Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics between survivors and non-survivors after acute diquat (DQ) poisoning. Patients treated in the Emergency Department of Fu Yang People’s Hospital for DQ poisoning between January 2018 and February 2022 were enrolled in this retrospective comparative study. A total of 65 patients were collected, including 36 males (55.4%) and 29 females (44.6%). There were 34 survivors (52.3%), and 31 non-survivors (47.7%). Patients in the non-survivor group were significantly older (P = 0.003), received a higher dose of DQ before admission (P < 0.001), had more severe organ damage (P < 0.001), lower respiration rate (P < 0.001) and enema (P = 0.009), lower GCS score (P = 0.038), and higher SIRS score (P = 0.018) and APACHE-II score (P < 0.001) than patients in the survivor group. Additionally, biochemical indicators after admission between survivors and non-survivors were significantly different (all P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that respiratory failure (P = 0.021), the dose of DQ (P = 0.022), respiratory rate (P = 0.007), and highest alanine transaminase (ALT) level after admission (P = 0.030) were independent risk factors for acute DQ-induced death. These data suggest that non-survivors with acute DQ poisoning are more likely to suffer from respiratory failure, have higher respiratory rate and ALT after admission, and are exposed higher doses of DQ before admission than survivors.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Diquat (DQ) (6,7-dihydrodipyrido [1,2-a: 2, 1’-c] pyrazine-5, 8-diium dibromide) and paraquat are rapidly acting contact herbicides. The marketing of DQ started in 1958, earlier than that of paraquat; yet, compared to paraquat, the market promotion of DQ was slower and its utilization rate was lower. Interestingly, between 1998 and 2013, the United States (US) toxicology database reported 693 patients hospitalized for paraquat poisoning and 2128 patients hospitalized due to DQ poisoning in the USA [1], which may due to the restrictions on the production and sale of paraquat in most countries; for example, European Union (EU) [2], China [3] and at least 7 other countries [4] have banned the sale and use of paraquat. Consequently, the use of DQ has been gradually increasing in these countries [1, 5], which led to a higher rate of DQ poisoning.
In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that DQ is a pesticide with moderate toxicity [6], and its toxicity is lower than paraquat (which is regarded as a highly toxic pesticide). Poisoning from DQ mainly occurs from accidental ingestion, and most clinical manifestations result from oxidative stress due to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species [7]. The major clinical manifestations of DQ poisoning include erosion of mucus membranes, acute renal failure, cardiovascular and cerebral vascular complications (brainstem infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, and circulatory failure), and multiple organ failure (MOF), which may be lethal [1, 8].
Thus far, no specific antidote has been found for DQ poisoning. Due to multiple organ involvement, patients can present with various manifestations, further challenging the treatment [9]. Also, as patients show variation in elevation of biochemical indices, there are currently no biomarkers for assessing the disease severity or prognosis [10]. However, several studies have shown that early intervention and quick halting of the compound absorption into the body can prevent MOF [11, 12]. Furthermore, some authors have successfully treated DQ poisoning using traditional Chinese medicine [13]. Moreover, no universally acknowledged standard criteria have been developed to evaluate the clinical characteristics of acute DQ poisoning and predict mortality.
This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics between survivors and non-survivors after acute diquat (DQ) poisoning.
Methods
Study design and population
This comparative study enrolled patients with DQ poisoning treated in the Emergency Department of Fu Yang People’s Hospital between January 2018 and February 2022. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients with DQ poisoning; (2) complete clinical data including patient's clinical characteristics and biochemical indicators. The exclusion criteria were: (1) history of systemic rheumatic diseases; (2) previous history of one or more chronic organ dysfunction; (3) immune disorders.
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Fu Yang People’s Hospital. The committee waived the requirement for informed consent due to the nature of the retrospective study.
Data collection and definition
The following clinical characteristics of the patients were collected, including gender, age, occupation (Table 1), underlying disease, alcohol consumption; time interval from poisoning to hospital admission, type and dose of poisoning, vital signs on admission, gastric lavage, catharsis, enema, blood transfusion, time from poisoning to treatment; the renal, hepatic, myocardial and pulmonary function, coagulation function; Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation-II (APACHE-II) score. Biochemical indicators [white blood cell (WBC), hematocrit (HCT), prothrombin time (PT), thrombin time (TT), D-dimer (D-D), glucose (GLU), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), creatine kinase (CK), kinase-MB isoform (CK-MB), kalium (K), sodium (NA), CO2/(HCO3), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (CREA), and C-reactive protein (CRP)] were collected immediately at the time of admission, the highest value (WBC, PT, TT, D-D, GLU, LDH, CK, CK-MB, K, NA, CO2/(HCO3), BUN, CREA, and CRP) and lowest value (HCT, PT, TT, GLU, K, NA, and CO2/(HCO3)) were collected after admission. Time at admission refers to the value of the first measurement within 2 h after admission; lowest value after admission refers to the lowest measurement during the treatment processes after admission; highest value after admission refers to the highest measurement during the treatment processes.
Acute DQ poisoning refers to cases with one overdose or high dose exposure of DQ that induced diseases or death due to structural and functional damages to tissues or metabolic disorders. Respiratory failure refers to the severe pulmonary ventilation and/or respiratory dysfunctions caused by various causes, leading to the incapability of effective gas exchange, hypoxia accompanied with (or without) CO2 retention, and consequently causing acute respiratory distress clinical syndrome and metabolic disturbance. Organ damage refers to visceral function abnormalities, such as renal, hepatic, pulmonary or cardiac dysfunction. The time interval from poisoning to treatment refers to the time from oral intake of DQ to being treated in the Emergency Department of Fu Yang People’s Hospital.
GCS score can be used to judge and assess the degree of coma in the patients and help make an appropriate diagnosis and treatment [14]. The GCS includes three aspects: eye-opening, verbal, and motor response. The summary of scores of the 3 aspects is the coma index, an indicator for evaluating the degree of coma in patients in clinical practices. SIRS score reflects the pathophysiological status induced by the over-secretion of various inflammatory mediators and the over-activation of inflammatory cells after exposure to infectious or non-infectious agents [15]. The SIRS score is used to assess the disease condition in the post-operative care of critical patients who underwent surgery. The APACHE-II is a severity-of-disease scoring system [16] that consists of 3 parts: acute physiology, age, and chronic health conditions. The total score of APACHE-II is calculated by adding the scores from the 3 parts. MOF is defined as the failure of ≥ 3 organs.
Patients were categorized into survivor and non-survivor groups according to the final outcomes. Patients who died during hospitalization or within 2 months after discharge were classified as the non-survivor group. Death was diagnosed according to cardiac and respiratory arrest markers and brain death.
Statistical analysis
IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA) was used for statistical analyses. Continuous data with normal distribution and equal variances were described by mean and standard deviation (SD). An independent t-test was used for group comparison. Continuous data with skewed distribution were described by median (interquartile range: P25, P75), and group comparison was performed with a non-parametric rank-sum test. Categorical data were described by percentages (%) and compared using the chi-square test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the independent risk factors of the death. A two-sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
A total of 65 patients with acute diquat poisoning were included, including 35 males (58.8%) and 29 females (44.6%). There were 34 survivors (52.30%) and 31 non-survivors (47.70%). Patients in the non-survivor group were significantly older than patients in the survivor group (39.90 ± 15.40 vs. 28.65 ± 13.48, P = 0.003). The percentage of patients with ≥ 5 damaged organs was significantly higher in the non-survivor group than that in the survivor group [19 (61.29%) vs. 2 (5.88%), P < 0.001). Respiration rate (17.62 ± 1.23 vs. 20.13 ± 3.51, P < 0.001) and enema [23 (67.60%) vs. 29 (93.50%), P = 0.009] of patients in the non-survivor group were significantly lower than that in the survivor group. Compared with the non-survivor group, the GCS score was significantly higher, and the SIRS score and APACHE-II score were significantly lower in the survivor group (all P < 0.05) (Table 2).
Additionally, the comparison of the biochemical indicators including ALT, AST, LDH, CK, CK-MB, BUN, CRP, WBC and highest WBC count after admission; LDH, CK, CK-MB, BUN, CRP, and CO2/(HCO3−) and lowest CO2/(HCO3−) level after admission were different between survivor and non-survivor patients (all P < 0.05) (Table 3).
Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that respiratory failure (OR = 171.002; 95% CI 2.186–13,379.829; P = 0.021), the dose of DQ (OR = 1.038; 95% CI 1.005–1.071; P = 0.022), respiratory rate (OR = 15.089; 95% CI 2.106–108.117; P = 0.007), and highest alanine transaminase (ALT) level after admission (OR = 1.004; 95% CI 1.000–1.007; P = 0.030) were independent risk factors for acute DQ-induced death (Table 4).
Discussion
The present study showed that respiratory failure, higher respiratory rate, and higher ALT after admission, as well as taking higher doses of DQ before admission, are critical risk factors that may be lethal to patients with acute DQ poisoning. This study provides a clue on assessing the severity of DQ poisoning and obtaining markers for monitoring treatment response and prognostication.
