Three controversial issues in extracorporeal toxin removal

The optimal method of extracorporeal removal of many toxic compounds is often a matter of debate. Due to the lack of well-designed studies, we are often left with circumstantial evidence, and we must exercise our best clinical judgment as to whether extracorporeal drug removal is beneficial and if so, by what method. It is clear, however, that rapidity in toxin removal is beneficial. We present three issues dealing with extracorporeal removal of toxins for which there is no definitive answer but which may arise in clinical practice. The first is whether continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is better at removing dialyzable toxins than classic hemodialysis. The second is whether charcoal hemoperfusion is at all useful in treating paraquat poisoning. Finally, is any modality of extra-corporeal treatment useful in the treatment of amatoxin poisoning? After a thorough literature review, it is evident that definitive answers are not strikingly apparent. However, extra-corporeal treatment in the latter two instances may have potential benefit and may be the only hope for patient survival. Due to the urgent nature of treatment for poisoning, as well as the somewhat obscure nature of these issues, there may never be well-designed evidence-based studies to help guide us. In the meantime, we must continue to use less than ideal evidence and our own experience in dealing with these controversial issues to guide our decision-making process.