-
Frontiers in Medicine 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atropine for slowing myopia progression and to investigate whether the treatment effect remains constant with continuing...
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atropine for slowing myopia progression and to investigate whether the treatment effect remains constant with continuing treatment. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to May 2021, and the language was limited to English. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies involving atropine in at least one intervention and placebo/non-atropine treatment in another as the control were included and subgroup analysis based on low dose (0.01%), moderate dose (0.01%-<0.5%), and high dose (0.5-1.0%) were conducted. The Cochrane Collaboration and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of RCTs and cohort studies, respectively. Twelve RCTs and fifteen cohort studies involving 5,069 children aged 5 to 15 years were included. The weighted mean differences in myopia progression between the atropine and control groups were 0.73 diopters (D), 0.67 D, and 0.35 D per year for high-dose, moderate-dose, and low-dose atropine, respectively (χ = 13.76; = 0.001, = 85.5%). After removing studies that provided extreme findings, atropine demonstrated a significant dose-dependent effect on both refractive change and axial elongation, with higher dosages of atropine resulting in less myopia progression ( = 0.85; = 0.004) and less axial elongation ( = -0.94; = 0.005). Low-dose atropine showed less myopia progression (-0.23 D; = 0.005) and less axial elongation (0.09 mm, < 0.001) in the second year than in the first year, whereas in high-dose atropine more axial elongation (-0.15 mm, = 0.003) was observed. The higher dose of atropine was associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects, such as photophobia with an odds ratio (OR) of 163.57, compared with an OR of 6.04 for low-dose atropine and 8.63 for moderate-dose atropine ( = 0.03). Both the efficacy and adverse effects of atropine are dose-dependent in slowing myopia progression in children. The efficacy of high-dose atropine was reduced after the first year of treatment, whereas low-dose atropine had better efficacy in a longer follow-up period.
PubMed: 35096861
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.756398 -
Paediatrics & Child Health May 2022Sialorrhea in children can be associated with adverse physical and social effects. Treatment using anticholinergic medications has been shown to offer symptomatic...
BACKGROUND
Sialorrhea in children can be associated with adverse physical and social effects. Treatment using anticholinergic medications has been shown to offer symptomatic relief, but there is no consensus regarding which treatment is the most efficacious.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the effectiveness of anticholinergic medications for sialorrhea in children.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and the Web of Science from inception until April 29, 2020. Studies reporting original data on the efficacy of anticholinergic medications in the management of sialorrhea in children aged 0 to 17 years of age were included. This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. Data on study design, setting, population, pharmacologic intervention(s), comparator(s), outcomes, and results were extracted and summarized.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 2,800 studies of which 27 articles were included in the synthesis, including five randomized controlled trials. Each anticholinergic undergoing experimental study (glycopyrrolate, scopolamine/hyoscine, trihexyphenidyl/benzhexol, benztropine, and atropine) showed evidence of efficacy. Adverse side effects were common. Significant heterogeneity exists in the studies' methodology and the variability of outcome measures used between studies precluded a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Glycopyrrolate, scopolamine/hyoscine, trihexyphenidyl/benzhexol, benztropine, and atropine have all shown efficacy in the treatment of sialorrhea in children. The small number of reports and the variability in study design precluded a meta-analysis. More studies are needed with uniformity in outcome measures to help guide evidence-based decision making. A guidance table is presented.
PubMed: 35599670
DOI: 10.1093/pch/pxab051 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Faecal incontinence (leakage of bowel motions or stool) is a common symptom which causes significant distress and reduces quality of life. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Faecal incontinence (leakage of bowel motions or stool) is a common symptom which causes significant distress and reduces quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of drug therapy for the treatment of faecal incontinence. In particular, to assess the effects of individual drugs relative to placebo or other drugs, and to compare drug therapy with other treatment modalities.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of Trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 21 June 2012) and the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials were included in this systematic review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen trials were identified, including 558 participants. Eleven trials were of cross-over design. Eleven trials included only people with faecal incontinence related to liquid stool (either chronic diarrhoea, following ileoanal pouch or rectal surgery, or due to use of a weight-reducing drug). Two trials were amongst people with weak anal sphincters, one in participants with faecal impaction and bypass leakage, and one in geriatric patients. In one trial there was no specific cause for faecal incontinence.Seven trials tested anti-diarrhoeal drugs to reduce faecal incontinence and other bowel symptoms (loperamide, diphenoxylate plus atropine, and codeine). Six trials tested drugs that enhance anal sphincter function (phenylepinephrine gel and sodium valproate). Two trials evaluated osmotic laxatives (lactulose) for the treatment of faecal incontinence associated with constipation in geriatric patients. One trial assessed the use of zinc-aluminium ointment for faecal incontinence. No studies comparing drugs with other treatment modalities were identified.There was limited evidence that antidiarrhoeal drugs and drugs that enhance anal sphincter tone may reduce faecal incontinence in patients with liquid stools. Loperamide was associated with more adverse effects (such as constipation, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, headache and nausea) than placebo. However, the dose may be titrated to the patient's symptoms to minimise side effects while achieving continence. The drugs acting on the sphincter sometimes resulted in local dermatitis, abdominal pain or nausea. Laxative use in geriatric patients reduced faecal soiling and the need for help from nurses.Zinc-aluminium ointment was associated with improved quality of life, with no reported adverse effects. However, the observed improvement in quality of life was seen in the placebo group as well as the treatment group.It should be noted that all the included trials in this review had small sample sizes and short duration of follow-up. 'Risk of bias' assessment was unclear for most of the domains as there was insufficient information. There were no data suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The small number of trials identified for this review assessed several different drugs in a variety of patient populations. The focus of most of the included trials was on the treatment of diarrhoea, rather than faecal incontinence. There is little evidence to guide clinicians in the selection of drug therapies for faecal incontinence. Larger, well-designed controlled trials, which use the recommendations and principles set out in the CONSORT statement, and include clinically important outcome measures, are required.
