1 / 50

Caustics

Caustics. Dr. Peter Krampl Dr. Randall Berlin 21 February 2001. Introduction. Caustics Any substance in which pH neutralization takes place at the expense of the tissues Alkali; usually pH > 11 Liquefaction necrosis Deeper penetration Immediate injury and pain Acid; usually pH < 3

duer
Download Presentation

Caustics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Caustics Dr. Peter Krampl Dr. Randall Berlin 21 February 2001

  2. Introduction • Caustics • Any substance in which pH neutralization takes place at the expense of the tissues • Alkali; usually pH > 11 • Liquefaction necrosis • Deeper penetration • Immediate injury and pain • Acid; usually pH < 3 • Coagulation necrosis

  3. Introduction • Injury depends on • Volume • pH • Concentration • TAR • Titratable acid or alkali reserve • History • Name, amount, concentration • Time of ingestion • Accidental vs. purposeful • Vomiting after ingestion

  4. Introduction • Drain cleaners / lye • Sodium or potassium hydroxide • Laundry / dishwasher detergents • Sodium hydroxide • Batteries • Potassium hydroxide • Deoderizers • Formaldehyde • Cleaners • Ammonia • Acids in toilet bowel cleaners • Disinfectants, household bleaches • Oxalic acid

  5. Introduction • Inflammatory phase • 0-48 hours • Granulation phase • 2 days to 2 weeks • Stricture formation • Usually seen after 4 weeks

  6. Controversies • Dilutional vs Neutralization Therapy? • Do all Patients Need Endoscopy? • Use of Antibiotics / Steroids? • Who Needs Surgery?

  7. Case 1 • A 14 month old presents to the ED after being found with a bottle of drain cleaner (pH 13). The mother is unsure if the child drank any. In the ED the child looks well with normal vital signs, no respiratory distress, no stridor, no drooling, no vomiting and no oral lesions.

  8. Case 1 • How would you manage this patient? • ? GI decontamination, • ? dilutional, • ? endoscopy, • ? disposition)

  9. S/S as Predictors • Gaudreault et al; Pediatrics; 1983 • 378 cases over 10 years • Vomiting 33% Grade 2/3 lesions • Dysphagia 25% • Abdo Pain 24% • Oral burn 18%

  10. S/S as Predictors • Crain et al; AJDC; 1984 • 79 patients • Retrospective review • Presence of symptoms (Crain criteria: vomit, drool, stridor) plus oropharyngeal burns compared to endoscopy • 2/3 symptoms gave 50% (7/14) indication of serious injury • 1/3 gave 0% (7/14)

  11. S/S as Predictors • Previtera et al; Ped EM Care; 1990 • Prospective study • 156 cases over 10 years • Symptoms compared to endoscopy within 24h • Observation of visible lesions of cheeks, lips and oropharynx • 38.4 % visible lesions • Absence cannot rule out Grade 2 Burn • Presence indicates higher risk of Grade 2/3 burns

  12. S/S as Predictors • Gorman et al; AJEM; 1992 • Prospective trial • Endoscopy blinded to symptoms • 36 ingestions • Vomit, dysphagia, abdo pain, oral burns (sens 94; spec 49 • Vomit, dysphagia, abdo pain, dysphagia (sens 89; spec 58 • Crain Score: vomit, drool, stridor (sens 56; Spec 91)

  13. S/S as Predictors • Christeen. Acad Pediatrics.1995. • Retrospective study • 115 cases over 19 years • Stridor, vomit or drool • 1 S/S Sens 1.0; Neg PV 1.0 • 3 S/S Pos PV 0.91; Spec 99%

  14. S/S as Predictors • Textbook: • Evaluate for vomiting, drooling, stridor • If assymptomatic w.r.t. above, endoscopy not necessary • ‘endoscopy should be entertained if one symptom present’ • Remember though, if stridor present , Gorman et al showed it to carry higher degree of specificity.

