Ripoll Trujillo N, Martínez Sánchez L, Habimana-Jordana A, Trenchs Sainz de La Maza V, Vila Miravet V, Luaces Cubells C. An. Pediatr. 2019; 90(4): 207-212.
Vernacular Title
Ingesta de cáusticos: análisis de la seguridad y beneficio de un protocolo menos agresivo.
Affiliation
Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, Esplugues de Llobregat, Barcelona, España; Influencia del entorno en el bienestar del niño y del adolescente, Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Esplugues de Llobregat, Barcelona, España.
INTRODUCTION: The ingestion of a caustic agent is the most common cause of admission after being in contact with a domestic product. A group of patients could be considered low risk and not require aggressive procedures such a corticosteroid administration and endoscopy, especially in the paediatric population.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and benefit of a less aggressive protocol for patients defined as low risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An analytical-observational study conducted on patients who consulted for caustic ingestion between January 2011 and December 2015. Two periods were differentiated according to the current protocol. Period-1: usual protocol (which included admission and parenteral corticosteroid and antibiotic administration) and Period-2: less aggressive protocol for the low risk patients (oral intake test after 6hours and discharged if they remained asymptomatic). Low risk patients were considered as those who met the following criteria: unintentional intake, absence of symptoms and oral lesions. In the rest of the patients the usual protocol was performed. Re-admission with a diagnosis of digestive lesions was considered as a complication.
RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were included in period 1, and 35 in period 2. In period 2, thirteen patients met low risk criteria. The adherence to the less aggressive protocol was 100%. None of the low risk patients required admission or endoscopy after discharge. In period 1 the adherence to the usual protocol was 60.4%. Six patients would have benefited from the application of the less aggressive protocol.
CONCLUSIONS: Adopting a more conservative attitude in low risk patients is safe. These patients benefit from clinical observation, without performing more aggressive measures with their possible iatrogenic adverse effects.