ContextCalcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion.ObjectiveTo evaluate the reported effects of treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and hemodynamic parameters. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital, length of stay in intensive care unit, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations.MethodsMedline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, International pharmaceutical abstracts, Google Scholar, and the gray literature up to December 31, 2013 were searched without time restriction to identify all types of studies that examined effects of various treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning for the outcomes of interest. The search strategy included the following Keywords: [calcium channel blockers OR calcium channel antagonist OR calcium channel blocking agent OR (amlodipine or bencyclane or bepridil or cinnarizine or felodipine or fendiline or flunarizine or gallopamil or isradipine or lidoflazine or mibefradil or nicardipine or nifedipine or nimodipine or nisoldipine or nitrendipine or prenylamine or verapamil or diltiazem)] AND [overdose OR medication errors OR poisoning OR intoxication OR toxicity OR adverse effect]. Two reviewers independently selected studies and a group of reviewers abstracted all relevant data using a pilot-tested form. A second group analyzed the risk of bias and overall quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist and the Thomas tool for observational studies, the Institute of Health Economics tool for Quality of Case Series, the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, and the modified NRCNA (National Research Council for the National Academies) list for animal studies. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence. Of 15,577 citations identified in the initial search, 216 were selected for analysis, including 117 case reports. The kappa on the quality analysis tools was greater than 0.80 for all study types.ResultsThe only observational study in humans examined high-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support. The risk of bias across studies was high for all interventions and moderate to high for extracorporeal life support. High-dose insulin. High-dose insulin (bolus of 1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5–2.0 units/kg/h) was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, at the risks of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia (low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal life support. Extracorporeal life support was associated with improved survival in patients with severe shock or cardiac arrest at the cost of limb ischemia, thrombosis, and bleeding (low quality of evidence). Calcium, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These agents improved hemodynamic parameters and survival without documented severe side effects (very low quality of evidence). 4-Aminopyridine. Use of 4-aminopyridine was assoc...

No abstract

Summary Current guidelines recommend the administration of hormonal combination therapy including immunosuppressive doses of corticosteroids to donors with low left ventricular ejection fractions and to consider hormonal therapy administration to all donors. However, these recommendations are largely based on observational data. The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in brain-dead potential organ donors. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from the earliest accessible date up to March 2013 with a qualified librarian. Studies comparing the effects of any corticosteroid with those of placebo, standard treatment, or another active comparator were sought. Two independent reviewers evaluated each citation retrieved and selected studies independently and in duplicate. A third independent reviewer resolved any disagreement. Outcomes included donor haemodynamics and oxygenation, organ procurement, recipient survival, and graft survival. This review included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 observational studies. The majority used methylprednisolone and often combined it with other hormonal therapies. Ten out of the 11 RCTs yielded neutral results. However, in observational studies, use of corticosteroids generally resulted in improved donor haemodynamics and oxygenation status, increased organ procurement, and improved recipient and graft survival. Overall quality of included studies was poor, as most of them presented high risks of confounding. This SR highlights the low quality and conflicting evidence supporting the routine use of corticosteroids in the management of organ donors. A large trial evaluating the effect of corticosteroids on outcomes such as organ recovery and graft survival is warranted.

ObjectivesThis review investigates the impact of corticosteroids on donation rates and transplant outcomes in light of findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to highlight the sources of uncertainty in this unresolved donor management issue.Data sourcesWe searched electronic databases, trial registries and conference proceedings for RCTs evaluating corticosteroid therapy in neurologically deceased donors.Study selection and data extractionIndependent reviewers assessed eligibility, evaluated risk of bias and abstracted data, including donor haemodynamic data, number of organs recovered and transplant outcomes. Where possible, we pooled results. For each outcome, we assessed the overall quality of evidence using The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.Data synthesisEleven RCTs with different corticosteroid regimens were included. Most trials assessed a once-daily infusion of methylprednisolone. Aside from one study showing improved liver graft function, no individual study or pooled analysis showed benefit of corticosteroids for any outcome: vasopressor use (three trials; relative risk (RR) 0.96; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05), multiple organs recovered (two trials; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11), acute graft rejection (three trials; RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.39) or graft dysfunction (eight trials; RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.24). Two trials investigated adverse effects and found similar rates between groups. Quality of evidence was moderate or low for all outcomes.ConclusionCurrent clinical trials are limited in numbers and size to identify benefits or harms of corticosteroid therapy for deceased organ donors. In the face of these results, administering or withholding steroids both appear reasonable courses of action.