  15. Case 2 A 14 yo female presents to the ED after drinking something in chemistry class that she thought was apple juice. Substance is later identified as a mixture of DMSO, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide and Luminal (pH 12). Upon presentation to the ED she was complaining of a burning sensation in her mouth and chest and was vomiting. She is able to swallow but it is extremely painful, her mouth is erythematous and blistered.

  16. HR 120; BP 100/60. RR 20, O2 saturation 95% How would you manage this patient? ? GI decontamination ? Dilutional ? diagnostic tests labs xray UGI

  17. Her chest xray is normal How would you manage this patient? ?endoscopy ? steroids ? antibiotics Endoscopy showed: The esophageal mucosa showed diffused exudative esophagitis, the depth could not be adequately demonstrated. It was, however, circumferential. What Grade is this?

  18. Initial Tx: Decontamination • Textbook: • Orogastric and nasogastric tubes carry risk of perforation • Listed as contraindicated in one source but noted may be used in first 90 minutes in another source to remove substance from GI tract? • Activated charcoal contraindicated as it will interfere with endoscopy • Most caustics not absorbed by charcoal • Ipicac contraindicated • Addition of another caustic

  19. Initial Tx: Milk / Water Dilution • Rumack et al. Clinical Tox. 1977 • Review of laboratory temperature measurements of adding milk, water and weak acid neutralizers to corrosive injuries • Milk and water produced the lowest temperatures though water had a greater area under the time-temperature curve

  20. Initial Tx: Dilution/Neutralization • Kimball et al. Annals of EM; 1985 • Compared buffering, dilution and neutralization • Buffering ? Slow neutralization no benefit • May be harmful due to temperature rise • Dilution variable secondary to strength of ingested material • Neutralization may be beneficial only in the case of weak acid to strong base… minimal temperature rise

  21. Initial Tx: Saline / Water / Milk Dilution • Homan et al. Annals of EM; 1993 • 60 rat esophogi • 60 minute saline infusion started at 0, 5, 30 minutes after ingestion • At 0 minutes 54% show Grade 2 or more • At 30 minutes 100% showed Grade 2 or more • May be beneficial but time to institution critical • Similar trial with mil in 1995 which showed slight improvement at 0,5 minutes but no change in outcome at 30 minutes

  22. Initial Tx:Dilution / Neutral / Buffering • Textbook: • Dilutional therapy with water or milk may compromise airway because of potential for vomiting; vomiting can lead to re-exposure. • Studies show benefit only in first few minutes • ‘use of milk or water should be limited to first few minutes after exposure in patients with no airway compromise, no vomiting, no abdo pain, are alert and are old enough to speak’ • Neutralization therapy may worsen by exothermic heat reaction

  23. Tests: Radiography • Textbook: • Limited benefit in initial stabilization • May be useful for judging type of foreign material in case of batteries, and for signs and symptoms of severe injury: • Pneumomediastinum • Pleural effusions • Pneumoperitoneum • CXR usually most helpful film in stabilization • Contrast studies such as GI series of benefit in follow-up of Grade 2a lesions and higher

  24. Tests: Endoscopy • Showkat et al; GI/GI Endo; 1989/91 • Prospective studies • 41 patients/81 patients • 87 % esophageal injury seen by scope within 36 hours

  25. Classification grade 0 to 3 within 36hrs • 0 normal • 1 edema and hyperemia of mucosa • 2 a blister / friable • 2 b: 2a with ulceration • “Near” circumferential • Important point for stricture formation • 3 multiple deep ulcerations • circumferential • 3a small scattered areas • 3b large extensive areas of necrosis (11/11 deaths) • All 0, 1, 2a recovered without squeal

  26. Tests: Endoscopy • Surfeit et al. Br. J. Surgery. 1987 • Retrospective review • 484 patients over 12 years • Reaffirmed endoscopy indications • All 250 patients assigned Superficial- Grade 1 on endoscopy healed without sequelae • Note study done prior to Showkat criteria and I superimposed their definition of superficial to fall within grade 1.. Possibly Grade 2a.

