Comparison of patients hemodialyzed for lithium poisoning and those for whom dialysis was recommended by PCC but not done: what lesson can we learn?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIMS: To compare patients for whom hemodialysis was done for lithium poisoning and those for whom it was recommended by the poison control centre (PCC) but not done and to evaluate the effect of withholding hemodialysis on outcomes. METHODS: All lithium overdoses brought to the attention of the PCC were prospectively followed from January 1 to December 31, 1996. Patients for whom hemodialysis was done were compared with those for whom it was recommended but not done in terms of clinical presentation, lithium elimination half-life, need for transfer to another centre for hemodialysis, and outcome (death, or sequel or recovery). RESULTS: A total of 205 cases of lithium overdoses were collected including 110 with levels higher than 1.5 mmol/l. There were 12 acute lithium overdoses; no patients required hemodialysis and there were no sequel or deaths. There were 174 acute on chronic overdoses; hemodialysis was recommended in 9 patients but only 6 underwent hemodialysis; one patient died during hemodialysis but no other had sequel. There were 19 chronic poisonings; hemodialysis was recommended in 9 patients but only 2 had hemodialysis, a third patient underwent hemodialysis despite it not being recommended; one patient died without hemodialysis and one other had sequel after hemodialysis. No difference were observed between the groups for age, sex, type of poisoning (acute on chronic/chronic), levels (initial/peak/6 hours/extrapolated at 30 hours), time of presentation post-ingestion, presence of co-ingestants, symptoms and signs, Hansen and Amdisen grade, initial creatinine, time of recommendation to perform hemodialysis (daytime or nighttime), need to transfer patients to another centre to perform hemodialysis, and outcome. Patients with acute on chronic poisoning that were not hemodialyzed had longer elimination half-life than those for whom hemodialysis was done even before hemodialysis was performed: 50.1 +/- 13.6 h (n = 3) versus 12.9 +/-12.1 (n = 3) (p = 0.007), respectively. CONCLUSION: No difference was observed between patients for whom hemodialysis was done and those for whom it was recommended by PCC but not done. Despite the death of one patient clearly associated with voluntary withholding hemodialysis, sequel was not seen in that group. The indications for hemodialysis in lithium poisoning should be reconsidered to include only the more severe cases.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».