Topics: Adult; Antidiarrheals; Diarrhea; Epinephrine; Fecal Incontinence; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Lactulose; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valproic Acid; Zinc Compounds
PubMed: 23757096
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002116.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2019Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing...
BACKGROUND
Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses.
OBJECTIVES
In performing this systematic review, we aimed to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion therapy compared to atropine penalization in treating amblyopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS BIREME; ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN; and the WHO ICTRP on 7 September 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials (five randomized controlled trials and two quasi-randomized controlled trials) conducted in six countries (China, India, Iran, Ireland, Spain, and the United States) with a total of 1177 amblyopic eyes. Three of these seven trials were from the original 2009 version of the review. We assessed two trials as having a low risk of bias across all domains, and the remaining five trials as having unclear or high risk of bias for some domains.As different occlusion modalities, atropine penalization regimens, and populations were used across the included trials, we did not conduct any meta-analysis due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Evidence from six trials (two at low risk of bias) suggests that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion in improving visual acuity. Similar improvement in visual acuity was reported at all time points at which it was assessed, ranging from five weeks (improvement of 1 line) to 10 years (improvement of greater than 3 lines). At six months, although most participants (363/522) come from a trial rated as at low risk of bias with a precise estimate (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.06), two other trials rated as at high risk of bias produced inconsistent estimates and wide confidence intervals (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07 and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 months, additional improvement was found in both groups, but there continued to be no meaningful difference between those receiving occlusion and those receiving atropine therapies (moderate-certainty evidence).We did not find any difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity, or sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization groups (moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments were well tolerated. Atropine was associated with better adherence (moderate-certainty evidence) and quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), but also a higher reported risk of adverse events in terms of mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment and light sensitivity (high-certainty evidence). Skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation were more common among participants receiving patching than those receiving atropine (high-certainty evidence). Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the trials we analyzed.
Topics: Amblyopia; Atropine; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31461545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006460.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2008Noisy breathing (death rattle) occurs in 23 to 92% of people who are dying. The cause of death rattle remains unproven but is presumed to be due to an accumulation of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Noisy breathing (death rattle) occurs in 23 to 92% of people who are dying. The cause of death rattle remains unproven but is presumed to be due to an accumulation of secretions in the airways. It is therefore managed physically (repositioning and clearing the upper airways of fluid with a mechanical sucker) or pharmacologically (with anticholinergic drugs).
OBJECTIVES
To describe and assess the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions used to treat death rattle in patients close to death.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), before and after studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies in adults and children with death rattle were sought by MEDLINE (1966 to 2007), EMBASE (1980 to 2007), CINAHL (1980 to 2007), the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In addition, the reference lists of all relevant trials and reports were checked and investigators who are known to be researching this area were contacted for unpublished data or knowledge of the grey literature.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs, controlled before and after studies and ITS reporting the outcome of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for treating death rattle.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data was extracted by two independent review authors and trials were quality scored. There was insufficient data to carry out an analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty studies were identified, of which only one study met the inclusion criteria. This small study was a randomised placebo-controlled trial of the use of hyoscine hydrobromide in patients with death rattle. Hyoscine hydrobromide tended to reduce death rattle compared to placebo but this was not significant. A larger randomised study, comparing atropine, hyoscine butylbromide and scopolamine, is in progress.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence to show that any intervention, be it pharmacological or non-pharmacological, is superior to placebo in the treatment of death rattle. We acknowledge that in the face of heightened emotions when death is imminent, it is difficult for staff not to intervene. It is therefore likely that the current therapeutic options will continue to be used. However, patients need to be closely monitored for lack of therapeutic benefit and adverse effects while relatives need time, explanation and reassurance to relieve their fears and concerns. There is a need for more well-designed multi-centre studies with objective outcome measures and the ability to recruit sufficient numbers.
Topics: Cholinergic Antagonists; Death; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Respiratory Sounds; Scopolamine; Terminal Care
PubMed: 18254072
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005177.pub2 -
Ophthalmology and Therapy Dec 2018Amblyopia therapy appears to be most effective in children under the age of 7 years, but results from randomized control trials (RCTs) have shown that occlusion therapy... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amblyopia therapy appears to be most effective in children under the age of 7 years, but results from randomized control trials (RCTs) have shown that occlusion therapy and/or atropine penalization therapy may improve visual acuity in an older age group. Which of these two therapies is the most effective with fewer adverse effects in an older age group has not yet been agreed upon.
METHODS
We systematically searched the literature for RCTs that compared atropine penalization therapy and occlusion therapy in terms of their visual acuity outcomes and adverse events and performed a meta-analysis on the visual acuity data obtained. The adverse effects reported and their implications for clinical practice are discussed.
RESULTS
Two RCTs were identified, with the authors of both concluding that there was no detectable difference between the two therapies for the age groups they studied. The mean difference between atropine penalization and occlusion therapies was calculated to be - 0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval - 0.07 to 0.03 logMAR) in favor of occlusion therapy, and no statistical difference between the two groups was detected (P = 0.45). Neither study detected a marked difference in terms of reported adverse effects from the two interventions.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of our meta-analysis we conclude that there is no difference in visual acuity outcomes between atropine penalization therapy and occlusion therapy after 17 to 24 weeks of treatment in children aged 7-12 years. Further evidence to determine the efficacy of amblyopia therapy for an older patient population is required before studies comparing atropine penalization and occlusion therapy in patients older than 12 years can be performed. Atropine penalization therapy may cause more frequent minor adverse effects, such as light sensitivity, but in the clinical setting this needs to be balanced with the potential practical benefits of twice-weekly eye drops versus daily occlusion.
FUNDING
The funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Health Education England (HEE). A plain language summary is available for this article.
PubMed: 30328078
DOI: 10.1007/s40123-018-0151-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Amblyopia is defined as defective visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Amblyopia is defined as defective visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion versus atropine penalization for amblyopia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, preference lists, science citation index and ongoing trials up to June 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened abstracts and full text articles, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials with a total of 525 amblyopic eyes were included. One trial was assessed as having a low risk of bias among these three trials, and one was assessed as having a high risk of bias.Evidence from three trials suggests atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. One trial found similar improvement in vision at six and 24 months. At six months, visual acuity in the amblyopic eye improved from baseline 3.16 lines in the occlusion and 2.84 lines in the atropine group (mean difference 0.034 logMAR; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.005 to 0.064 logMAR). At 24 months, additional improvement was seen in both groups; but there continued to be no meaningful difference (mean difference 0.01 logMAR; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04 logMAR). The second trial reported atropine to be more effective than occlusion. At six months, visual acuity improved 1.8 lines in the patching group and 3.4 lines in the atropine penalization group, and was in favor of atropine (mean difference -0.16 logMAR; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.09 logMAR). Different occlusion modalities were used in these two trials. The third trial had inherent methodological flaws and limited inference could be drawn.No difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity and sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization was found. Although both treatments were well tolerated, compliance was better in atropine. Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion. The results indicate that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the three trials. Atropine penalization can be used as first line treatment for amblyopia.
