Toxicology Crises in Critical Care: Emerging Antidotes and Novel Management Strategies

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The landscape of toxicological emergencies continues to evolve with emerging synthetic compounds and refined understanding of established antidotes. Critical care physicians must stay current with evidence-based approaches to complex poisoning scenarios.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of contemporary toxicological management focusing on high-dose insulin euglycemic therapy for calcium channel blocker overdose, lipid emulsion therapy beyond local anesthetic toxicity, and emerging threats from synthetic cannabinoids and nitazenes.

Methods: Systematic review of literature from 2015-2024, including case series, randomized controlled trials, and expert consensus statements from major toxicology societies.

Results: High-dose insulin euglycemic therapy demonstrates superior outcomes in severe calcium channel blocker poisoning when initiated early with appropriate monitoring protocols. Lipid emulsion therapy shows promise for lipophilic drug toxicity beyond local anesthetics, though evidence remains heterogeneous. Synthetic cannabinoids and nitazenes present novel challenges requiring updated detection methods and supportive care strategies.

Conclusions: Modern toxicological management requires integration of established therapies with emerging evidence, emphasizing early recognition, aggressive supportive care, and judicious use of antidotes with careful attention to monitoring and contraindications.

Keywords: Toxicology, High-dose insulin, Lipid emulsion, Synthetic drugs, Critical care

Introduction

The critical care management of severe poisoning has evolved significantly over the past decade, driven by both pharmaceutical innovation and the emergence of novel synthetic compounds. Traditional approaches centered on gastrointestinal decontamination and supportive care have been augmented by targeted antidotal therapies and enhanced understanding of toxicokinetic principles¹. This review examines three key areas of contemporary toxicological practice: the refined use of high-dose insulin euglycemic therapy (HIET) in calcium channel blocker (CCB) overdose, the expanding role of intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) therapy beyond local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST), and the emerging challenges posed by synthetic cannabinoids and nitazene opioids.

The modern intensivist must navigate an increasingly complex toxicological landscape where traditional diagnostic approaches may fail to identify novel compounds, and where established treatment protocols require adaptation based on evolving evidence². This review provides evidence-based guidance for the practicing critical care physician, emphasizing practical implementation strategies and highlighting key clinical pearls that can improve patient outcomes.

High-Dose Insulin Euglycemic Therapy for Calcium Channel Blocker Overdose

Pathophysiology and Rationale

Calcium channel blocker overdose represents one of the most challenging cardiovascular poisoning scenarios, with mortality rates approaching 60% in severe cases³. The pathophysiology involves profound negative inotropic and chronotropic effects, peripheral vasodilation, and importantly, impaired myocardial glucose utilization. Under normal conditions, the myocardium preferentially metabolizes fatty acids, but in shock states transitions to glucose utilization. CCB toxicity impairs this metabolic flexibility, creating a state of "metabolic stunning"⁴.

High-dose insulin addresses this metabolic dysfunction by promoting glucose uptake and utilization in cardiomyocytes, improving contractility independent of its effects on serum glucose⁵. Additionally, insulin provides positive inotropic effects through enhanced calcium sensitivity and improved mitochondrial function.

Evidence Base and Clinical Efficacy

A systematic review by Engebretsen et al. (2011) demonstrated superior outcomes with HIET compared to traditional therapies including calcium, glucagon, and vasopressors⁶. Subsequent case series have consistently shown improved survival rates when HIET is initiated within the first 6 hours of presentation⁷,⁸.

The landmark study by Holger et al. (2007) established the foundation for current protocols, demonstrating hemodynamic improvement in 13 of 15 patients with refractory CCB toxicity⁹. More recent data suggests that early initiation (within 2 hours) may be associated with even better outcomes, with some centers reporting survival rates exceeding 80% in patients who would historically have had poor prognoses¹⁰.

CLINICAL PEARL: The "Golden Hour" Principle

Initiate HIET within the first hour of cardiovascular instability. Delayed initiation beyond 6 hours is associated with significantly worse outcomes, even with aggressive dosing.

Dosing Protocols and Practical Implementation

Standard Dosing Protocol

Initial Bolus:

Regular insulin: 1 unit/kg IV bolus
Concurrent dextrose: 25-50g (unless glucose >250 mg/dL)

Continuous Infusion:

Start: 1-2 units/kg/hour
Titrate by 1 unit/kg/hour every 15-30 minutes based on response
Maximum reported doses: up to 10 units/kg/hour¹¹

Glucose Management Strategy

The maintenance of euglycemia (80-120 mg/dL) is crucial and often requires substantial dextrose supplementation:

Monitoring frequency: Glucose q15min for first hour, then q30min
Dextrose requirements: Often 200-400g/day (D10W or D20W)
Target glucose: 80-120 mg/dL (avoid hypoglycemia at all costs)

HACK: The "Glucose First" Rule

Always ensure adequate glucose supplementation before increasing insulin dose. A useful formula: For every 1 unit/kg/hour of insulin, anticipate needing approximately 50-100g of dextrose per hour.