Renal failure is the most common manifestation in patients with DQ poisoning [17, 18], which was also observed in patients in the present study. Despite sufficient fluid supplementation and achieving normal arterial and central venous pressure, renal failure was observed, suggesting renal toxicity induced by DQ. Although there is no specific antidote for DQ or paraquat poisoning, treatments are generally similar and entail prompt absorption prevention and enhancement of the elimination of the poison [19]. Gastric lavage with an oral gastric tube, preferably with water or soap water or 1% to 2% sodium bicarbonate solution, is recommended. Gastric lavage should be as thorough as possible, with a general gastric lavage solution of ≥ 5 L until colorless and odorless. Immediately after gastric lavage, an injection of 15% bleach solution of adsorbent (1000 mL of adult total) or activated carbon (50–100 g of adult) is recommended. Catheterization should be performed as follows: 20% mannitol, sodium sulfate, or magnesium sulfate can be given to promote the excretion of intestinal toxins and reduce absorption. Afterward, patients can continuously take bleached soil or activated carbon orally for 2–3 days to induce diarrhea. Water enema should be cleared every 4–6 h for 2–3 consecutive days. The absorption of residual DQ in the gastrointestinal tract could lead to the accumulation of DQ in the circulation, organs, and tissues, leading to multiorgan damage and increasing the mortality risk [20]. Thus, prompt gastrointestinal decontamination can reduce MOF risk [21]. The treatment is given to counteract the mechanisms of action of DQ (and paraquat), which is mainly caused by oxidative stress [22]. When DQ is absorbed into circulation, large amounts of superoxide anion free radicals are generated through oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation, damaging cells and tissues [23].
Previous studies have shown that death from DQ poisoning is mainly caused by MOF [24]. Almost all the patients who died from DQ poisoning in this study had MOF. The CNS manifestations in our patients included agitation, delirium, and lethargy, which have been previously reported [25]. Imaging examinations of patients who died shortly after DQ poisoning demonstrated the presence of severe CNS damage [12, 18] from acute toxic encephalopathy and cerebral hemorrhage. Additionally, oxidative stress on the heart may lead to severe myocardial injury, ischemia, arrhythmia, significant elevation of myocardial enzymes, refractory cardiogenic shock, and sudden death in the patients. The myocardium requires intense energy metabolism and thus could be one of the most sensitive target organs for DQ-induced oxidative damage [26]. Nonetheless, the clinical manifestations and outcome of DQ poisoning differ from those of paraquat poisoning, as DQ has a fivefold shorter half-life than paraquat and rarely causes long-term sequelae, such as pulmonary fibrosis [22].
With the prevalence of acute DQ poisoning rising yearly, especially among farmers [1], improving rural education about the dangers of DQ exposure is critical. In clinical practice, it is challenging for doctors in emergency departments to evaluate the DQ dose according to the information in medical records. Some patients may be unable to clearly describe the DQ dose, while some may even deny the DQ intake. Most patients tend to vomit after oral intake, and thus, the DQ poisoning dose may not be precisely estimated. Our data showed that patients who died from the poisoning had an elevation in WBC, PT, LDH, CK, CK-MB, CRP and CREA, and lower CO2/(HCO3) during management. Elevation of these biomarkers reflects multiple organ damage and may be helpful when categorizing the severity of poisoning and monitoring treatment responses.
The present study has several limitations. Currently, the liquid preparations of DQ in the market are mixed with different concentrations of paraquat [27, 28], which could lead to unexpected clinical manifestations in patients and substantially influence the clinical diagnosis and treatment of DQ poisoning. As a result, our department obtained a high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometer in January 2020 to rule out patients with paraquat poisoning or mixed poisoning. Thus, our study included only DQ poisoning patients, allowing for more accurate clinical diagnosis and outcome prediction. This was a single-center study with a small sample size, so a multi-center study with a larger sample size is needed.
In summary, non-survivors with acute DQ poisoning were more likely to suffer from respiratory failure, have higher respiratory rate and higher ALT after admission, and have taken higher doses of DQ before admission than survivors.
Data availability statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
References
Fortenberry GZ, Beckman J, Schwartz A et al (2016) Magnitude and characteristics of acute paraquat- and diquat-related illnesses in the US: 1998–2013. Environ Res 146:191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.01.003
Communities COFIOTE (2007) The court of first instance annuls the directive authorising paraquat as an active plant protection substance.
China MoAaRAotPsRo (2016 ) The No. 1745 bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People‘s Republic of China. http://www.moa.gov.cn/govpublic/ZZYGLS/201204/t20120427_2613538.htm.