Topics: Amblyopia; Atropine; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 19821369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006460.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012Inhaled anticholinergics as single agent bronchodilators (or in combination with beta(2)-agonists) are one of the several medications available for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inhaled anticholinergics as single agent bronchodilators (or in combination with beta(2)-agonists) are one of the several medications available for the treatment of acute asthma in children.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of only inhaled anticholinergic drugs (i.e. administered alone), compared to a control in children over the age of two years with acute asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials were searched by the Cochrane Airways Group. The latest search was performed in April 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which inhaled anticholinergics were given as single therapy and compared with placebo or any other drug or drug combinations for children over the age of two years with acute asthma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies met the inclusion criteria but were limited by small sample sizes, various treatment regimes used and outcomes assessed. The studies were overall of unclear quality. Data could only be pooled for the outcomes of treatment failure and hospitalisation. Other data could not be combined due to divergent outcome measurements. Meta-analysis revealed that children who received anticholinergics alone were significantly more likely to have treatment failure compared to those who received beta(2)-agonists from four trials on 171 children (odds ratio (OR) 2.27; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.75). Also, treatment failure on anticholinergics alone was more likely than when anticholinergics were combined with beta(2)-agonists from four trials on 173 children (OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.2 to 5.88). Data on clinical scores/symptoms that were measured on different scales were conflicting. Individual trials reported that lung function was superior in the combination group when compared with anticholinergic agents used alone. The use of anticholinergics was not found to be associated with significant side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In children over the age of two years with acute asthma exacerbations, inhaled anticholinergics as single agent bronchodilators were less efficacious than beta(2)-agonists. Inhaled anticholinergics were also less efficacious than inhaled anticholinergics combined with beta(2)-agonists. Inhaled anticholinergic drugs alone are not appropriate for use as a single agent in children with acute asthma exacerbations.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adolescent; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Albuterol; Asthma; Atropine; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cholinergic Antagonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fenoterol; Humans; Ipratropium; Metaproterenol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scopolamine Derivatives; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 22513916
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003797.pub2 -
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences... 2022Acute severe organophosphorus pesticide poisoning (ASOPP) is one of the major diseases that endanger human life and health. However, the effects of conventional therapy... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute severe organophosphorus pesticide poisoning (ASOPP) is one of the major diseases that endanger human life and health. However, the effects of conventional therapy including gastric lavages, mechanical ventilation, muscarinic antagonist drugs, and cholinesterase reactivators were uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of hemoperfusion combined with hemofiltration besides routine therapy for ASOPP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive search for candidate publications was performed through PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, WanFang, Chinese Biomedical Literature, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from database inception to May 12, 2020. The retrieved studies were screened by the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data of important end points were extracted. The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were pooled for categorical variables and continuous variables, respectively. Meta-analyses and publication bias were conducted by using STATA software version 15.1.
RESULTS
A total of 11 randomized controlled trials with 811 patients were included. Compared to conventional therapy group, patients in the hemoperfusion plus hemofiltration group were significantly superior with regard to mortality (RR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.25, 0.57], < 0.001), total atropine dosing (WMD -147.34 mg, 95% CI [-199.49, -95.18], < 0.001), duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -2.34 days, 95% CI [-3.77, -0.92], < 0.001), cholinesterase recovery time (WMD -2.49 days, 95% CI [-3.14, -1.83], < 0.001), and length of stay (WMD -4.52 days, 95% CI [-5.31, -3.73], < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Combined hemoperfusion and hemofiltration was a very safe and effective treatment protocol for ASOPP, not only resulting in significantly decreased mortality but also resulting in reduced total atropine dosing, duration of mechanical ventilation, cholinesterase recovery time, and length of stay.
PubMed: 35548179
DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_822_20 -
Cureus Aug 2023Calcium channel blocker poisoning is one of the most common poisonings encountered which presents with life-threatening complications. However, there is no unified... (Review)
Review
Calcium channel blocker poisoning is one of the most common poisonings encountered which presents with life-threatening complications. However, there is no unified approach for treating these patients in the existing literature. This study aimed to assess the effects of different treatment modalities used in calcium channel blocker poisoning, as reported by previous studies. The primary outcomes studied were mortality and hemodynamic parameters after treatment. The secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations. A thorough literature search was performed through Ovid, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from January 2014 to December 31, 2022, to identify all studies analyzing the effects of the treatment of calcium channel blocker poisoning on the desired outcomes. Two reviewers reviewed 607 published articles from January 2014 to December 2022 to identify studies analyzing the effects of the treatment of calcium channel blocker poisoning on desired outcomes. In this review, 18 case reports, one case series, and one cohort study were included. Most patients were treated with an injection of calcium gluconate or calcium chloride. The use of calcium along with dopamine and norepinephrine was found to have lower mortality rates. A few patients were also treated with injection atropine for bradycardia. High-dose insulin therapy was used in 14 patients, of whom two did not survive. In the cohort study, 66 calcium channel blocker toxicity patients were included. These patients were treated with high-dose insulin therapy. A total of 11 patients with calcium channel blocker toxicity succumbed. Although it was found to be associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, side effects such as hypokalemia and hypoglycemia were noted. Intravenous lipid emulsion therapy (administered to eight patients), extracorporeal life support (used in three patients with refractory shock or cardiac arrest), injection glucagon, methylene blue, albumin infusion, and terlipressin were associated with a lower mortality rate as well as improvement in hemodynamic parameters. None of the case reports provided any information on end-organ damage on long-term follow-up.
PubMed: 37664357
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42854