Lipid emulsion therapy during management of the critically-ill poisoned patient: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite conflicting data, intravenous lipid emulsion has emerged as a potential antidote. The “lipid sink” theory suggests that following intravenous administration of lipid, lipophilic drugs are sequestered in the vascular compartment, thereby reducing their tissue concentrations. This study sought to determine if survival is associated with the intoxicant’s degree of lipophilicity.Methods We reviewed all cases in the Toxicology Investigators Consortium’s lipid sub-registry between May 2012 through December 2018. Information collected included demographics, exposure circumstances, clinical course, management, disposition, and outcome. The primary outcome was survival after lipid emulsion therapy. Survival was stratified by the log of the intoxicant’s octanol-water partition coefficient. We also assessed the association between intoxicant lipophilicity and an increase in systolic blood pressure after lipid emulsion administration.Results We identified 134 patients, including 81 (60.4%) females. The median age was 40 years (interquartile range 21-75). One hundred and eight (80.6%) patients survived, including 45 (33.6%) with cardiac arrest during their intoxication. Eighty-two (61.2%) were hypotensive, and 98 (73.1%) received mechanical ventilation. There was no relationship between survival and the log of the partition coefficient of the intoxicant on linear analysis (P = 0.89) or polynomial model (P = 0.10). Systolic blood pressure increased in both groups. The median (interquartile range) systolic blood pressure before lipid administration was 68 (60-78) mmHg for those intoxicants with a log partition coefficient < 3.6 compared with 89 (76-104) mmHg after lipid administration. Among those drugs with a log partition coefficient > 3.6, the median (interquartile range) was 69 (60-84) mmHg before lipid and 89 (80-96) mmHg after lipid administration.Conclusion Most patients in this cohort survived. Lipophilicity was not correlated with survival or the observed changes in blood pressure. The study did not address the efficacy of lipid emulsion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".