Department of Emergency Medicine, Mersin Toros State Hospital, Mersin, Turkey; and.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
Am J Ther. 2021 Aug 19;29(2):e182-e192. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001422.
This study aims to compare the poisoned patients who could not be administered activated charcoal because of its unavailability with the poisoned patients who were administered charcoal in the later period and to reveal the results about its effectiveness.
Is the use of activated charcoal effective against poisoning caused by oral medication?
This retrospective cohort study with historical control was planned at a tertiary hospital. Patients older than 18 years were admitted to the emergency department because of oral drug poisoning during the study periods. A total of 1159 patients who were not given activated charcoal and 877 patients who were given activated charcoal were included in this study.
The frequency of clinical findings secondary to the drug taken, the frequency of antidote use, the frequency of intubation, and the hospitalization length were determined as clinical outcome parameters.
There was no statistically significant difference in the development of central nervous system findings, cardiovascular system findings, frequency of intubation, and blood gas disorders, as well as the length of hospitalization periods according to the activated charcoal application. Hepatobiliary system findings and electrolyte disturbances were found to be less common in patients given activated charcoal. The frequency of tachycardia, speech impairment, coma, and respiratory acidosis was found to be statistically higher in patients who were administered activated charcoal. The hospitalization period of the patients who were given activated charcoal was longer in patients with drug findings; however, there was no difference in the hospitalization periods of the patients who were given an antidote.
The use of activated charcoal in poisoned patients may not provide sufficient clinical benefits. However, clinical studies with strong evidence levels are needed to determine activated charcoal's clinical efficacy, which is still used as a universal antidote.
本研究旨在比较因无法获得活性炭而未能给予活性炭治疗的中毒患者与后期给予活性炭治疗的中毒患者，并揭示其疗效结果。
活性炭对口服药物中毒是否有效？
这是一项在三级医院进行的回顾性队列研究，具有历史对照。在研究期间，因口服药物中毒而到急诊科就诊的患者年龄均大于 18 岁。共有 1159 名未给予活性炭治疗的患者和 877 名给予活性炭治疗的患者纳入本研究。
将药物引起的临床发现频率、解毒剂使用频率、插管频率和住院时间确定为临床结局参数。
根据活性炭的应用，未发现中枢神经系统发现、心血管系统发现、插管频率和血气紊乱以及住院时间的差异有统计学意义。活性炭治疗组的肝胆系统发现和电解质紊乱发生率较低。给予活性炭治疗的患者心动过速、言语障碍、昏迷和呼吸性酸中毒的发生率较高，差异有统计学意义。给予活性炭治疗的患者的住院时间较长，但给予解毒剂治疗的患者的住院时间无差异。
活性炭的使用可能不能为中毒患者提供充分的临床获益。然而，仍需要进行具有较强证据水平的临床研究，以确定活性炭的临床疗效，因为活性炭仍被用作通用解毒剂。
