4.3 Review

Predictors of Death and Prolonged Renal Insufficiency in Ethylene Glycol Poisoning

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 270-277

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0885066613516594

关键词

ethylene glycol; fomepizole; dialysis; renal failure; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We assessed the predictive value of selected factors on the outcomes of death and prolonged renal insufficiency (RI) from ethylene glycol poisoning. Methods: Retrospective, observational California Poison Control System study, over a 10-year period (1999-2008). We compared 2 groups. The first group (D/RI) included 59 patients who died (9 patients) or had prolonged RI (50 patients). Prolonged RI was defined as kidney injury in which dialysis was required for greater than 3 days after presentation. The second group (RECOV) of 62 patients had an uncomplicated recovery. Secondarily, we evaluated the association of time to antidote (ethanol and/or fomepizole) and time to dialysis with these outcomes. Results: The D/RI group was more likely than the RECOV group to present comatose, have seizures, and require intubation. The D/RI group had a lower mean initial arterial pH of 7.03 (standard deviation [SD] 0.20), compared to 7.27 (SD 0.14) for the RECOV group. The D/RI group had a higher initial creatinine (1.7 mg/dL, SD 0.71) than that of the RECOV group (1.0 mg/dL, SD 0.33). Patients with a time to antidote greater than 6 hours had a higher odds of dying or having prolonged RI (OR 3.34, 95% CI : 1.21-9.26) Patients with a time to dialysis greater than 6 hours had a lower odds of dying or having prolonged RI (OR 0.36, 95% CI : 0.15-0.87). Conclusion: Compared to survivors with an uncomplicated recovery, patients poisoned with ethylene glycol who died or had prolonged RI were more likely to exhibit clinical signs such as coma, seizures, and acidosis. Antidote administration within 6 hours is associated with better outcomes, unlike earlier time to dialysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据