Tomomatsu K, Oguma T, Baba T et al (2020) Effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in patients with allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis complicated by chronic bacterial infection in the airways. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 181:499–506. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507216
Basilicata P, Pieri M, Simonelli A et al (2022) Diquat poisoning: care management and medico-legal implications. Toxics. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10040166
Agarwal R, Chakrabarti A, Shah A et al (2013) Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis: review of literature and proposal of new diagnostic and classification criteria. Clin Exp Allergy 43:850–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.12141
Magalhães N, Carvalho F, Dinis-Oliveira RJ (2018) Human and experimental toxicology of diquat poisoning: toxicokinetics, mechanisms of toxicity, clinical features, and treatment. Hum Exp Toxicol 37:1131–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0960327118765330
Safaei Asl A, Dadashzadeh P (2016) Acute kidney injury in patients with paraquat intoxication; a case report and review of the literature. J Renal Inj Prev 5:203–206. https://doi.org/10.15171/jrip.2016.43
Feng D, Fu L, Du X et al (2022) Acute diquat poisoning causes rhabdomyolysis. Am J Med Sci 364:472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2022.04.032
Raghu K, Mahesh V, Sasidhar P et al (2013) Paraquat poisoning: a case report and review of literature. J Family Community Med 20:198–200. https://doi.org/10.4103/2230-8229.122023
Gong P, Lu Z, Xing J et al (2015) Traditional chinese medicine Xuebijing treatment is associated with decreased mortality risk of patients with moderate paraquat poisoning. PLoS ONE 10:e0123504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123504
Sun ML, Ma DH, Liu M et al (2009) Successful treatment of paraquat poisoning by Xuebijing, an injection concocted from multiple Chinese medicinal herbs: a case report. J Altern Complement Med 15:1375–1378. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2009.0049
Lan Z, Gao YG, Tuo P et al (2019) Clinical effect of Tongfu Jiedu decoction in the treatment of diquat poisoning. Journal of SNAKE 31:509–511
Teasdale G, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A Practical Scale Lancet 2:81–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0
Sun D, Aikawa N (1999) The natural history of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome and the evaluation of SIRS criteria as a predictor of severity in patients hospitalized through emergency services. Keio J Med 48:28–37. https://doi.org/10.2302/kjm.48.28
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP et al (1985) APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13:818–829
Guck D, Hernandez R, Moore S et al (2021) Rapid glomerulotubular nephritis as an initial presentation of a lethal diquat ingestion. Case Rep Nephrol 2021:4723092. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4723092
Xing J, Chu Z, Han D et al (2020) Lethal diquat poisoning manifesting as central pontine myelinolysis and acute kidney injury: a case report and literature review. J Int Med Res 48:300060520943824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060520943824
Wang D, Zhang G, Zhang W et al (2019) Successful extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for severe acute diquat and glyphosate poisoning: a case report. Medicine 98:e14414. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000014414
Kim HJ, Kim HK, Lee H et al (2016) Toxicokinetics of paraquat in Korean patients with acute poisoning. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol 20:35–39. https://doi.org/10.4196/kjpp.2016.20.1.35
Zheng P, Yu B, He J et al (2017) Arginine metabolism and its protective effects on intestinal health and functions in weaned piglets under oxidative stress induced by diquat. Br J Nutr 117:1495–1502. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114517001519
Yang W, Ma X, Zhu Y et al (2021) Paraquat but not diquat induces TGF-β expression and thus activates calcium-NFAT axis for epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Toxicol Res (Camb) 10:733–741. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxres/tfab055
Huang Y, Zhang R, Meng M et al (2021) High-dose diquat poisoning: a case report. J Int Med Res 49:3000605211026117. https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605211026117
Yu G, Cui S, Jian T et al (2021) Diquat poisoning in a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage and maternal death. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 59:1275–1277. https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2021.1905164
Chen YQ, Chen KJ, Lyu Y et al (2022) Analysis of 1 case of convulsion death caused by large dose of diquat poisoning. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi 40:75–77. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20201119-00636
Luan Wang YW, M Zhao (2020) Analysis of risk factors of death in patients with acute diquat poisoning Zhong Guo Shi Yong Nei Ke Za Zhi. 42: 4.
L Y (2016) Attentions should be paid on the sale and application of replacing paraquat by diquat currently Shan Dong Nong Yao Xin Xi. 5:1.
Yihong Yang ea (2021) Detection and analysis of 28 herbicides labeled as diquat in packaging Shi Yong Jian Yan Yi Shi Za Zhi.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
XC conceptualized the study. MY and HL contributed to the methodology. YY contributed to the resources and data curation. XC contributed to writing—the original draft preparation. WS contributed to the software. TM contributed to project administration and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests.
Ethics approval
This work has been carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2000) of the World Medical Association. The study was approved by Fuyang People’s Hospital (NO. [2022] 116). All patients provided written informed consent, and the institutional human research ethics committee approved the study.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent to publish
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Yan, M., Liu, H., Yang, Y. et al. Clinical characteristics of survivors versus non-survivors after acute diquat poisoning: a comparative study. Intern Emerg Med 19, 307–312 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-023-03460-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-023-03460-z