Monitoring Requirements and Complications

Essential Monitoring Parameters

Cardiovascular: Continuous ECG, arterial pressure monitoring, echocardiography if available
Metabolic: Glucose q15-30min, potassium q2-4h, phosphorus q6h
Volume status: Central venous pressure, urine output, fluid balance

Common Complications and Management

Hypoglycemia (Most Critical):

Incidence: 15-20% of cases¹²
Management: Immediate dextrose bolus (25-50g), increase maintenance dextrose rate
Prevention: Liberal glucose monitoring and proactive dextrose administration

Hypokalemia:

Mechanism: Intracellular potassium shift
Management: Aggressive potassium replacement (20-40 mEq/hour via central line if needed)
Target: Maintain K+ >3.5 mEq/L

Hypophosphatemia:

Often overlooked but clinically significant
Replace with sodium phosphate 15-30 mmol over 6 hours

OYSTER: The Refractory Patient

In patients not responding to standard HIET doses (>5 units/kg/hour), consider: (1) Concomitant lipid emulsion therapy, (2) Extracorporeal life support as bridge therapy, (3) Alternative diagnoses (mixed overdose, underlying cardiomyopathy). Don't abandon HIET prematurely - some patients require >24 hours to show response.

Duration of Therapy and Weaning

Duration typically ranges from 12-72 hours depending on the specific CCB involved:

Immediate-release formulations: 12-24 hours
Extended-release preparations: 24-72 hours
Amlodipine: May require >72 hours due to long half-life¹³

Weaning Strategy:

Ensure hemodynamic stability for >6 hours
Reduce insulin by 50% every 2-4 hours
Maintain glucose monitoring frequency during weaning
Consider bridging with conventional vasopressors if needed

Lipid Emulsion Therapy in Non-Local Anesthetic Toxicity

Mechanism of Action: Beyond the Lipid Sink

While initially conceptualized as a "lipid sink" for local anesthetics, the mechanism of ILE therapy is more complex and involves multiple pathways¹⁴:

Lipid Sink Theory: Direct extraction of lipophilic drugs from tissue
Metabolic Effects: Enhanced fatty acid metabolism and improved cardiac energetics
Direct Cardiac Effects: Positive inotropic effects independent of drug extraction
Membrane Stabilization: Restoration of cellular membrane integrity

Evidence for Non-LAST Indications

Lipophilic Drug Toxicity

The expanding evidence base for ILE in non-LAST poisoning has been systematically reviewed by Cave et al. (2012) and updated in subsequent analyses¹⁵. The strength of evidence varies by drug class:

Strong Evidence (Multiple case series + experimental data):

Bupropion
Tricyclic antidepressants
Calcium channel blockers
Beta-blockers (lipophilic agents)

Moderate Evidence (Case reports + experimental data):

Lamotrigine
Quetiapine
Risperidone
Chlorpromazine

Limited Evidence (Case reports only):

Baclofen
Carbamazepine
Phenothiazines

CLINICAL PEARL: The Lipophilicity Rule

ILE is most likely to be effective for drugs with high lipophilicity (LogP >2) and high volume of distribution (>1 L/kg). Use online resources or clinical pharmacologists to determine these parameters rapidly.

Clinical Protocols and Dosing

Standard ILE Protocol (20% Intralipid)

Initial Bolus:

1.5 mL/kg IV over 1 minute
May repeat once after 5 minutes if no response

Continuous Infusion:

0.25 mL/kg/min for 30-60 minutes
Maximum total dose: 12 mL/kg over first hour

Modified Protocols for Specific Toxicities

For Severe CCB/Beta-blocker Toxicity:

Consider higher initial bolus (3 mL/kg)
Extended infusion duration (up to 24 hours)
May combine with HIET for synergistic effects¹⁶

HACK: The "Dual Therapy" Approach

For severe CCB toxicity, initiate both HIET and ILE simultaneously. The combination may be synergistic, with ILE providing immediate membrane stabilization while HIET addresses metabolic dysfunction.

