Life-Threatening Flecainide Intoxication in a Young Child Secondary to Medication Error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe a case of life-threatening flecainide intoxication in a toddler, secondary to accidental reversal of syringes used for oral administration. CASE SUMMARY: A 2-year-old male with a history of a persistent junctional reciprocating tachycardia had been receiving flecainide 4.8 mg/kg/day (1 mL 3 times daily) and nadolol 2 mg/kg/day (5 mL once daily) for 10 months. One morning, 3 hours after the drugs were administered, he became bradycardic (heart rate 50 beats/min) and then presented to the emergency department with vital signs absent. After initial cardiopulmonary resuscitation and epinephrine, he was bradycardic; this was followed by wide-complex tachycardia that converted rapidly to narrow-complex tachycardia after bolus administration of intravenous sodium bicarbonate for suspected flecainide intoxication. Following resuscitation, he remained hemodynamically stable and was discharged in normal sinus rhythm without neurologic sequelae. Drug concentrations obtained at the time of presentation showed a serum concentration of flecainide of 0.668 microg/mL. Drug formulations were also analyzed and found to contain the expected concentration of flecainide. DISCUSSION: Literature regarding adverse drug events in the pediatric outpatient population is reviewed, as well as how these risks apply to flecainide, a medication with a low margin of safety. Pediatric experience with flecainide intoxication and sodium bicarbonate administration as an antidote is reviewed. Analysis of the serum drug concentrations demonstrated blood concentrations consistent with syringe reversal, which would have produced a 5-fold flecainide overdose. The Naranjo probability scale indicated a highly probable relationship between flecainide ingestion and the life-threatening event in this case. CONCLUSIONS: This case of life-threatening flecainide intoxication in a young child, secondary to accidental reversal of medication syringes, underscores the importance of providing parents with accurate dispensing information and labeling medication bottles and syringes in an unambiguous manner.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".