Tony Zitek, Christopher Raciti, Alvin Nguyen, Valentina Roa, Edward Lopez, Gregory Oliva, David A Farcy
{"title":"Emergency Department Patients Presenting after Oral versus Inhaled Cannabinoid use: A Retrospective Analysis.","authors":"Tony Zitek, Christopher Raciti, Alvin Nguyen, Valentina Roa, Edward Lopez, Gregory Oliva, David A Farcy","doi":"10.1007/s13181-024-01048-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cannabinoid-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, yet little has been published about how the route of cannabinoid use (inhaled versus oral) affects ED presentations. We sought to compare ED visits from inhaled versus oral cannabinoid use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study using ED patients with a cannabinoid related diagnosis from January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2023 from a single hospital system in Florida. We performed manual chart review to categorize visits into \"unlikely\", \"possibly\", or \"highly likely\" to be due to acute cannabinoid use. For our primary analysis, we used the \"highly likely\" group to compare the presentations and outcomes of patients who had used oral cannabinoids versus inhaled. Our primary outcome was hospital admission.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We deemed 303 patient visits \"highly likely\" to be from acute cannabinoids: 59 (19.5%) inhaled and 244 (80.5%) oral. Zero patients in the inhaled group were admitted compared to 15 (6.2%) in the oral group, a difference of 6.2% (95% CI 3.1-9.2%), p = 0.05. Additionally, 65 (26.7%) of the oral group reported using cannabinoids unintentionally including 8 housekeepers who ate food products left by hotel guests. Comparatively, 4 (6.8%) of the inhaled group unintentionally used cannabinoids (difference 19.9% [95% CI 11.4-28.3]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most patients who presented to the ED for the effects of acute cannabinoids had used them orally. Compared to patients who had inhaled cannabinoids, those who used them orally required more ED diagnostic resources and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for additional evaluation or treatment. From a public health perspective, increased regulation of edible cannabinoid products may be needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":16429,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-024-01048-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Cannabinoid-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, yet little has been published about how the route of cannabinoid use (inhaled versus oral) affects ED presentations. We sought to compare ED visits from inhaled versus oral cannabinoid use.
Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using ED patients with a cannabinoid related diagnosis from January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2023 from a single hospital system in Florida. We performed manual chart review to categorize visits into "unlikely", "possibly", or "highly likely" to be due to acute cannabinoid use. For our primary analysis, we used the "highly likely" group to compare the presentations and outcomes of patients who had used oral cannabinoids versus inhaled. Our primary outcome was hospital admission.
Results: We deemed 303 patient visits "highly likely" to be from acute cannabinoids: 59 (19.5%) inhaled and 244 (80.5%) oral. Zero patients in the inhaled group were admitted compared to 15 (6.2%) in the oral group, a difference of 6.2% (95% CI 3.1-9.2%), p = 0.05. Additionally, 65 (26.7%) of the oral group reported using cannabinoids unintentionally including 8 housekeepers who ate food products left by hotel guests. Comparatively, 4 (6.8%) of the inhaled group unintentionally used cannabinoids (difference 19.9% [95% CI 11.4-28.3]).
Conclusions: Most patients who presented to the ED for the effects of acute cannabinoids had used them orally. Compared to patients who had inhaled cannabinoids, those who used them orally required more ED diagnostic resources and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for additional evaluation or treatment. From a public health perspective, increased regulation of edible cannabinoid products may be needed.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Toxicology (JMT) is a peer-reviewed medical journal dedicated to advances in clinical toxicology, focusing on the diagnosis, management, and prevention of poisoning and other adverse health effects resulting from medications, chemicals, occupational and environmental substances, and biological hazards. As the official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT), JMT is managed by an editorial board of clinicians as well as scientists and thus publishes research that is relevant to medical toxicologists, emergency physicians, critical care specialists, pediatricians, pre-hospital providers, occupational physicians, substance abuse experts, veterinary toxicologists, and policy makers. JMT articles generate considerable interest in the lay media, with 2016 JMT articles cited by various social media sites, the Boston Globe, and the Washington Post among others. For questions or comments about the journal, please contact jmtinfo@acmt.net.
For questions or comments about the journal, please contact jmtinfo@acmt.net.