Monitoring and Complications

Laboratory Monitoring

Baseline: Complete lipid panel, liver function tests
During therapy: Triglycerides q6-12h (target <400 mg/dL)
Post-therapy: Lipid panel at 24 and 48 hours

Potential Complications

Acute Complications:

Pancreatitis: Risk increases with triglycerides >400 mg/dL
Fat overload syndrome: Rare but potentially fatal
Interference with laboratory tests: May persist 12-24 hours
Allergic reactions: Rare (egg/soy allergy contraindication)

Delayed Complications:

Prolonged hyperlipidemia: Usually resolves within 48-72 hours
Hepatic steatosis: With prolonged high-dose therapy

OYSTER: When ILE Fails

Lack of response to ILE doesn't indicate treatment failure. Consider: (1) Incorrect drug identification, (2) Mixed overdose with hydrophilic agents, (3) Irreversible end-organ damage, (4) Inadequate dosing for massive overdose. Some patients may require repeated boluses or prolonged infusions beyond standard protocols.

Contraindications and Special Populations

Absolute Contraindications:

Known allergy to egg or soy proteins
Severe hypertriglyceridemia (>1000 mg/dL)

Relative Contraindications:

Active pancreatitis
Severe liver dysfunction
Pregnancy (limited safety data)

Novel Threats: Synthetic Cannabinoids and Nitazenes

Synthetic Cannabinoids: The Ever-Evolving Landscape

Synthetic cannabinoids represent one of the most challenging aspects of contemporary toxicology due to their rapidly changing chemical structures and unpredictable clinical effects¹⁷. Unlike traditional cannabis, these compounds can produce severe toxicity including seizures, cardiovascular collapse, and acute kidney injury.

Pharmacology and Clinical Manifestations

Mechanism: Full agonists at CB1 and CB2 receptors (vs. partial agonist activity of THC)

Results in more pronounced and unpredictable effects
Lack of natural "ceiling effect" seen with traditional cannabis

Clinical Presentations:

Neurological: Seizures (20-30% of cases), altered mental status, agitation, coma
Cardiovascular: Hypertension, tachycardia, myocardial infarction¹⁸
Renal: Acute kidney injury (mechanism unclear)
Metabolic: Severe hyperthermia, rhabdomyolysis

CLINICAL PEARL: The "Synthetic Syndrome"

Suspect synthetic cannabinoids in young patients presenting with seizures + negative urine drug screen for cannabis. The combination of seizures and sympathomimetic effects is uncommon with natural cannabis.

Detection and Diagnostic Challenges

Standard urine drug screens do not detect synthetic cannabinoids, creating diagnostic challenges:

Available Testing:

Specialized laboratory testing: Available but results delayed 24-48 hours
Point-of-care tests: Limited availability and reliability
Clinical diagnosis: Often relies on history and clinical presentation

Diagnostic Approach:

High index of suspicion in appropriate demographic
Comprehensive toxicology screening to exclude other causes
Consider synthetic cannabinoids in "negative" drug screens with compatible clinical picture

Management Strategies

Acute Management

Seizures:

First-line: Benzodiazepines (lorazepam 2-4 mg IV)
Refractory seizures: Consider propofol, phenytoin, or barbiturates
Avoid physostigmine (may worsen seizures)

Cardiovascular Toxicity:

Standard supportive care with fluids and vasopressors
Beta-blockers for hypertension and tachycardia
Monitor for arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia

Hyperthermia:

Aggressive cooling measures
Consider dantrolene if malignant hyperthermia suspected
Monitor for rhabdomyolysis

HACK: The "Benzodiazepine Test"

In patients with suspected synthetic cannabinoid toxicity, response to adequate benzodiazepine dosing (equivalent to lorazepam 0.1 mg/kg) can be both diagnostic and therapeutic. Lack of response suggests alternative diagnosis or need for escalated care.

Nitazenes: The New Opioid Crisis

Nitazenes represent a class of potent synthetic opioids that have emerged as significant public health threats. First synthesized in the 1950s by Belgian company Janssen, they were recently rediscovered by illicit manufacturers¹⁹.

Pharmacological Properties

Potency: Varies widely by compound

Isotonitazene: 2-5x more potent than fentanyl
Etonitazene: 10-40x more potent than morphine
Metonitazene: Variable potency depending on source²⁰

Receptor Activity: High-affinity mu-opioid receptor agonists with limited data on other receptor interactions

Clinical Challenges

Prolonged Duration: Unlike fentanyl (30-90 minutes), nitazenes may cause respiratory depression for 4-8 hours, requiring prolonged monitoring and repeat naloxone dosing²¹.

