Article

Diphenhydramine and dimenhydrinate poisoning: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

American Association of Poison Control Centers, Washington, DC 20016, USA.
Clinical Toxicology (Impact Factor: 3.12). 01/2006; 44(3):205-23. DOI: 10.1080/15563650600585920
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 2003, there were 28,092 human exposures to diphenhydramine reported to poison centers in the US. A related drug, dimenhydrinate, is a less frequent cause of poisonings. Between January 2000 and June 2004, there were 2,534 reported dimenhydrinate ingestions in children less than 6 years of age. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft was created by the primary author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes based on the secondary review comments. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with a suspected ingestion of diphenhydramine or dimenhydrinate, or a dermal exposure to diphenhydramine. This guideline is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. This guideline does not substitute for clinical judgment. The panel's recommendations for dermal or oral exposures to diphenhydramine or oral exposures to dimenhydrinate follow. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses: 1) All patients with suicidal intent, intentional abuse, or in cases in which a malicious intent is suspected (e.g., child abuse or neglect) should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 2) In patients without evidence of self-harm, abuse, or malicious intent, poison center personnel should elicit additional information including the time of the ingestion or dermal exposure, determination of the precise dose ingested, and the presence of co-ingestants (Grade D). 3) Patients experiencing any changes in behavior other than mild drowsiness or mild stimulation should be referred to an emergency department. Examples of moderate to severe symptoms that warrant referral include agitation, staring spells, inconsolable crying, hallucinations, abnormal muscle movements, loss of consciousness, seizures, or respiratory depression (Grade D). 4) For patients referred to the emergency department, transportation via ambulance should be considered based on several factors including the condition of the patient and the length of time it will take the patient to arrive at the emergency department (Grade D). 5) If the patient has no symptoms, and more than 4 hours have elapsed between the time of diphenhydramine ingestion and the call to the poison center, referral to an emergency department is not recommended. For dermal exposures to diphenhydramine, if the patient has no symptoms and it has been more than 8 hours since the diphenhydramine was thoroughly removed from the skin, referral to an emergency department is not recommended (Grade D). 6) Patients with acute ingestions of less than a toxic dose of diphenhydramine, or chronic exposures to diphenhydramine and no or mild symptoms, can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center back if symptoms develop or worsen. The poison center should consider making a follow-up call at approximately 4 hours after ingestion (Grade D). 7) Children less than 6 years of age who ingest at least 7.5 mg/kg of diphenhydramine should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 8) Patients 6 years of age and older who ingest at least 7.5 mg/kg or 300 mg of diphenhydramine (whichever is less), should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 9) If the patient has no symptoms, and more than 6 hours have elapsed between the time of dimenhydrinate ingestion and the call to the poison center, referral to an emergency department is not recommended (Grade D). 10) Patients with acute ingestions of less than a toxic dose of dimenhydrinate, or chronic exposures to dimenhydrinate and no or mild symptoms, can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center back if symptoms develop or worsen. The poison center should consider making a follow-up call at approximately 6 hours after ingestion (Grade D). 11) Children less than 6 years of age ingesting at least 7.5 mg/kg of dimenhydrinate should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 12) Patients 6 years of age and older ingesting at least 7.5 mg/kg or 300 mg of dimenhydrinate (whichever is less), should be referred to an emergency department for evaluation (Grade D). 13) Following oral exposures of diphenhydramine or dimenhydrinate, do not induce emesis. Because of the potential for diphenhydramine or dimenhydrinate to cause loss of consciousness or seizures, activated charcoal should not be administered en route to an emergency department (Grade D). 14) For chronic dermal exposures of diphenhydramine, skin decontamination (with water or soap and water) should be attempted prior to transporting a patient to an emergency department unless moderate to severe symptoms are already present. In this circumstance, transportation should not be delayed, and EMS personnel should attempt skin decontamination en route to the emergency department (Grade D). 15) Intravenous sodium bicarbonate may be administered by EMS personnel if QRS widening (QRS >0.10 msec) is present and if authorized by EMS medical direction (Grade D). 16) Physostigmine should be reserved for administration in a hospital (Grade D). 17) Benzodiazepines may be administered by EMS personnel if agitation or seizures are present, and if authorized by EMS medical direction (Grade D).

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Edwin Martin Caravati, Jun 29, 2015
5 Followers
 · 
799 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The pressure sore is a trouble by the mechanical loading. As for this, the stress concentration occurs to the skin surface, and, next, sphacelation is meant by the skin. However, there is a case where the pressure sore is not improved even if the stress is removed. For this case, defective fixation of the skin is more remarkable than the general person. In this research, the appraisal method was quantitatively proposed for the soundness of the skin.Design/methodology/approach: This paper proposed the model of the mechanism where the skin received the shear stress and the pressure sore was generated.To verify this model experimenting, it examined it in pathology.Findings: The experimental results showed that first of all, to measure the viscoelastic property of the skin with in vivo, the measuring instrument using the rheometer was developed. Next, it made comparative study with the state of pathology of the pressure sore with this measuring instrument. As a result, it was able to be suggested that defective fixation of the skin decide the form of the pressure sore. In addition, it has understood though the state of the therapeutic approach and the prognosis can be evaluated.Research limitations/implications: In this research, the skin was measured using the probe and the rheometer which devised the stage. At this time, the datum point of the rheometer measured by assuming in the bone upper part.Practical implications: This paper cleared that it is influence of the measurement place of a skin viscoelasticity value. As a result, it was suggested that the preventive care of the bedsore becomes possible.Originality/value: The objective of this research project was to develop the skin appraisal method was quantitatively proposed.
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Limited information exists on potentially adverse escitalopram ingestions reported to poison control centers. Using isolated escitalopram ingestions reported to Texas poison control centers during 2002-2005, the proportion of cases involving serious medical outcomes was determined for selected variables and evaluated for statistical significance by calculating the rate ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Of 1179 cases identified, 234 (20%) involved serious outcomes. Serious outcomes were significantly more likely to occur with a maximum dose of >100 mg (RR 4.69, CI 2.52-9.29) or >5 tablets (RR 4.96, CI 2.94-8.93), where the circumstances of the exposures involved self-harm or malicious intent (RR 3.21, CI 2.42-4.29), or when the patient was already at or en route to a health care facility when the poison control center was contacted (RR 7.88, CI 4.31-15.79) or referred to a health care facility by the poison control center (RR 15.91, CI 8.78-31.64). The severity of the outcome associated with isolated escitalopram ingestions depended on the dose and the circumstances of the ingestion. The management of patients with serious outcomes were more likely to involve health care facilities. Such information is useful for creating triage guidelines for the management of escitalopram ingestions.
    Human &amp Experimental Toxicology 06/2007; 26(6):473-82. DOI:10.1177/0960327107078666 · 1.41 Impact Factor