Comparative analysis of ingestion assessment methods in paraquat-poisoned patients

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated clinical methodologies for estimating ingested pesticide volume and evaluated their accuracy in acute oral poisonings. METHODS: The evaluation of poison ingestion was divided into accurate evaluation, empirical evaluation, and simulated ingestion evaluation. Statistical analysis was conducted using the data of 60 cases of acute oral paraquat poisonings (PQP) in our hospital from the aspect of empirical evaluation, simulated ingestion evaluation, blood toxicant test, and prognosis. Moreover, the measurements of oral capacity and simulated dose were compared in the general population based on sex, age, height, weight, and season. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed between the amount based on empirical evaluation and that based on simulated ingestion evaluation (P < 0.05). In simulated ingestion evaluation, the amount in males was significantly higher than that in females, and the amount in males was correlated with blood toxicant concentration and prognosis. No statistical difference in oral capacity was observed in the general population based on age, season, and body weight (P > 0.05). Both the maximum and normal mouthfuls in males were statistically different from those in females (P < 0.05, P < 0.05). A statistical difference in oral capacity (maximum mouthful and normal mouthful) was observed among various height groups (P < 0.01, P < 0.05), indicating that the higher the height, the larger the oral capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Only 7.69% of the cases were allowed for an accurate dose evaluation. The ingested poison dose based on empirical and simulated ingestion evaluation were correlated with blood toxicant concentrations and prognosis in patients with PQP. Factors, such as sex and height, should be considered by physicians in empirical evaluation. It is still a great clinical challenge to accurately evaluate the ingested dose of liquid pesticides.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.