Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2021; 9(1): e46 OR I G I N A L RE S E A RC H Comparing the Clinical Characteristics, Laboratory Find- ings, and Outcomes between Epidemic and Episodic Methanol Poisoning Referrals; a Cross-sectional Study Mehdi Hadipourzadeh1, Sara Ebrahimi2, Pardis Ziaeefar2, Nasim Zamani1,3, Hassan Falahaty4, Darren Robert5,6, Hossein Hassanian-Moghaddam1,3∗ 1. Department of Clinical Toxicology, Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 5. Departments of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, and Renal Medicine and Transplantation, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 6. St Vincent’s Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Received: April 2021; Accepted: May 2021; Published online: 12 June 2021 Abstract: Introduction: Due to illegal manufacturing and sales of alcoholic beverages, epidemic outbreaks of methanol poisoning may occur. The aim of this study was to determine if there were differences in the severity, course of poisoning, and outcomes between methanol-poisoned patients admitted during an outbreak versus those who were admitted following episodic exposures. Methods: The present retrospective study was performed in a single referral poisoning center between March 2018 and March 2019 in patients with confirmed methanol poisoning. During this time, in addition to episodic cases of methanol intoxication, there were three methanol poisoning outbreaks. Outbreaks were characterized by an unexpected increase in the number of methanol- poisoned patients in a short period of time, which impacted resources and decision-making. The two groups were compared regarding their severity of poisoning, sessions of hemodialysis, and clinical outcomes. Results: Outbreak cases had a higher level of methanol than episodic cases. Odds of being dialyzed more than once was 5.4 times higher in the cases presenting during an outbreak (95% CI 2.1-14.0; p=0.001). Mean hospital stay, intu- bation/mechanical ventilation, and death were similar between the two groups. An evaluation of the alcoholic beverage samples available in the Iranian black market during the outbreak showed a 7-percent methanol con- centration with no ethanol content. Conclusion: Poisoning risk may be higher during methanol outbreaks due to the higher methanol concentrations, requiring more hemodialysis sessions for persistent metabolic acidosis. In addition to alcohol dehydrogenase blockade, careful risk assessment of all methanol poisonings can assist with stratifying the priority for, and duration of, hemodialysis to optimize outcomes. Keywords: Methanol; poisoning; disease outbreaks; renal dialysis; formaldehyde poisoning Cite this article as: Hadipourzadeh M, Ebrahimi S, Ziaeefar P, Zamani N, Falahaty H, Robert D, Hassanian-Moghaddam H. Comparing the Clinical Characteristics, Laboratory Findings, and Outcomes between Epidemic and Episodic Methanol Poisoning Referrals; a Cross-sectional Study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2021; 9(1): e46. https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v9i1.1278. ∗Corresponding Author: Hossein Hassanian-Moghaddam; Department of Clinical Toxicology, Loghman-Hakim Hospital Poison Center, South Karegar Avenue, Tehran, Iran. Tel/Fax: +982155424041 Email: hassanian@sbmu.ac.ir, hasanian2000@yahoo.com, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4370-0544. 1. Introduction Methanol is a colorless and clear liquid used in indus- trial solvents, antifreeze solutions, and glass cleaners. Pure methanol does not have a specific smell and it is tasteless. Worldwide, methanol poisoning is largely due to consump- tion of illegal homemade alcoholic beverages (1, 2). Less commonly, methanol poisoning may be the result of in- tentional consumption for suicidal intent. It is rapidly ab- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem M. Hadipourzadeh et al. 2 sorbed post-ingestion and reaches its maximum concentra- tion within 30 to 60 minutes with a minimal lethal dose of about 1 mg/kg of body weight in adults (1). Metabolism of methanol to formic acid and formaldehyde results in toxicity and its clinical and laboratory manifestations (1). Methanol poisoning is a medical emergency with signs/symptoms