自杀性或探查性摄入腐蚀性物质后,是否所有患者都需要做胃肠造影?

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 TOXICOLOGY
Journal of Medical Toxicology Pub Date : 2024-07-27 Epub Date: 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1007/s13181-024-01003-2
Michael Levine, Yaron Finkelstein, William J Trautman, Dazhe Cao, Evan Schwarz, Ari Filip, Leanne Cook, Sameer Arbussattar Pathan, Cherie Obilom, Jim Liu, Joseph Yanta, Neta Cohen, Stephen H Thomas
{"title":"自杀性或探查性摄入腐蚀性物质后,是否所有患者都需要做胃肠造影?","authors":"Michael Levine, Yaron Finkelstein, William J Trautman, Dazhe Cao, Evan Schwarz, Ari Filip, Leanne Cook, Sameer Arbussattar Pathan, Cherie Obilom, Jim Liu, Joseph Yanta, Neta Cohen, Stephen H Thomas","doi":"10.1007/s13181-024-01003-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caustic ingestions are relatively uncommon, but remain a significant source of morbidity. Patients with caustic injury often undergo an urgent EGD, although it is not clear if an EGD is routinely needed in an asymptomatic patient. The study has two primary objectives; 1) to determine the utility of routine EGD in asymptomatic suicidal caustic ingestions; 2) to determine if asymptomatic unintentional acidic ingestions can be managed with observation alone, similar to basic ingestions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study, which took place at 14 hospitals in three countries evaluated all patients who presented with a caustic ingestion between 2014-2020. The presence of symptoms and esophageal injury, demographic information, pH of ingested substance, reason for the ingestion, and outcome were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>409 patients were identified; 203 (46.9%) were male. The median (IQR) age was 18 (4-31) years; overall range 10 months to 78 years. Suicidal ingestions accounted for 155 (37.9%) of cases. Dysphagia or dysphonia were more likely in those with significant esophageal injury compared to those without (59.3% vs. 12.6% respectively; OR 10.1; 95% CI 4.43-23.1). Among 27 patients with significant esophageal injury, 48% were found in suicidal patients, compared with 51.9% in non-suicidal patients (p = NS). On multivariate regression, there was no difference in the rate of significant esophageal injury among suicidal vs. non suicidal patients (aOR 1.55; p = 0.45, 95% CI 0.45-5.33). Most ingestions involved basic substances (332/409; 81.2%). Unknown or mixed ingestions accounted for 25 (6.11%) of the ingestions. Significant esophageal burns were found in 6/52 (11.5%) of acid ingestions, compared with 21/332 (6.3%) of basic ingestions. Of the 42 cases of acidic ingestions without dysphagia or odynophagia, 2 (4.8%; 0.58-16.1%) had significant esophageal burns, compared with 9 (3.2%; 95% CI 1.4-5.9%) of the 284 basic ingestions; p = 0.64). On multivariate logistic regression, patients with acidic ingestions were not more likely to experience a significant burn (aOR 1.7; p = 0.11, 95% CI 0.9-3.1) compared to those with basic ingestions. No patient with significant esophageal burns was asymptomatic.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, there was no statistical differences in the rates of significant burns between acidic and basic caustic ingestions. There were no significant esophageal injuries noted among asymptomatic patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":16429,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"256-262"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288223/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is EGD Needed in all Patients after Suicidal or Exploratory Caustic Ingestions?