Eva-Carina Heier

Objective: To independently validate the negative predictive value of the Tanta University risk model for intensive care requirements in poison center telephone consultations with other physicians. Methods: This study included 400 consecutive patients with acute poisoning. Clinical and laboratory parameters were recorded during the initial consultation with the poison center. Patients who were already ventilated or on vasopressors at the time of consultation were excluded. The Tanta University risk model score was calculated from the data according to the following equation: Tanta University risk model score = 1.966*Glasgow Coma Scale + 0.329*oxygen saturation (percent) + 0.212*diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) - 0.27*respiratory rate (breaths/minute) + 0.33*standard bicarbonate (mmol/L). Twenty-four hours later, the patients' courses were followed up by telephone. The Tanta University risk model was then compared to a composite endpoint indicating the requirement for admission to an intensive care unit (vasopressors, need for intubation, or death). Results: Four hundred patients with acute poisoning were included. Thirty-seven patients had a complicated clinical course as defined by the composite endpoint. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed the area under the curve to be 0.87 (95 percent confidence interval 0.83-0.90). An unfavorable Tanta University risk model score was defined as less than 73.46, using a cut-off derived from a previous study of an unrelated series of patients with acute poisoning admitted to our service. Thirty-one of 37 patients with complicated courses had an unfavorable Tanta University risk model score compared to six patients with complicated courses among 306 patients with a favorable Tanta University risk model score (P < 0.0002, Fisher's exact test). Sixty-three patients had an unfavorable Tanta University risk model score but an uneventful course. The negative predictive value of the Tanta University risk model was 0.98 (95 percent confidence interval 0.96-0.99), sensitivity was 0.84, and specificity 0.83. Conclusions: In the present study of poison center telephone consultations, the Tanta University risk model was significantly related to the outcomes in patients with acute poisoning. Patients with a favorable Tanta University risk model score (greater than or equal to 73.46) were unlikely to need intensive care unit level of care.

To independently validate the predictive value of the Tanta University Risk Model for intensive care requirement in unselected poisoned patients.Retrospective chart review of 293 poisoned patients....

Artificial intelligences (AIs) are emerging in the field of medical informatics in many areas. They are mostly used for diagnosis support in medical imaging but have potential uses in many other fi...

Background and importance: Patients who use recreational drugs frequently co-ingest ethanol, which is considered a central nervous system (CNS) depressant. The clinical relevance of this in acute toxicity involving other CNS depressants is not well described. Objective: To assess the clinical impact of ethanol co-use in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute toxicity involving the use of CNS depressant drugs. Design, settings and participants: A retrospective multicentre study using data from the Euro-DEN Plus database from January 2014 to December 2019. Outcomes measure and analysis: Comparison of epidemiologic and clinical characteristics, ED and hospital management of patients with CNS depressant intoxication with or without ethanol co-use. Main results: Although 7644 (17.5%) of the 43 633 presentations were included, ethanol was co-ingested in 3811 (49.9%). In total 53.3% required medical treatment, 14 patients died. Patients with ethanol co-use more frequently presented with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤8 (34.1% vs. 22.4%; P < 0.001), vomiting (8.1% vs. 4.6%; P < 0.001), anxiety (12 % vs. 6.4%; P < 0.001), agitation/aggression (22% vs. 14.7%; P < 0.001), seizures (3.8% vs. 2.4%; P < 0.001) and hypotension (7.5% vs. 4.6%; P < 0.001). They more often required ambulance transport (85.5% vs. 76.5%; P < 0.001), medical treatment (57.3% vs. 48.0%; P < 0.001), hospitalization (27.7% vs. 18.9%; P < 0.001), and admission to intensive care (12.2% vs. 4.0%; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that GCS ≤8 was particularly common in patients who combined ethanol with opioids or gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB)/gamma-butyrolactone (GBL). Conclusion: Co-use of ethanol with CNS-depressant drugs appears to increase the risk of adverse effects and is associated with a higher need for medical treatment, especially when ethanol is combined with opioids or GHB/GBL.