in- cluding weakness, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, epigas- tric pain, headache, dyspnea, and cyanosis as well as central nervous system signs and symptoms including stupor, coma, convulsions, hypothermia, and death, particularly following a high dose of methanol and delayed treatment. Factors play- ing a role in the delay in receiving effective medical care are fear of punishment in countries where alcohol consumption is illegal, nonspecific signs and symptoms in the early hours of intoxication, and limited knowledge of methanol intoxi- cation by clinicians (3). Risk factors that predict poor out- come in methanol intoxication include severe metabolic aci- dosis (blood pH< 7), lack of respiratory compensation, and coma (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <8) on admission (4). If a high dose of methanol has been consumed, the mainstay of treatment is alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) inhibition and hemodialysis (HD) to remove both methanol and its toxic metabolite, formic acid. Methanol poisoning outbreaks have occurred in Iran several times (5-7). Acute methanol intox- ication continues to be an important public health concern in many Islamic countries such as Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Tunisia and Turkey. It is anticipated that clinical outcomes may be worse in patients presenting during an outbreak due to resources being overwhelmed (2). However, during an out- break it is also possible that patients may present to hospital and be diagnosed and treated earlier due to increased aware- ness, leading to more favorable outcomes (7). This study was designed to determine if there are differences in the sever- ity, treatment, and outcome of poisoning between methanol- poisoned patients who present during an outbreak and those who are admitted as episodic cases of this intoxication. 2. Methods 2.1. Study Settings and design This retrospective, descriptive study was conducted in a sin- gle large regional referral poisoning center during a one- year period between March 2018 and March 2019. The study was approved by the ethics committee in Shahid Be- heshti University of Medical Sciences (Ethics committee No: IR.SBMU.RETECH.REC.1399.302). The need for informed written consent was waived because of the emergent nature of HD in the patients with signs and symptoms of severe methanol poisoning and since this was a retrospective study. 2.2. Participants All patients who had consumed illicit alcoholic beverages, based on the history taken from the patient, or the relatives of critically ill patients, regardless of the presenting signs and symptoms were identified based on discharged International Classification of Disease (ICD) 10 coding and an internal database that recorded all poisoned patients who received hemodialysis. The patient’s signs and symptoms of poison- ing and their venous blood gas (VBG) analysis were assessed on admission. Serum methanol concentration was mea- sured when possible to confirm the exposure. The diagnosis of methanol poisoning was based on (i) a serum methanol level >6.25 mmol/L (20 mg/dL), or (ii) a clinical picture of methanol poisoning (abdominal pain, visual disturbances, dyspnea, central nervous system signs/symptoms) with both pH < 7.3 and serum bicarbonate < 20 mmol/L (8, 9). Patients with methanol poisoning were treated with oral ethanol in a fixed dosing regimen using 1 mL/Kg of five-fold diluted alco- hol 96% and a maintenance dose of 0.16 mL/Kg/h based on a national guideline (1). Due to limited resources, ethanol blood concentrations could not be routinely and regularly measured in all patients. All patients who received hemodial- ysis (HD) were included in this study. Indications for HD in- cluded significant metabolic acidemia (pH < 7.25 and/or bi- carbonate < 15 mmol/L) with or without visual disturbances, electrolyte imbalance unresponsive to conventional therapy, and/or a serum methanol concentration > 6.25 mmol/L (20 mg/dL; the assay was intermittently available) (10). Patients who had initial normal analyses but developed signs and symptoms of poisoning and metabolic acidosis in the follow- ing hours were treated with hemodialysis. Those who died before the initiation of HD were excluded. HD