Acute Digitalis Intoxication — Is Pacing Still Appropriate?

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.

KEY WORDS:

• digoxin
• digitoxin
• intoxication
• mortality
• pacemaker
• artificial
• immunoglobulins
• FAB
• immunotherapy
• cardiac pacing
• artificial