4.3 Article

Methodology for AACT evidence-based recommendations on the use of intravenous lipid emulsion therapy in poisoning

Journal

CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 6, Pages 557-564

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2015.1052498

Keywords

Intravenous lipid emulsion; Fat emulsion; Lipid resuscitation; Recommendation; Efficacy; Adverse effect; Lipid interference

Categories

Funding

  1. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec - Sante (FRQS)
  2. AACT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) therapy is a novel treatment that was discovered in the last decade. Despite unclear understanding of its mechanisms of action, numerous and diverse publications attested to its clinical use. However, current evidence supporting its use is unclear and recommendations are inconsistent. To assist clinicians in decision-making, the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology created a workgroup composed of international experts from various clinical specialties, which includes representatives of major clinical toxicology associations. Rigorous methodology using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation or AGREE II instrument was developed to provide a framework for the systematic reviews for this project and to formulate evidence-based recommendations on the use of ILE in poisoning. Systematic reviews on the efficacy of ILE in local anesthetic toxicity and non-local anesthetic poisonings as well as adverse effects of ILE are planned. A comprehensive review of lipid analytical interferences and a survey of ILE costs will be developed. The evidence will be appraised using the GRADE system. A thorough and transparent process for consensus statements will be performed to provide recommendations, using a modified Delphi method with two rounds of voting. This process will allow for the production of useful practice recommendations for this therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available