was generally started between 30 minutes and eight hours after the deci- sion was made to initiate it, depending on resource availabil- ity at the time. Based on an existing definition of a methanol poisoning outbreak, an unexpected increase in number of cases of methanol intoxication (a minimum number of three cases within a few days to a few weeks) (2), we categorized the patients into two groups: outbreak and episodic cases. The outbreak group consisted of patients who had presented to our unit during the methanol toxicity outbreaks (two be- tween September-November 2018 and one in March-April 2019). Patients presenting to our unit at other times during the one-year study period were classified as episodic cases. First, 4-hour HD was performed for every patient with a his- tory of alcohol ingestion based on the VBG on admission or symptoms of severe intoxication including visual distur- bances, seizure, and loss of consciousness. If metabolic aci- dosis did not resolve after the first session of HD, particu- larly if visual disturbances were present, a second, and even third HD session was performed. Persistence of visual distur- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem 3 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2021; 9(1): e46 bances without acidemia was considered a sequelae and no HD was performed in this context. 2.3. Data gathering Patients’ demographic characteristics including age, gen- der, amount of alcohol consumption (in mL), time elapsed between consumption and hospital presentation, clinical features on admission including signs, symptoms, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and vital signs were recorded. Results of routine lab tests including serial VBG analyses, the num- ber of HD sessions required per patients and indications for repeated HD, requirement for intubation, duration of hos- pital stay, and the final outcome (death, complete recovery, or recovery with neurologic/ophthalmologic sequelae) were recorded. Samples of the alcohol beverage were analyzed for the presence of methanol and ethanol on a random commu- nity sampling during outbreaks. 2.4. Statistical Analysis Data was compared between the two groups using Statisti- cal Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 21 by application of Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test, with a significance threshold of P<0.05. Spearman rank correlation coefficient test was used to measure the strength and direc- tion of association between two continuous variables. En- ter logistic model was used to determine independent vari- ables predicting repetition of dialysis or presentation during an outbreak in these patients. 3. Results 3.1. Baseline characteristics of studied cases During the study period, 157 patients were hospitalized due to methanol poisoning. Figure 1 shows the timeline of re- ferral cases indicating 3 outbreaks during the study period. Three patients died before initiation of HD. All other patients required HD, including twelve patients with a normal ad- mission VBG and no noticeable symptoms, but subsequent VBG analyses during hospitalization showed metabolic aci- dosis so they were treated using HD. In total, 154 methanol- poisoned patients received HD and were included in the study (Figure 2; Patient inclusion chart). The mean age was 31.9 ± 10.2 (range, 17 to 70) years, of whom 66 of the participants were classified as episodic cases and 88 were classified as outbreak cases. There was no statistically significant difference between these two groups in terms of the amount of the alcohol consumed and presenting signs and symptoms (Table 1). However, there was a trend of de- layed presentation in outbreak cases who presented after 35 hours, compared to episodic cases who had referred after 24 hours (P =0.802). The most common signs and symptoms were blurred vision (81.8%) and gastrointestinal symptoms including vomiting (51.9%) and nausea (49. 1%). The outbreak group had a sta- tistically higher diastolic blood pressure (P =0.005) and res- piratory rate (P =0.027), and lower temperature (P =0.004) at the time of admission but the differences were not clinically significant (Table 1). 