Zitek Tony, Raciti Christopher, Nguyen Alvin, Roa Valentina, Lopez Edward, Oliva Gregory, Farcy David A
Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St AHC2, Miami, FL, USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4300 Alton Rd,, Miami Beach, FL, USA.
J Med Toxicol. 2025 Jan;21(1):15-24. doi: 10.1007/s13181-024-01048-3. Epub 2024 Nov 29.
Cannabinoid-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, yet little has been published about how the route of cannabinoid use (inhaled versus oral) affects ED presentations. We sought to compare ED visits from inhaled versus oral cannabinoid use.
We performed a retrospective cohort study using ED patients with a cannabinoid related diagnosis from January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2023 from a single hospital system in Florida. We performed manual chart review to categorize visits into "unlikely", "possibly", or "highly likely" to be due to acute cannabinoid use. For our primary analysis, we used the "highly likely" group to compare the presentations and outcomes of patients who had used oral cannabinoids versus inhaled. Our primary outcome was hospital admission.
We deemed 303 patient visits "highly likely" to be from acute cannabinoids: 59 (19.5%) inhaled and 244 (80.5%) oral. Zero patients in the inhaled group were admitted compared to 15 (6.2%) in the oral group, a difference of 6.2% (95% CI 3.1-9.2%), p = 0.05. Additionally, 65 (26.7%) of the oral group reported using cannabinoids unintentionally including 8 housekeepers who ate food products left by hotel guests. Comparatively, 4 (6.8%) of the inhaled group unintentionally used cannabinoids (difference 19.9% [95% CI 11.4-28.3]).
Most patients who presented to the ED for the effects of acute cannabinoids had used them orally. Compared to patients who had inhaled cannabinoids, those who used them orally required more ED diagnostic resources and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for additional evaluation or treatment. From a public health perspective, increased regulation of edible cannabinoid products may be needed.
与大麻素相关的急诊科就诊人数正在增加,但关于大麻素使用途径(吸入与口服)如何影响急诊科就诊表现的报道却很少。我们试图比较吸入式与口服式大麻素使用导致的急诊科就诊情况。
我们对2020年1月1日至2023年5月31日期间来自佛罗里达州一个医院系统的诊断为与大麻素相关疾病的急诊科患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。我们通过人工查阅病历,将就诊情况分类为“不太可能”、“可能”或“极有可能”是由于急性大麻素使用所致。在我们的主要分析中,我们使用“极有可能”组来比较口服大麻素与吸入大麻素患者的就诊表现和结局。我们的主要结局是住院治疗。
我们认为303例患者的就诊“极有可能”是由急性大麻素使用引起的:59例(19.5%)为吸入式,244例(80.5%)为口服式。吸入组无患者住院,而口服组有15例(6.2%)住院,差异为6.2%(95%置信区间3.1 - 9.2%),p = 0.05。此外,口服组中有65例(26.7%)报告无意使用了大麻素,其中包括8名误食酒店客人遗留食品的清洁工。相比之下,吸入组中有4例(6.8%)无意使用了大麻素(差异为19.9% [95%置信区间11.4 - 28.3])。
大多数因急性大麻素作用而到急诊科就诊的患者是口服使用的。与吸入大麻素的患者相比,口服大麻素的患者需要更多的急诊科诊断资源,并且更有可能因进一步评估或治疗而住院。从公共卫生角度来看,可能需要加强对可食用大麻素产品的监管。