  27. Tests: Endoscopy • Textbook: • Indications • Stridor • Both vomiting and drooling • Intentional ingestions in adults • Not indicated • Assyptomatic accidental exposures • Patients who fit operative criteria • Timing of scope • ? 6 hours to grade full extent of injury

  28. Tests: Endoscopy • Textbook: • Optimal < 12 hours • Increased risk or perforation from endoscopy usually not until 24 hrs • Graded as per modified Showkat criteria • 2a is a main cut-off • < / equal 2a soft diet; NG; stricture risk very low • > 2a serial endoscopies • Increased complications such as perforation, stricture and therefore increased surveillance

  29. Tx: assympotmaticorGrade 0 and 1 on endoscopy • Textbook: • Humidified air • Analgesia • Parenteral fluids prn • Progressive oral fluids

  30. Case 3 A 14 month old male presents to the ED after drinking HD Liquid Pipeline Cleaner (sodium hydroxide, sodium hyperchlorite, polyacrylate sodium). Immediately after drinking the cleaner the child began to vomit and have respiratory difficulty “choking”. In the ED the child has a decreased level of consciousness, HR 138, RR 28, BP 121/77, T 36.4 C. The child is drooling thick yellow secretions and has burns to her tongue, face and chest. The child is stridorous, wheezing and continuing to vomit. Abdomen has some guarding but generally felt to be non-peritoneal.

  31. How would you manage this patient? (? ABCs, diagnostic tests , GI decontamination, neutralization therapy) The child is intubated. CXR normal. ABG 7.41/27/119/17 Lytes: 134/4.2/106/23 glucose 6.6, BUN 2.4 How would you manage this patient? (? steroids, ? antibiotics, ? endoscopy) Endoscopy shows circumferential burns, 3rd degree burns, extensive exudate in the stomach.

  32. Tx: Steroids • Initial benefit shown in non-randomized, non controlled trials • Spain et al. 1950 • Haller et al. 1960 • Steroids mainstay of treatment into the 1970’s

  33. Tx: Steroids • Webb et al. Annal of Thoracic Sx; 1970. • 68 patients; prospective; non-random • Initial esophageal grade >1 • Steroid administration showed no difference in stricture rates among 2nd or 3rd degree lesions. • Ferguson et al. AJ Surg; 1989 • Retrospective study 1974-1987; 47 patients • Retrospectively reviewed incidence of esophageal stricture in relation to endoscopic grade in non steroid vs. steroid groups. • No difference but p<0.15; not powered to find

  34. Tx: Steroids • Anderson et al. NEJM. 1988. • Prospective; 60 children; not blinded • Strictures in 10/31 versus 11/29 in treated versus untreated; p>0.05 • Problems included • Ampicillin given in steroid group • Endoscopy criteria poorly adhered • Multiple exclusions including ammonia

  35. Tx: Steroids • Howell et al. AJEM. 1992 • Met analysis of 361 patients • 10 retrospective and 3 prospective studies • Either treatment with steroids and antibiotics (T) versus no treatment (NT) • No intermediate group • T group 25% stricture in 2nd/3rd degree • NT group 52%; p<0.01 • Higher percentage of 3rd degree in NT group • Poor study because not enough good studies to do meta-analysis

  36. Tx: Steroids • Textbook: • Variable studies • Not indicated in Grade 0,1 lesions since strictures do not develop • May not be useful in high Grade 3 lesions • may progress to stricture regardless of therapy • High risk of perforation • Mask s/s of peritonitis • In between grade of Grade 2a-3a have poor/ limited studies Current review recommendation is no steroids until well-controlled prospective study available

  37. Tx: Antibiotics • Textbook: • Usually concomitant therapy with steroids • Also given due to belief that tissue disruption may cause alternate pathway for infection deep to mucosal layer of GI tract • No good trials either w or w/o steroids • ‘reserve antibiotics for identified source of infection unless steroids are used’

  38. Case 4 A 30 year old female presents to the emergency department 3 hours after ingesting an unknown amount of “drain opener” (concentrated sulfuric acid) in a suicide attempt. On presentation the patient is drooling and has frothy sputum. BP 90/50, HR 140, O2 saturation 92% on 5 L by mask, T 38 C. She is lethargic but able to answer questions with nodding. Her mouth is swollen and erythematous. Her lungs are clear. Her abdomen is diffusely tender with peritoneal signs.