3.2. Laboratory findings Laboratory testing revealed that serum methanol levels were considerably higher in the outbreak group compared to the episodic group (n=130; P = 0.011) with median (interquar- tile range; IQR) concentration of 11.20 mg/dL (0, 30.6) (range 0, 80.5) and 0 (0, 13.8) mg/dL (range 0, 56.5) in outbreak and episodic groups, respectively. No significant difference was detected in the admission pH, pCO2, and HCO3 of VBG analyses between the two groups. Of note, lactate dehy- drogenase (LDH) was lower in outbreak group (Table 2). There was a significant correlation between LDH and ad- mission pH (r=-0.231, p=0.011), HCO3 (r=-0.252, p=0.005), blood sugar (r=0.240, p=0.008), creatinine (r=0.272, p=0.002), serum potassium (r=0.297, p=0.001), and creatine kinase (r=0.205, p=0.025) on univariate analysis for the combined population. 3.3. Outcomes Eight patients were intubated during hospitalization (six in the outbreak and two in the episodic group, which was a non- significant difference). More patients in the outbreak group required more than one HD treatment session (35%), com- pared to the episodic group (9.1%) (Table 3). Of these, 117 were dialyzed only once (57 (64.8%) in outbreak group and 60 (90.9%) in episodic group), 32 were dialyzed twice and seven patients were dialyzed three times. The indication for repeat HD was persistent isolated metabolic acidosis (n=27, 17.5%) or metabolic acidosis with visual disturbances (n=10, 6.5%). The odds of being re-dialyzed more than once was 8.2 times more in the outbreak group (95% CI 1.6-41.1; p=0.001; ta- ble 4). Despite this, hospital stay was also similar between the two groups. Final outcomes were also similar, with 91% of patients recovering completely with no sequelae, while al- most 4% recovered with some neurologic or ophthalmologic complication. Death rates were similar between the groups (Table 3), and the seven deaths were related to the severity of intoxication and organ injury on presentation. Logistic regression analysis indicated that presenting dur- ing an outbreak, visual disturbance, and pulse rate were in- dependent factors predicting the use of additional HD in methanol poisoned patients. Also, a higher plasma creati- nine concentration and lower LDH concentration were in- dependently associated with presenting during an outbreak (table 4). An analysis of the alcohol sample available in the black market during the outbreak showed a 7-percent pure This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem M. Hadipourzadeh et al. 4 methanol content of the beverage with no ethanol. 4. Discussion In methanol poisoning, delayed initiation or insufficient HD can contribute to complications due to this condition, in- cluding death or severe and permanent neurological injury (11). Therefore, it is advantageous if the number of required HD treatments for an individual can be predicted on ad- mission to guide the allocation of resources and planning of treatments, especially in outbreaks when the resources are limited (8). According to our data, the presence of visual deficits on ad- mission and presenting during an outbreak are independent predictors of requiring more hemodialysis treatments. A key laboratory indication for repeated HD is persistent metabolic acidosis, which was largely observed in patients presenting during an outbreak. This is interesting given that there were few statistically or clinically significant differences in admis- sion characteristics and the time to present to hospital (al- though there was a non-significant trend of delayed presen- tation in the outbreak group). We could not confirm the exact cause of prolonged acidosis in outbreak cases, but we offer some hypotheses on the basis of these data. One possibility is that the higher initial methanol concentra- tion, due to intake of beverages with a high methanol con- tent, coupled with subtherapeutic ADH blocking therapy in the context of an outbreak is associated with intermittent and prolonged metabolism of methanol to formic acid. This is a recognized risk of ethanol therapy, particularly given that blood ethanol concentrations cannot be routinely measured in our unit due to resource limitations. The risk of subthera- peutic ADH inhibition is largely removed when fomepizole is used, but unfortunately, it is too expensive for