use as a self-poisoning drug. However, intoxication cases with lethal outcome have been described. The case presented here is of a 56-year-old man who claimed to have undertaken an unsuccessful suicide attempt by mono-ingestion of 65 tablets of 100 mg sildenafil. He arrived at the emergency department 24 h after intake with severe vomiting and symptoms of blurred vision. Clinical examination revealed no priapism. Of note was a sinus tachycardia of 100 bpm without signs of hypotension. To quantify the sildenafil concentration in serum, an high-performance liquid chromatography photo-diode array method was developed and validated according to European Medicines Agency guidelines. The intoxicated patient had a serum concentration of 22.2 µg/mL sildenafil, at the time of presentation, which is far above the therapeutic peak concentration. The serum concentration further declined to 9.2 and 2.3 µg/mL, respectively, 5 and 14 h later, revealing a biological half-life of 4.2 h. To the best of our knowledge, this patient took the highest sildenafil dose, which resulted in the highest serum concentration, ever reported. In this subject, sildenafil showed good tolerability because few symptoms occurred and only moderate supportive therapy was needed for full recovery without sequelae.