Extracorporeal management of valproic acid overdose: A large regional experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Valproic acid intoxication is common in North America. Although extra-corporeal therapy has been proposed as beneficial in managing significant exposures, evidence to support its use is limited to isolated case reports. A systematic review has not been performed. Methods: All cases of valproic acid overdose in Ontario, Canada, reported to the Hospital for Sick Children Poison Information Centre (PIC) between January 1st and July 31st 2002 were reviewed. Patients with valproic acid levels > 100μg/mL were divided into two groups: those treated with and without extra-corporeal therapy. All hospitalmeasured valproic acid levels and additional clinical information including elimination half-life and clearance were obtained for patients treated with extra-corporeal therapy. Results: There were 28,362 calls to the PIC, of which 139 related to valproic acid poisoning. Thirty-two patients had peak levels > 100 μg/mL. 26 patients were managed conservatively and 6 with extra-corporeal therapy. Survival was 100% in both groups. Patients who received extra-corporeal therapy had higher peak levels (p=0.005), were more frequently treated with charcoal (P=0.006), required intensive care admission (P=0.019), intubation (p<0.001), and vasopressors (P=0.004). Valproic acid elimination was enhanced about tenfold through extra-corporeal methods. Complications included tonic-clonic seizures in 1 patient who received hemodialysis, and thrombocytopenia in 1 patient who underwent hemoperfusion. Conclusion: Hemodialysis and hemoperfusion are safe, effective adjuncts in the management of serious valproic acid intoxication and should be considered for patients with hemodynamic or neurological instability. Further study is needed to determine whether hemodialysis alone versus combined hemodialysis-hemoperfusion is more effective for this condition.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".