@article{ref1,
title="Acute digitalis intoxication--is pacing still appropriate?",
journal="Journal of toxicology - clinical toxicology",
year="1993",
author="Taboulet, P. and Baud, F. J. and Bismuth, C. and Vicaut, E.",
volume="31",
number="2",
pages="261-273",
abstract="Over a six year period, 92 patients intoxicated with either digitoxin or digoxin were admitted to our ICU. Fifty-one patients were treated with cardiac pacing and/or Fab fragments, and the mortality rate was 13% (14 were intoxications with digoxin, 36 with digitoxin, 1 was mixed). Forty-five cases were suicide attempts; six were accidental overdosages. Since cardiac pacing may trigger fatal arrhythmia or delay the administration of Fab fragments, we conducted a retrospective study to determine whether fatal outcomes could be related either to cardiac pacing or to unsatisfactory use of immunotherapy. In our study, prevention of life-threatening arrhythmia failed in 8% of cases with Fab and in 23% with pacing. Though Fab tended to be more effective, this difference was not significant. In our study, the main obstacles to the success of Fab were pacing-induced arrhythmias and delayed or insufficient administration of Fab. Iatrogenic accidents of cardiac pacing were frequent (14/39, 36%) and often fatal (5/39, 13%). In contrast, immunotherapy was not associated with any serious adverse effects (0/28, 0%) and was safer than cardiac pacing (p < 0.05). In conclusion, during digitalis intoxication, the pacemaker has limited preventive and curative effects, is difficult to handle, and exposes patients to severe iatrogenic accidents. Fab fragments act as a powerful antidote and are safer and much easier to use than pacing. These results encourage us to prescribe Fab fragments as first-line therapy during acute digitalis intoxication.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0731-3810",
doi="10.3109/15563659309000393",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15563659309000393"
}