routine use in our country. It was interesting to note that patients needing more ses- sions of hemodialysis presented with significantly lower LDH concentrations, because LDH has a role in clearing endoge- nous acids during energy metabolism. In the case of alcohol metabolism, the NADH2/NAD ratio increases in both cyto- plasm and mitochondria (12). Higher NADH2 synthesis leads to a significant reduction of pyruvate by lactate dehydroge- nase. Although LDH can both reduce pyruvate and oxidize lactate, the preferred pathway is the transformation of pyru- vate to lactate (13). This means that all pyruvate is reduced to lactate. Moreover, inhibition of the respiratory chain by formic acid, the most toxic metabolite of methanol, leads to a rise in the NADH2/NAD ratio (14). Thus, in the later stages of acute methanol poisoning, the lactate concentration may increase, which contributes to a persistent metabolic acido- sis in patients with lower LDH (15). Regardless of the specific cellular processes involved, the sig- nificant correlation of LDH with other prognostic factors in methanol poisoning, including creatinine, serum bicarbon- ate, and serum blood sugar (16), prompts more research into the use of LDH for prognostication in methanol poisoning at the time of admission. It was interesting to note that patients who needed more ses- sions of hemodialysis during their hospitalization presented with statistically significant higher diastolic blood pressure and respiratory rate but a significantly lower core tempera- ture. Lower core temperatures have previously been shown to predict poor prognosis in methanol poisoning (17). On the other hand, higher diastolic blood pressure and higher respi- ratory rates in patients in the outbreak group may show el- evated left ventricular end diastolic pressure (18) and higher production of acid in these patients due to more severe tox- icity affecting the heart and metabolic adjustment of the body, respectively. However, we did not demonstrate that the severity of poisoning was higher in these patients and, there- fore, the theory of more severe acidosis causing higher respi- ratory rate is not confirmed here. Interestingly, the hospitalization period did not differ signifi- cantly between the two groups although the outbreak group patients had undergone HD at least once more than the other group. The risk of complications and death were also the same between the groups, which is an encouraging finding showing that our system is managing these patients properly despite all limitations in the equipment and resources, par- ticularly during outbreaks. 5. Limitations Contrary to all the care taken to accurately record data in rou- tine clinical practice, some data were not available in this ret- rospective study. Although there were some differences in trends (for example, time to present) these non-statistically significant differences between the groups may have been due to underpowering of the cohort, so future studies would be useful to validate these observations and hypotheses. 6. Conclusion During the methanol outbreaks, due to the contaminated al- coholic beverages available in the black market, poisoning can manifest with more persistent acidosis, which requires more hemodialysis sessions. Close monitoring of the pa- tients and repeated hemodialysis until acidosis is completely resolved is advocated. Future prospective studies are war- ranted to further explore these clinical observations and to understand the reason for the persistent acidosis and treat- ment strategies that can prevent this; thus, preserving re- sources for methanol-poisoned patients. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem 5 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2021; 9(1): e46 7. List of abbreviations ADH= Alcohol Dehydrogenase GCS= Glasgow Coma Scale HD= Hemodialysis ICD= International Classification of Disease LDH= Lactate Dehydrogenase VBG= Venous Blood Gas NAD= Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide SPSS= Statistical Package for Social Sciences 8. Declarations 8.1. Acknowledgments We wish to thank Mrs. Somaye Sohrabi for data entry. This study is was based on fellowship thesis worked by Dr. Mehdi Hadipourzadeh and supported by Social Determinants Re- search Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sci- ences. 