\",\"authors\":\"Michael Levine, Yaron Finkelstein, William J Trautman, Dazhe Cao, Evan Schwarz, Ari Filip, Leanne Cook, Sameer Arbussattar Pathan, Cherie Obilom, Jim Liu, Joseph Yanta, Neta Cohen, Stephen H Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13181-024-01003-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caustic ingestions are relatively uncommon, but remain a significant source of morbidity. Patients with caustic injury often undergo an urgent EGD, although it is not clear if an EGD is routinely needed in an asymptomatic patient. The study has two primary objectives; 1) to determine the utility of routine EGD in asymptomatic suicidal caustic ingestions; 2) to determine if asymptomatic unintentional acidic ingestions can be managed with observation alone, similar to basic ingestions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study, which took place at 14 hospitals in three countries evaluated all patients who presented with a caustic ingestion between 2014-2020. The presence of symptoms and esophageal injury, demographic information, pH of ingested substance, reason for the ingestion, and outcome were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>409 patients were identified; 203 (46.9%) were male. The median (IQR) age was 18 (4-31) years; overall range 10 months to 78 years. Suicidal ingestions accounted for 155 (37.9%) of cases. Dysphagia or dysphonia were more likely in those with significant esophageal injury compared to those without (59.3% vs. 12.6% respectively; OR 10.1; 95% CI 4.43-23.1). Among 27 patients with significant esophageal injury, 48% were found in suicidal patients, compared with 51.9% in non-suicidal patients (p = NS). On multivariate regression, there was no difference in the rate of significant esophageal injury among suicidal vs. non suicidal patients (aOR 1.55; p = 0.45, 95% CI 0.45-5.33). Most ingestions involved basic substances (332/409; 81.2%). Unknown or mixed ingestions accounted for 25 (6.11%) of the ingestions. Significant esophageal burns were found in 6/52 (11.5%) of acid ingestions, compared with 21/332 (6.3%) of basic ingestions. Of the 42 cases of acidic ingestions without dysphagia or odynophagia, 2 (4.8%; 0.58-16.1%) had significant esophageal burns, compared with 9 (3.2%; 95% CI 1.4-5.9%) of the 284 basic ingestions; p = 0.64). On multivariate logistic regression, patients with acidic ingestions were not more likely to experience a significant burn (aOR 1.7; p = 0.11, 95% CI 0.9-3.1) compared to those with basic ingestions. No patient with significant esophageal burns was asymptomatic.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, there was no statistical differences in the rates of significant burns between acidic and basic caustic ingestions. There were no significant esophageal injuries noted among asymptomatic patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Toxicology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"256-262\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288223/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-024-01003-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-024-01003-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腐蚀性物质摄入相对来说并不常见,但仍然是一个重要的发病原因。腐蚀性物质损伤患者通常会紧急接受胃肠道造影检查,但无症状患者是否需要常规接受胃肠道造影检查尚不清楚。本研究有两个主要目标:1)确定常规胃肠道造影术对无症状自杀性腐蚀性物质摄入的效用;2)确定无症状无意摄入酸性物质是否可以像基本摄入一样仅通过观察来处理:这项回顾性研究在三个国家的 14 家医院进行,评估了 2014-2020 年间所有因摄入腐蚀性物质而就诊的患者。研究记录了患者的症状和食道损伤、人口统计学信息、摄入物质的 pH 值、摄入原因和结果:结果:共发现 409 名患者,其中 203 名(46.9%)为男性。年龄中位数(IQR)为18(4-31)岁;总体年龄范围为10个月至78岁。自杀性摄食占 155 例(37.9%)。与无明显食管损伤的患者相比,有明显食管损伤的患者更容易出现吞咽困难或发音障碍(分别为 59.3% 对 12.6%;OR 10.1;95% CI 4.43-23.1)。在 27 名食管有明显损伤的患者中,自杀患者占 48%,而非自杀患者占 51.9%(P = NS)。多变量回归结果显示,自杀与非自杀患者的食管明显损伤率没有差异(aOR 1.55;p = 0.45,95% CI 0.45-5.33)。大多数摄入物涉及基本物质(332/409;81.2%)。未知或混合摄入占 25 例(6.11%)。6/52(11.5%)例摄入酸性物质后发现食管严重灼伤,而21/332(6.3%)例摄入碱性物质后发现食管严重灼伤。在 42 例无吞咽困难或吞咽困难的酸性食入病例中,有 2 例(4.8%;0.58-16.1%)有明显的食管灼伤,而在 284 例基本食入病例中,有 9 例(3.2%;95% CI 1.4-5.9%)有明显的食管灼伤;P = 0.64)。在多变量逻辑回归中,与基本型食道摄入相比,酸性食道摄入患者发生严重灼伤的可能性并不大(aOR 1.7;p = 0.11,95% CI 0.9-3.1)。没有食道严重烧伤患者没有症状:在这项研究中,酸性和碱性腐蚀剂摄入造成的严重灼伤率没有统计学差异。无症状患者的食管没有明显损伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is EGD Needed in all Patients after Suicidal or Exploratory Caustic Ingestions?