Naloxone Resistance: While not truly "resistant," the high potency and prolonged duration often require:

Higher naloxone doses (up to 10-20 mg total)
Continuous naloxone infusions
Prolonged monitoring periods

OYSTER: The "Naloxone Paradox"

Patients may initially respond to standard naloxone dosing but then deteriorate 30-60 minutes later as naloxone wears off while nitazenes remain active. Always observe for minimum 4-6 hours after last naloxone dose, and have low threshold for naloxone infusion.

Detection and Diagnosis

Laboratory Detection:

Not detected by standard opioid immunoassays
Requires specialized LC-MS/MS testing
Consider in opioid-like presentations with negative screening

Clinical Clues:

Opioid toxidrome with negative urine opioid screen
Requirement for unusually high or repeated naloxone doses
Prolonged duration of toxicity
Geographic clustering of cases

Management Protocol

Initial Management:

Airway/Breathing: Early intubation if severe respiratory depression
Naloxone: Start with 0.4-2 mg IV, escalate rapidly to 4-8 mg if no response
Monitoring: Minimum 6-hour observation even with good initial response

Naloxone Infusion Protocol:

Indication: Recurrent respiratory depression or requirement for >4 mg naloxone
Dose: 2/3 of effective bolus dose per hour
Duration: 12-24 hours with gradual weaning
Monitoring: Continuous pulse oximetry, frequent respiratory rate assessment

HACK: The "Rule of Thirds" for Naloxone Infusion

Calculate infusion rate as 2/3 of the total effective bolus dose per hour. For example, if patient required 6 mg naloxone bolus for response, start infusion at 4 mg/hour. This provides adequate receptor occupancy while minimizing withdrawal.

Integration and Future Directions

Multi-Modal Approach to Complex Poisoning

Modern toxicological management increasingly requires integration of multiple therapeutic modalities. The concept of "sequential antidotal therapy" involves:

Immediate stabilization: Standard ACLS protocols
Specific antidotes: Targeted therapy based on suspected agents
Adjuvant therapies: ILE, HIET, or other supportive measures
Enhanced elimination: Dialysis, plasmapheresis when indicated

CLINICAL PEARL: The "Antidote Checklist"

For severe poisoning cases, systematically consider: (1) Specific antidotes available?, (2) Role for HIET?, (3) Appropriate candidate for ILE?, (4) Enhanced elimination indicated?, (5) Extracorporeal support needed? This framework prevents missed opportunities for intervention.

Emerging Technologies and Future Developments

Point-of-Care Testing

Development of rapid diagnostic platforms for novel psychoactive substances is advancing, with several commercial systems under evaluation. These may provide results within 15-30 minutes compared to current 24-48 hour laboratory turnaround times²².

Novel Antidotes

Several agents are in development or early clinical trials:

Cannabinoid receptor antagonists for synthetic cannabinoid toxicity
Novel opioid antagonists with longer duration of action
Enhanced lipid formulations for improved drug extraction

Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Decision Support

Machine learning algorithms are being developed to assist in toxicological diagnosis and management, particularly for novel compound identification based on clinical presentation patterns²³.

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Recommendations

Institutional Protocol Development

Essential Elements for Toxicology Protocols

Rapid Response Systems: Clear activation criteria for toxicology emergencies
Antidote Availability: 24/7 access to essential antidotes with proper storage
Consultation Pathways: Immediate access to poison control centers and clinical toxicologists
Laboratory Support: Stat capabilities for essential testing and extended toxicology panels

Staff Education and Competency

Core Competencies for ICU Staff:

Recognition of toxidromes
Proper antidote dosing and monitoring
Understanding of enhanced elimination techniques
Knowledge of novel substance threats

Quality Improvement and Outcome Tracking

Institutions should implement systematic tracking of:

Time to antidote administration
Adherence to monitoring protocols
Complication rates
Clinical outcomes and length of stay

Conclusion

The landscape of critical care toxicology continues to evolve rapidly, driven by both scientific advances in established therapies and the emergence of novel synthetic compounds. High-dose insulin euglycemic therapy has become the standard of care for severe calcium channel blocker toxicity when implemented with appropriate monitoring and glucose management protocols. The evidence base for lipid emulsion therapy continues to expand beyond local anesthetic toxicity, though careful patient selection and monitoring remain essential.

The emergence of synthetic cannabinoids and nitazenes presents new challenges that require updated diagnostic approaches and modified treatment protocols. Success in managing these novel threats requires maintaining high clinical suspicion, utilizing appropriate consultation resources, and adapting established supportive care principles to address unique toxicological profiles.

Critical care physicians must balance aggressive interventions with careful attention to monitoring requirements and potential complications. The integration of multiple therapeutic modalities, combined with enhanced understanding of toxicokinetic principles, offers the best opportunity for optimal patient outcomes in complex poisoning scenarios.

