RESUMEN
Chronic cannabis use can be associated with uncontrollable vomiting and abdominal pain. Diagnostic criteria for cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) were defined in 2012 by Simonetto et al. The objectives of this study were to describe the prevalence of CHS, the patients' epidemiological characteristics, and to show the difficulties encountered in caring for these patients in emergency departments, the extent of health care and an unsuitable follow-up in general practices. A prospective cohort of patients with CHS was recruited among a target population of patients leaving the adult emergency services of the Marseille hospitals Nord and La Timone between October 2017 and July 2018, with abdominal pain syndrome of unidentified etiology. Inclusion criteria for the CHS cohort were chronic cannabis use associated with nausea and vomiting. There were 48 patients included in the CHS cohort who took cannabis daily, in a target population of 2 848 patients (i.e. 1.6%). A hot shower was the most effective symptomatic treatment in 54.2% of cases. Patients suffering from CHS spent significantly more hours in emergency departments (11 vs. 6.5), and, on average, visits were more frequent (4.9 vs. 3). 20.3% of them were hospitalized to continue pain medication. Once out of hospital, follow-up was limited, and weaning off cannabis, the only etiological treatment, was difficult to set up. Informing patients about CHS is essential, and a hot shower could be systematically proposed, thus limiting an unnecessary extent of health care. CHS is genuine, medical staff should be made aware of it in occupational training, and it should be seriously considered in health policies.
Asunto(s)
Cannabinoides/efectos adversos , Náusea/inducido químicamente , Vómitos/inducido químicamente , Adolescente , Adulto , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Síndrome , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
We report the case of a 54-year-old man who suffered from refractory cardiac arrest secondary to acute myocardial infarction. As veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was unavailable, mechanical chest compression was performed and an Impella device was used that immediately delivered at 3.2 l/min flow to reach the optimal mean arterial pressure. Within 1 min, return of spontaneous circulation was achieved and a 40% left ventricular ejection fraction was measured on echography. Then, the right coronary artery could be revascularised. Despite 62 min low flow, the patient was discharged home on day 19 without neurological sequelae. During refractory cardiac arrest, the European Resuscitation Guidelines indicate that veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered as rescue therapy. Other mechanical circulatory supports such as an Impella device (left ventricular assist device propelling blood in the ascending aorta) can be a promising treatment in select patients; however, insufficient data in humans are available.