...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >Multiple-dose activated charcoal in acute self-poisoning: a randomised controlled trial.
【24h】

Multiple-dose activated charcoal in acute self-poisoning: a randomised controlled trial.

机译:急性自我中毒的多剂量活性炭:一项随机对照试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: The case-fatality for intentional self-poisoning in the rural developing world is 10-50-fold higher than that in industrialised countries, mostly because of the use of highly toxic pesticides and plants. We therefore aimed to assess whether routine treatment with multiple-dose activated charcoal, to interrupt enterovascular or enterohepatic circulations, offers benefit compared with no charcoal in such an environment. METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel group, randomised, controlled trial of six 50 g doses of activated charcoal at 4-h intervals versus no charcoal versus one 50 g dose of activated charcoal in three Sri Lankan hospitals. 4632 patients were randomised to receive no charcoal (n=1554), one dose of charcoal (n=1545), or six doses of charcoal (n=1533); outcomes were available for 4629 patients. 2338 (51%) individuals had ingested pesticides, whereas 1647 (36%) had ingested yellow oleander (Thevetia peruviana) seeds. Mortality was the primary outcome measure. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with controlled-trials.com as ISRCTN02920054. FINDINGS: Mortality did not differ between the groups. 97 (6.3%) of 1531 participants in the multiple-dose group died, compared with 105 (6.8%) of 1554 in the no charcoal group (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.33). No differences were noted for patients who took particular poisons, were severely ill on admission, or who presented early. INTERPRETATION: We cannot recommend the routine use of multiple-dose activated charcoal in rural Asia Pacific; although further studies of early charcoal administration might be useful, effective affordable treatments are urgently needed.
机译:背景:在农村发展中国家,故意中毒的致死率是工业化国家的10-50倍,主要是因为使用了剧毒农药和植物。因此,我们的目的是评估与在这种环境下不使用木炭相比,用多剂量活性炭进行常规治疗以中断肠血管或肝肠循环是否有益。方法:我们在三家斯里兰卡医院进行了一项开放标签,平行组,随机对照试验,每4小时间隔服用6份50克剂量的活性炭,对比无木炭和1份50克活性炭。 4632名患者被随机分配为不接受木炭(n = 1554),一剂木炭(n = 1545)或六剂木炭(n = 1533);结果可用于4629例患者。 2338(51%)个人摄入了农药,而1647(36%)个人摄入了黄色夹竹桃(Thevetia peruviana)种子。死亡率是主要的结局指标。分析是按意向进行的。该试验已在control-trials.com上注册为ISRCTN02920054。结果:两组之间的死亡率没有差异。多剂量组的1531名参与者中有97名(6.3%)死亡,而无木炭组的1554名参与者中有105名(6.8%)死亡(调整后的优势比为0.96,95%CI为0.70-1.33)。对于服用特殊毒药,入院时病情严重或提早出现的患者,没有发现差异。解释:我们不建议在亚太地区的农村地区常规使用多剂量活性炭。尽管对早期木炭施用的进一步研究可能是有用的,但迫切需要有效的负担得起的治疗方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号