Future developments in point-of-care diagnostics, novel antidotes, and artificial intelligence-assisted decision support hold promise for further improving the management of toxicological emergencies. However, the fundamental principles of early recognition, aggressive supportive care, and judicious use of specific therapies remain the cornerstone of successful toxicological management in the critical care setting.

References

Levine M, Curry SC, Ruha AM, et al. Toxicology in the ICU: Part 1: General overview and approach to treatment. Chest. 2011;140(4):795-806.
Stolbach A, Hoffman RS. Acute poisoning in adults: General approach. UpToDate. 2023.
Levine M, Boyer EW, Pozner CN, et al. Assessment of hyperglycemia after calcium channel blocker overdoses involving diltiazem or verapamil. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(9):2071-2075.
Kline JA, Leonova E, Raymond RM. Beneficial myocardial metabolic effects of insulin during verapamil toxicity in the anesthetized canine. Crit Care Med. 1995;23(7):1251-1263.
Holger JS, Engebretsen KM, Fritzlar SJ, et al. Insulin versus vasopressin and epinephrine to treat beta-blocker toxicity. Clin Toxicol. 2007;45(4):396-401.
Engebretsen KM, Kaczmarek KM, Morgan J, Holger JS. High-dose insulin therapy in beta-blocker and calcium channel-blocker poisoning. Clin Toxicol. 2011;49(4):277-283.
Graudins A, Lee HM, Druda D. Calcium channel antagonist and beta-blocker overdose: antidotes and adjunct therapies. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;81(3):453-461.
St-Onge M, Dubé PA, Gosselin S, et al. Treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning: a systematic review. Clin Toxicol. 2014;52(9):926-944.
Holger JS, Stellpflug SJ, Cole JB, et al. High-dose insulin: a consecutive case series in toxin-induced cardiogenic shock. Clin Toxicol. 2011;49(7):653-658.
Cao D, Heard K, Foran M, Koyfman A. Insulin and glucose versus standard therapy for the treatment of poison-induced cardiovascular toxicity. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(4):387-393.
Stellpflug SJ, Harris CR, Engebretsen KM, et al. Intentional overdose with cardiac arrest treated with intravenous fat emulsion and high-dose insulin. Clin Toxicol. 2010;48(3):227-229.
Greene SL, Gawarammana I, Wood DM, et al. Relative safety of hyperinsulinaemia/euglycaemia therapy in the management of calcium channel blocker overdose: a prospective observational study. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(11):2019-2024.
Megarbane B, Karyo S, Baud FJ. The role of insulin and glucose (hyperinsulinaemia/euglycaemia) therapy in acute calcium channel antagonist and β-blocker poisoning. Toxicol Rev. 2004;23(4):215-222.
Cave G, Harvey M, Willers J, et al. LIPAEMIC blood. Towards evidence based resuscitation. Emerg Med Australas. 2011;23(2):123-141.
Cave G, Harvey MG, Castle CD. The role of fat emulsion therapy in a rodent model of propranolol toxicity: a preliminary study. J Med Toxicol. 2006;2(1):4-7.
Harvey M, Cave G, Prince G, Lahner D. Epinephrine versus vasopressin with concurrent high-dose insulin in experimental cardiogenic shock. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(5):429-435.
Tait RJ, Caldicott D, Land D, et al. A systematic review of adverse events arising from the use of synthetic cannabinoids and their associated treatment. Clin Toxicol. 2016;54(1):1-13.
Sherpa D, Christo PJ, Stadler ME. Synthetic cannabinoid-associated acute kidney injury. Clin Toxicol. 2015;53(4):324-326.
Blanckaert P, Cannaert A, Van Uytfanghe K, et al. Report on a novel emerging class of highly potent benzimidazole NPS opioids: Chemical and in vitro functional characterization of isotonitazene. Drug Test Anal. 2020;12(4):422-430.
Krotulski AJ, Papsun DM, Kacinko SL, et al. Isotonitazene quantitation and metabolite discovery in authentic forensic casework. J Anal Toxicol. 2020;44(6):521-530.
Ujváry I, Christie R, Evans-Brown M, et al. DARK Classics in Chemical Neuroscience: Etonitazene and Related Benzimidazoles. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2021;12(11):1850-1863.
Pettersson Bergstrand M, Richter LHJ, Maurer HH, et al. In vitro glucuronidation of designer benzodiazepines by human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9(8):1212-1227.
Campion P, Moritz W, Gerostamoulos D, et al. Machine learning for the classification of novel psychoactive substances based on clinical presentation. Clin Toxicol. 2023;61(4):234-242.

Thursday, August 14, 2025