MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109254026 · doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1475

The Myth of a Minimum Dose for Atropine

2011· article· en· W2109254026 on OpenAlexaff
Keith J. Barrington

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBradycardiaResuscitationAtropineCardiopulmonary resuscitationAnesthesiaEffective dose (radiation)Body weightHeart rateInternal medicineNuclear medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its first appearance, the Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) course has recommended a minimum dose of atropine of 0.1 mg regardless of the body weight of the child. The most recent update of PALS, after the extensive International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) process, designed to develop the evidence base of resuscitation recommendations, still contains this same recommendation.1 This recommendation is frequently quoted by pediatric residents fresh from their PALS courses; I have often been informed that a lower dose causes “paradoxical bradycardia.” Indeed, the computerized printouts for resuscitation drugs and doses from our hospital information system are based on the PALS guidelines and give the same recommended dose. Thus, if the computerized printout were to be followed, a 2-kg infant would receive 0.1 instead of 0.04 mg of atropine. If the indication persisted and a second dose were to be given, potentially lethal overdosage could occur.This minimum dose is widely repeated. The 12th edition of The Harriet Lane Handbook2 states that the preanesthesia dose (30–60 minutes before operation) for a child is “0.01 mg/kg/dose SC/IV/IM, max. dose: 0.4 mg/dose; min. dose: 0.1 mg/dose; may repeat Q4–6 hr” and for “Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (see remarks): Child,” the recommended dose is “0.02 mg/kg/dose IV Q5 min × 2–3 doses PRN; min. dose: 0.1 mg”; the remarks to which the authors refer included: “Doses < 0.1 mg have been associated with paradoxical bradycardia.”In contrast, the 14th edition of the Pediatric Dosage Handbook3 states under the heading “usual dosage” the following: “Note: Doses <0.1 mg have been associated with paradoxical bradycardia”; however, the authors then state under the dose recommendations for neonates for preanesthetic administration that “use of a minimum dosage of 0.1 mg in neonates <5kg will result in dosages > 0.02 mg/kg, there is no documented minimum dosage in this age group.” Subsequently, under dose recommendations for bradycardia, the minimum dosage for intravenous, intraosseous, and intratracheal administration is said to be 0.02 mg/kg, minimum dose 0.1 mg, without any comment. The widely used Neofax,4 on the other hand, makes no mention of a minimum dosage.The recommended dose for atropine in most circumstances, including in PALS, is 0.02 mg/kg; therefore, the minimum dose recommendation only affects infants with a body weight of <5 kg and leads to a progressive increase in the dose administered on a per-kilogram basis as the body weight of the infant in question gets smaller. It should be noted that although the PALS course also still recommends this minimum dosage, the PALS recommendations are not consistent: 0.03 mg/kg for endotracheal use “higher than the vascular dose” is recommended, and no minimum is mentioned. It should also be noted that the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces did not address the issue of a minimum dose.I could think of no rational or physiologic reason why a 1-kg infant should receive a fivefold overdose of atropine compared with a 5-kg infant, so I decided to pursue the source of this recommendation.In the latest edition of PALS, the reference is a 1971 article written by Dauchot and Gravenstein.5 This interesting physiologic study demonstrated that very low doses of atropine, dosed on a per-kilogram basis, of 0.0036 mg/kg (3.6 μg/kg) or less may cause a mild slowing of heart rate. It should be noted that there were no premature infants included in the study; the youngest studied infants were between 6 weeks and 3 months of age, and in these infants the cardiac slowing effect was not statistically significant. The most markedly affected children were the 7- to 12-year-olds who had an average decrease in heart rate from 79 to 70 beats per minute; above this dosage, heart rate was increased by atropine. This effect was later demonstrated to be a result of blockade of M1 muscarinic receptors, whereas the familiar tachycardic response is a result of blockade of the M2 and M3 receptors.6The article in question, which seems to be the only source for the recommendation and which has been requoted on multiple occasions, presumably without a careful check of the primary source, provides absolutely no justification for an overall dose minimum. It does suggest that doses of 0.0036 mg/kg or less will not reliably block M2 and M3 receptors; therefore, to have this effect and prevent vagally mediated bradycardia, the dose should be more than this minimum per-kilogram dose.It seems that the strict, universal, often-repeated, minimum absolute dose of atropine is derived from an unsupported and irrational statement in the discussion of the aforementioned article in which the authors stated, “we therefore give a minimum dose of 0.1 mg of atropine to our patients.” This minimum total dose is completely out of keeping with the results of the careful physiologic investigation that they performed but has developed a scriptural correctness.This approach to atropine dosing may be dangerous; a neonate who developed a toxic reaction (lethargy, opisthotonus, seizures, periodic breathing, dilated unresponsive pupils, dry mucous membranes and skin, and urinary retention) after 2 “minimum doses” of atropine (which calculated as 0.09 mg/kg) over 5 hours has been reported.7 Although several children have survived accidental overdosage with large amounts of atropine by mouth (16–40 mg/kg), Gillick7 underlined that death in children from atropine poisoning has occurred with doses as small as 0.05 mg/kg intravenously.A dose of 0.1 mg would be toxic for some of our neonatal patients. There is no justification for this minimum dosage. For infants of <5 kg body weight, 0.1 mg is an overdose; this dose is probably not of much significance for infants of, say, ≥3.5 kg, but for an infant of 0.7 kg it could be disastrous.A recent study of preterm newborns8 with an average weight of just over 1 kg used an appropriate dose of 0.01 mg/kg (that is an average one-tenth of the recommended minimum) and revealed a shortening of the R-R interval and no “paradoxical bradycardia.” Several prospective studies of neonatal intubation have used a dose of either 0.02 mg/kg9–11 or 0.01 mg/kg12 and have carefully monitored heart rates. These studies routinely show an increase in heart rate after atropine and prevention of laryngoscopy-induced bradycardia and have never demonstrated paradoxical bradycardia. In these studies, all of the subjects had received doses that are less than the “minimum dose” recommended by PALS, which is the minimum dose calculated by many hospital information systems.Precalculated resuscitation drug charts, pediatric reference books, the PALS program, and computer-based drug calculators should be revised to remove this erroneous and dangerous recommendation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207