Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2025 Apr;37(2):87-94.
doi: 10.55633/s3me/008.2025.

Use of antidotes in cases of poisoning from drugs of abuse treated in Spanish emergency departments

[Article in Spanish, English]
Affiliations
Free article
Multicenter Study

Use of antidotes in cases of poisoning from drugs of abuse treated in Spanish emergency departments

[Article in Spanish, English]
M ª Carmen Rodríguez-Ocejo et al. Emergencias. 2025 Apr.
Free article

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the use of antidotes for street-drug poisonings treated in Spanish emergency departments (EDs), the appropriateness of antidote use in these cases, and adverse events related to antidotes.

Methods: Eleven EDs belonging to the Spanish network for the study of drug poisonings treated in Spanish hospitals (REDUrHE) registered data for patients treated over a period of 24 months. Poisonings exclusively involving alcohol were excluded. Sociodemographic and clinical data (including episode severity and clinical management) were recorded. Cases were grouped for comparisons according whether or not antidotes were administered during the episode, were used in the hospital ED or out-of-hospital, and were used appropriately according to the American Heart Association and CALITOX-2006 recommendations.

Results: A total of 4481 patients were included; 351 (7.8%) were treated with an antidote (naloxone in 243 and flumazenil in 225). Both antidotes were used in 34.5% of these patients. Antidotes were most often used during outof-hospital care (in 79.3%). The use was inappropriate in 81.3% of the flumazenil-treated patients and in 70.7% of the naloxone-treated patients. Flumazenil was improperly given to patients with a score of more than 12 on the Glasgow Coma Scale in 49.7% of the patients treated with this antidote. Patients treated with an antidote had had convulsions or were under antiepileptic treatment (4.8% of the cases) or had used a proconvulsive substance (cocaine, 40.8%, or an amphetamine, 26.8%); and 25.9% required treatment with an anxiolytic or sedative. Serious neurological complications were reported after antidote administration in 5 patients (1.6%). The need for intubation and respiratory support in a critical care unit was significantly associated with inappropriate use of flumazenil (P .001); the need for sedation was associated with inappropriate use of naloxone (P = .02). Inappropriate use was not related to where the antidote was administered.

Conclusions: Antidotes, usually naloxone and flumazenil, were used to treat a high percentage of patients poisoned by drugs of abuse who are attended by Spanish EDs belonging to the REDUrHE. In a third of these cases, both antidotes were used. Use was associated with diminished consciousness. Use of the antidote, especially flumazenil, was inappropriate in most of the episodes.

Objetivo: Analizar el empleo de antídotos en pacientes intoxicados por drogas de abuso en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) españoles, el grado de adecuación de estos tratamientos y las reacciones adversas relacionadas con su administración.

Metodo: Durante 24 meses se registraron pacientes intoxicados por drogas de abuso atendidos en 11 SUH. Se excluyó el alcohol cuando este fue consumido como tóxico único. Se recogieron variables sociodemográficas, clínicas, asistenciales y de gravedad. Estos aspectos se compararon según la administración, o no, de antídotos en el episodio, ámbito de administración y grado de adecuación en su empleo según las recomendaciones propuestas por las guías de la American Heart Association y en Calitox 2006.

Resultados: Se incluyeron 4.481 pacientes, de los que 351 (7,8%) recibieron antídoto. Se administró naloxona a 243 y flumazenilo a 225 pacientes. El 34,5% recibieron ambos antídotos. Esta administración se hizo mayoritariamente en urgencias extrahospitalarias (79,3%). La administración inadecuada de flumazenilo fue del 81,3% y del 70,7% para la naloxona. El flumazenilo se administró incorrectamente en pacientes con puntuación > 12 de la escala de coma de Glasgow (ECG) en 49,7% de ocasiones. 4,8% de los tratados con antídotos habían presentado convulsiones o estaban en tratamiento antiepiléptico, el 40,8% habían consumido cocaína o el 26,8% algún anfetamínico (ambas drogas proconvulsivantes) y un 25,9% precisó tratamiento con ansiolítico o medidas de sedación. En 5 casos (1,6%) se registraron complicaciones neurológicas graves tras su empleo. La administración inadecuada de antídotos se relacionó con necesidad de intubación y soporte respiratorio con ingreso en unidades de críticos para el flumazenilo (p 0,001) o con precisar sedación para la naloxona (p = 0,02). El empleo inadecuado de antídotos fue independiente del ámbito de administración.

Conclusiones: Un porcentaje relevante de intoxicados por drogas de abuso atendidos en los SUH de la red REDUrHE recibieron algún antídoto, fundamentalmente naloxona y flumazenilo, que en un tercio de las ocasiones se administraron conjuntamente. Este uso se relacionó con los casos en que existía un deterioro del nivel de consciencia, y fue inadecuado en la mayor parte de los episodios analizados, principalmente en el caso del flumazenilo.

Keywords: Adecuación terapéutica; Antidotes; Antídotos; Drogas de abuso; Emergency department; Flumazenil; Flumazenilo; Illicit drugs; Inappropriate prescribing; Intoxicación; Naloxona; Poisoning; Urgencias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources