Tony Zitek, Christopher Raciti, Alvin Nguyen, Valentina Roa, Edward Lopez, Gregory Oliva, David A Farcy
{"title":"急诊科患者口服和吸入大麻素后的表现:回顾性分析。","authors":"Tony Zitek, Christopher Raciti, Alvin Nguyen, Valentina Roa, Edward Lopez, Gregory Oliva, David A Farcy","doi":"10.1007/s13181-024-01048-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cannabinoid-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, yet little has been published about how the route of cannabinoid use (inhaled versus oral) affects ED presentations. We sought to compare ED visits from inhaled versus oral cannabinoid use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study using ED patients with a cannabinoid related diagnosis from January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2023 from a single hospital system in Florida. We performed manual chart review to categorize visits into \"unlikely\", \"possibly\", or \"highly likely\" to be due to acute cannabinoid use. For our primary analysis, we used the \"highly likely\" group to compare the presentations and outcomes of patients who had used oral cannabinoids versus inhaled. Our primary outcome was hospital admission.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We deemed 303 patient visits \"highly likely\" to be from acute cannabinoids: 59 (19.5%) inhaled and 244 (80.5%) oral. Zero patients in the inhaled group were admitted compared to 15 (6.2%) in the oral group, a difference of 6.2% (95% CI 3.1-9.2%), p = 0.05. Additionally, 65 (26.7%) of the oral group reported using cannabinoids unintentionally including 8 housekeepers who ate food products left by hotel guests. Comparatively, 4 (6.8%) of the inhaled group unintentionally used cannabinoids (difference 19.9% [95% CI 11.4-28.3]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most patients who presented to the ED for the effects of acute cannabinoids had used them orally. Compared to patients who had inhaled cannabinoids, those who used them orally required more ED diagnostic resources and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for additional evaluation or treatment. From a public health perspective, increased regulation of edible cannabinoid products may be needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":16429,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"15-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emergency Department Patients Presenting after Oral versus Inhaled Cannabinoid use: A Retrospective Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Tony Zitek, Christopher Raciti, Alvin Nguyen, Valentina Roa, Edward Lopez, Gregory Oliva, David A Farcy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13181-024-01048-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cannabinoid-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, yet little has been published about how the route of cannabinoid use (inhaled versus oral) affects ED presentations. We sought to compare ED visits from inhaled versus oral cannabinoid use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study using ED patients with a cannabinoid related diagnosis from January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2023 from a single hospital system in Florida. We performed manual chart review to categorize visits into \\\"unlikely\\\", \\\"possibly\\\", or \\\"highly likely\\\" to be due to acute cannabinoid use. For our primary analysis, we used the \\\"highly likely\\\" group to compare the presentations and outcomes of patients who had used oral cannabinoids versus inhaled. Our primary outcome was hospital admission.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We deemed 303 patient visits \\\"highly likely\\\" to be from acute cannabinoids: 59 (19.5%) inhaled and 244 (80.5%) oral. Zero patients in the inhaled group were admitted compared to 15 (6.2%) in the oral group, a difference of 6.2% (95% CI 3.1-9.2%), p = 0.05. Additionally, 65 (26.7%) of the oral group reported using cannabinoids unintentionally including 8 housekeepers who ate food products left by hotel guests. Comparatively, 4 (6.8%) of the inhaled group unintentionally used cannabinoids (difference 19.9% [95% CI 11.4-28.3]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most patients who presented to the ED for the effects of acute cannabinoids had used them orally. Compared to patients who had inhaled cannabinoids, those who used them orally required more ED diagnostic resources and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for additional evaluation or treatment. From a public health perspective, increased regulation of edible cannabinoid products may be needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Toxicology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707219/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-024-01048-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/29 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/s13181-024-01048-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导读:与大麻素相关的急诊科(ED)访问量正在增加,但关于大麻素使用途径(吸入与口服)如何影响ED表现的报道很少。我们试图比较吸入大麻素和口服大麻素的ED就诊情况。方法:我们对来自佛罗里达州单一医院系统的2020年1月1日至2023年5月31日诊断为大麻素相关的ED患者进行了回顾性队列研究。我们进行了手动图表审查,将访问分为“不太可能”,“可能”或“极有可能”,原因是急性大麻素使用。在我们的初步分析中,我们使用“极有可能”组来比较口服大麻素和吸入大麻素患者的表现和结果。我们的主要结局是住院。结果:我们认为303例患者就诊“极有可能”来自急性大麻素:59例(19.5%)吸入,244例(80.5%)口服。吸入组入院0例,口服组入院15例(6.2%),差异为6.2% (95% CI 3.1 ~ 9.2%), p = 0.05。此外,65名(26.7%)口服组报告无意中使用大麻素,其中包括8名吃了酒店客人留下的食物的管家。相比之下,吸入组中有4人(6.8%)无意中使用大麻素(差异为19.9% [95% CI 11.4-28.3])。结论:大多数因急性大麻素作用而到急诊科就诊的患者都是口服大麻素。与吸入大麻素的患者相比,口服大麻素的患者需要更多的ED诊断资源,并且更有可能入院接受额外的评估或治疗。从公共卫生的角度来看,可能需要加强对可食用大麻素产品的监管。
Emergency Department Patients Presenting after Oral versus Inhaled Cannabinoid use: A Retrospective Analysis.
Introduction: Cannabinoid-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, yet little has been published about how the route of cannabinoid use (inhaled versus oral) affects ED presentations. We sought to compare ED visits from inhaled versus oral cannabinoid use.
Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using ED patients with a cannabinoid related diagnosis from January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2023 from a single hospital system in Florida. We performed manual chart review to categorize visits into "unlikely", "possibly", or "highly likely" to be due to acute cannabinoid use. For our primary analysis, we used the "highly likely" group to compare the presentations and outcomes of patients who had used oral cannabinoids versus inhaled. Our primary outcome was hospital admission.
Results: We deemed 303 patient visits "highly likely" to be from acute cannabinoids: 59 (19.5%) inhaled and 244 (80.5%) oral. Zero patients in the inhaled group were admitted compared to 15 (6.2%) in the oral group, a difference of 6.2% (95% CI 3.1-9.2%), p = 0.05. Additionally, 65 (26.7%) of the oral group reported using cannabinoids unintentionally including 8 housekeepers who ate food products left by hotel guests. Comparatively, 4 (6.8%) of the inhaled group unintentionally used cannabinoids (difference 19.9% [95% CI 11.4-28.3]).
Conclusions: Most patients who presented to the ED for the effects of acute cannabinoids had used them orally. Compared to patients who had inhaled cannabinoids, those who used them orally required more ED diagnostic resources and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for additional evaluation or treatment. From a public health perspective, increased regulation of edible cannabinoid products may be needed.
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.