  39. How would you manage this patient? (ABCs, GI decontamination, diagnostics) Her blood pressure continues to fall and she is started on vasopressors. CXR: normal; electrolytes: 147/6.9/112/11/120; glucose 6.0; 6.97/40/101/9; amylase 774, PT 19.2, PTT 126.8 How would you manage this patient? (? endoscopy, ? antibiotics, ? steroids, ? surgery)

  40. Tx: Surgery • Estera et al. Ann Thoracic Sx. 1986. • 62 patients reviewed 1974-1980 • First 2 years management was endoscopy, steroids, ABX and dilatation • Last 4 years treatment for Grade 2/3 included surgical intraluminal stents and resection; • Sequalae in (2a/b) reduced from 5/7 to 0/3 • Study seemed to omit differentiation between 2a/b • No specific inclusion criteria for surgery • Death in 3b reduced from 3/4 to 0/3

  41. Tx: Surgery • Horvath et al. Ann Thor. Sx. 1991. • Case reports of good outcomes of 4/8 Grade 3 patients after early esophagogastrectomy • No trial criteria. • Not consistent with regard to initial treatment based on esophageal grades • Wu et al. Surgery. 1993. • Retrospective review • 28 patient with severe ingestions underwent surgery. • Mortality 50%; 100% GI morbidity • Difficult to apply initial criteria

  42. Tx: Surgery • Textbook: • Serum pH < 7.2 • Gastric ph > 7.3 • Perforation seen on CXR, endoscopy • S/S shock with respiratory compromise • Hemoglobnuria • Ascites • Coagulation abnormalities

  43. Other Points • Lathryogens • Penicillamine, NAC, colchicine inhibit collagen synthesis and/or breakdown • Experimental non-trial evidence so far • Strictures management • Prevention • Stents, NG tubes • Steroids / Abx • Serial dilatation • Usually after 4 weeks • Surgery

  44. In summary……

  45. Studies • Mainly retrospective • Mainly case studies • Those that are prospective suffer • Non-randomization • Poorly defined inclusion criteria • Poorly adhered inclusion criteria • I.e endoscopy criteria • Few numbers • P value to large • Studies not powered to be significant • Difficult to do meta analysis studies

  46. Pete’s Treatment Algorithm • ABC’s • Manage airway aggressively similar to inhalational burn • Decontamination • Consider NG • Dilution based on early time from exposure, i.e. at home • No lavage • No charcoal • No emesis

  47. Pete’s Treatment Algorithm • Use signs and symptoms to decide upon endoscopy • Usually at 4-6 hours • If you are worried enough to do endoscopy, get CXR and labs while you wait • If meet criteria for surgery bypass go….. do not collect $200. • Based on initial S/S, ABG, CXR, presence of shock, bleeding • Once to endoscopy, grade will aid decision

  48. Pete’s Treatment Algorithm • Steroids / ABX not indicated in ER because • Limited studies • Possible use in Grade 2 needs to be confirmed by endoscopy first so no role for ER • If grade 0 or 1 endoscopy: • Humidified air • Analgesia • Parenteral fluids • Progressive oral fluids

  49. Pete’s Treatment Algorithm • If grade 2 or 3 endoscopy: • Treat as per Grade 0 or 1 injury, but • No oral fluids initially • ? Consider steroids • ? Consider antibiotics • Consider stent / stricture prophylaxis • Review at 2-4 weeks for stricture evaluation • dilatation

  50. Pete’s Treatment Algorithm • Disposition? • Assymptomatic and Grade 0 on endoscopy • Home • Grade 1 may be admitted for • pain control • Observation • Social / psych issues • GI likely to be involved in decision process • Resume enteric feeds sooner than later • Ongoing monitoring

More Related