Background: Caustic ingestions are relatively uncommon, but remain a significant source of morbidity. Patients with caustic injury often undergo an urgent EGD, although it is not clear if an EGD is routinely needed in an asymptomatic patient. The study has two primary objectives; 1) to determine the utility of routine EGD in asymptomatic suicidal caustic ingestions; 2) to determine if asymptomatic unintentional acidic ingestions can be managed with observation alone, similar to basic ingestions.

Methods: This retrospective study, which took place at 14 hospitals in three countries evaluated all patients who presented with a caustic ingestion between 2014-2020. The presence of symptoms and esophageal injury, demographic information, pH of ingested substance, reason for the ingestion, and outcome were recorded.

Results: 409 patients were identified; 203 (46.9%) were male. The median (IQR) age was 18 (4-31) years; overall range 10 months to 78 years. Suicidal ingestions accounted for 155 (37.9%) of cases. Dysphagia or dysphonia were more likely in those with significant esophageal injury compared to those without (59.3% vs. 12.6% respectively; OR 10.1; 95% CI 4.43-23.1). Among 27 patients with significant esophageal injury, 48% were found in suicidal patients, compared with 51.9% in non-suicidal patients (p = NS). On multivariate regression, there was no difference in the rate of significant esophageal injury among suicidal vs. non suicidal patients (aOR 1.55; p = 0.45, 95% CI 0.45-5.33). Most ingestions involved basic substances (332/409; 81.2%). Unknown or mixed ingestions accounted for 25 (6.11%) of the ingestions. Significant esophageal burns were found in 6/52 (11.5%) of acid ingestions, compared with 21/332 (6.3%) of basic ingestions. Of the 42 cases of acidic ingestions without dysphagia or odynophagia, 2 (4.8%; 0.58-16.1%) had significant esophageal burns, compared with 9 (3.2%; 95% CI 1.4-5.9%) of the 284 basic ingestions; p = 0.64). On multivariate logistic regression, patients with acidic ingestions were not more likely to experience a significant burn (aOR 1.7; p = 0.11, 95% CI 0.9-3.1) compared to those with basic ingestions. No patient with significant esophageal burns was asymptomatic.

Conclusion: In this study, there was no statistical differences in the rates of significant burns between acidic and basic caustic ingestions. There were no significant esophageal injuries noted among asymptomatic patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
10.30%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Toxicology (JMT) is a peer-reviewed medical journal dedicated to advances in clinical toxicology, focusing on the diagnosis, management, and prevention of poisoning and other adverse health effects resulting from medications, chemicals, occupational and environmental substances, and biological hazards. As the official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT), JMT is managed by an editorial board of clinicians as well as scientists and thus publishes research that is relevant to medical toxicologists, emergency physicians, critical care specialists, pediatricians, pre-hospital providers, occupational physicians, substance abuse experts, veterinary toxicologists, and policy makers.       JMT articles generate considerable interest in the lay media, with 2016 JMT articles cited by various social media sites, the Boston Globe, and the Washington Post among others.     For questions or comments about the journal, please contact jmtinfo@acmt.net.    For questions or comments about the journal, please contact jmtinfo@acmt.net.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信