8.2. Funding and Support This study was supported by a grant provided by Shahid Be- heshti University of Medical Sciences (Project ID: 5050). 8.3. Author contribution NZ and HHM conceived and designed the study. MH and HF acquired the data. HHM, SE and PZ checked the data separately and performed the analysis. NZ and DR drafted the manuscript. The final version of the manuscript was re- viewed and approved by all authors. 8.4. Availability of supporting data All collected and analyzed data can be made available by the corresponding author upon request. 8.5. Conflict of interest None. References 1. Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Zamani N. A brief review on toxic alcohols: management strategies. Iranian journal of kidney diseases. 2016;10(6):344. 2. Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Zamani N, Roberts DM, Brent J, McMartin K, Aaron C, et al. Consensus state- ments on the approach to patients in a methanol poison- ing outbreak. Clinical toxicology. 2019;57(12):1129-36. 3. Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Pajoumand A, Dadgar S, Shadnia S. Prognostic factors in methanol poisoning. Human & experimental toxicology. 2007;26(7):583-6. 4. Paasma R, Hovda KE, Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Brahmi N, Afshari R, Sandvik L, et al. Risk factors related to poor outcome after methanol poisoning and the relation be- tween outcome and antidotes–a multicenter study. Clin- ical Toxicology. 2012;50(9):823-31. 5. Sefidbakht S, Rasekhi A, Kamali K, Haghighi AB, Sa- looti A, Meshksar A, et al. Methanol poisoning: acute MR and CT findings in nine patients. Neuroradiology. 2007;49(5):427-35. 6. Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Zamani N, Kolahi A-A, Mc- Donald R, Hovda KE. Double trouble: methanol outbreak in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran–a cross- sectional assessment. Critical Care. 2020;24(1):1-3. 7. Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Nikfarjam A, Mirafzal A, Saberinia A, Nasehi AA, Masoumi Asl H, et al. Methanol mass poisoning in Iran: role of case finding in outbreak management. Journal of public health. 2015;37(2):354-9. 8. Pajoumand A, Zamani N, Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Shadnia S. Can duration of hemodialysis be estimated based on the on-arrival laboratory tests and clinical man- ifestations in methanol-poisoned patients? International urology and nephrology. 2017;49(6):1057-62. 9. Zakharov S, Pelclova D, Navratil T, Belacek J, Komarc M, Eddleston M, et al. Fomepizole versus ethanol in the treatment of acute methanol poisoning: comparison of clinical effectiveness in a mass poisoning outbreak. Clin- ical Toxicology. 2015;53(8):797-806. 10. Kute VB, Godara SM, Shah PR, Gumber MR, Goplani KR, Vanikar AV, et al. Hemodialysis for methyl alcohol poi- soning: A single-center experience. Saudi Journal of Kid- ney Diseases and Transplantation. 2012;23(1):37. 11. Roberts DM, Yates C, Megarbane B, Winchester JF, Ma- claren R, Gosselin S, et al. Recommendations for the role of extracorporeal treatments in the management of acute methanol poisoning: a systematic review and consensus statement. Critical care medicine. 2015;43(2):461-72. 12. Baud FJ, Borron SW, Bavoux E, Astier A, Hoffman JR. Relation between plasma lactate and blood cyanide concentrations in acute cyanide poisoning. Bmj. 1996;312(7022):26-7. 13. Dudka J, Burdan F, Szumilo J, Tokarska E, Korobowicz A, Klepacz R, et al. Effect of selected alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitors on human hepatic lactate dehydrogenase ac- tivity—an in vitro study. Journal of Applied Toxicology: An International Journal. 2005;25(6):549-53. 14. Jacobsen D, McMartin KE. Methanol and ethylene glycol poisonings. Medical toxicology. 1986;1(5):309-34. 15. Shahangian S, Ash K. Formic and lactic acidosis in a fatal case of methanol intoxication. Clinical chemistry. 1986;32(2):395-7. 16. Sanaei-Zadeh H, Esfeh SK, Zamani N, Jamshidi F, Shad- nia S. Hyperglycemia is a strong prognostic factor of lethality in methanol poisoning. Journal of Medical Toxi- cology. 2011;7(3):189-94. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem M. Hadipourzadeh et al. 6 17. Lee C-Y, Chang EK, Lin J-L, Weng C-H, Lee S-Y, Juan K- C, et al. Risk factors for mortality in Asian Taiwanese pa- tients with methanol poisoning. Therapeutics and clini- cal risk management. 2014;10:61. 18. Cavalli A, Volpi A, Maggioni AP, Tusa M, De Pieri G. Severe reversible cardiac failure associated with methanol intox- ication. Postgraduate medical journal. 1987;63(744):867- 8. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem 7 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2021; 9(1): e46 Figure 1: Timeline of patient referrals due to methanol poisoning in outbreak (red) or episodic (blue) events during one year in Loghman- Hakim Hospital. Figure 2: Patient inclusion chart. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem M. Hadipourzadeh et al. 8 Table 1: Comparing the presenting characteristics and outcomes between epidemic and episodic methanol poisoning referrals Variables Epidemic (n=88) Episodic (n =66) P Gender Male 76 (86.4) 57 (86.4) 0.999 Age (years) Median (IQR) 30 (24-37) 28 (25-37) 0.958 Presenting vital signs Glasgow coma scale 15 (14-15) 15 (15-15) 0.518 Systolic BP (mmHg) 110 (110-120) 110 (110-120) 0.659 Diastolic BP (mmHg) 70 (70-80) 70 (70-70) 0.005 Pulse rate (/minutes) 90 (80-100) 92 (84-100) 0.625 Respiratory rate (/minutes) 17 (14-18) 16 (14-18) 0.027 Temperature (C) 37 (36.8-37) 37 (36.9-37.4) 0.004 Presenting chief complaint Vomiting 41 (46.6) 39 (59.1) 0.126 Nausea 40 (45.5) 34 (51.5) 0.458 Abdominal pain 10(11.4) 4 (6.1) 0.259 Blurred vision 74 (84.1) 52 (78.8) 0.400 Floaters and flashes 3 (3.4) 2 (3.0) 0.896 Visual loss 6 (6.8) 6 (9.1) 0.604 Photophobia 3 (3.4) 3 (4.5) 0.719 Seizure 3 (3.4) 1 (1.5) 0.466 Headache 22 (25) 14 (21.2) 0.584 Co-ingestion Yes 75 (7.6) 2 (2.3) 0.139 Consumption characteristic Amount (cc) 500 (300-1000) 500 (300-1000) 0.915 Lag to refer to ED (hours) 35 (24-48) 24 (24-48) 0.802 Dialysis session 1 57 (64.8) 60 (90.9) 0.001† ≥ 2 31 (35.2) 6 (9.1) Hospitalization duration (days) Median (IQR) 1 (1-3) 1 (1-2.5) 0.171 Need for Intubation Yes 6 (6.8) 2 (3.0) 0.295 Final Outcome Complete recovery 79 (90.8) 59 (92.2) Recovery with complication 3 (3.4) 3 (4.7) 0.706 Death 5 (5.8) 2 (3.1) Data are presented as frequency (%) or median (Inter quartile range (IQR)). BP: blood pressure, ED: emergency department. †Odds Ratio 5.4 (95% CI 2.1-14.0). This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem 9 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2021; 9(1): e46 Table 2: Comparing the laboratory findings of studied cases between epidemic and episodic methanol poisoning referrals Parameters Epidemic (n = 88) Episodic (n = 66) P pH on presentation 7.20 (7.12-7.26) 7.21 (7.15-7.28) 0.441 pCO2 on presentation (mmHg) 28.8 (22.8-34.9) 26.6(21.6-35.7) 0.631 HCO3 on presentation (mmHg) 12 (9.3-15.7) 12 (9.5-15.8) 0.797 pH before first HD 7.20 (7.12-7.26) 7.21 (7.15-7.26) 0.737 pCO2 before first HD (mmHg) 28.8 (22.8-34.2) 26.1 (21.6-35.5) 0.414 HCO3 before first HD (mmHg) 12.0 (9.3-15.6) 12.0 (9.4-15.2) 0.762 Blood sugar (mg/dl) (n=151) 112 (94-138) 109. (93-143) 0.820 BUN (mg/dl) (n=151) 27 (22-37) 31 (24-40) 0.043 Creatinine (mg/dl) (n=151) 1.3 (1.1-1.4) 1.2 (1-1.4) 0.032 Natrium (mEq/L) (n=151) 138 (136-141) 139 (136-141) 0.320 Potassium (mEq/L) (n=152) 4.2 (4-4.4) 4.3 (4-4.6) 0.503 Methanol level (mg/dL)* (n=130) 11.2 (0-30.6) 0 (0-13.8) 0.011 Creatine phosphokinase (IU/L) (n=123) 131 (95-218) 107 (77-195) 0.306 Lactate dehydrogenase (IU/L) (n=122) 400 (331-503) 488 (400-658) 0.001 pH before second HD (n=31) 7.31 (7.29-7.39) 7.26 (7.23-7.34) 0.293 pCO2 before second HD (n=31) (mmHg) 26.5 (22.8-32.2) 27.8 (19-31.2) 0.544 HCO3 before second HD (n=31) (mmHg) 16.4 (13.2-18) 14.0 (10.2-16.7) 0.177 pH before third HD (n=7) 7.41 (7.32-7.49) 7.06 (7.06-7.06) 0.134 pCO2 before third HD (n=7) (mmHg) 26.3 (24.4-29.7) 77.9 (77.9-77.9) 0.134 HCO3 before third HD (n=7) (mmHg) 16.9 (12-21.5) 22.1 (22.1-22.1) 0.134 Data are presented as median (inter quartile range). HD: hemodialysis session. * due to long lag time between poisoning and presenting to the emergency department in some clinically confirmed cases, the serum level of methanol was undetectable. BUN: blood urea nitrogen. Table 3: Comparing the outcomes of studied cases between epidemic and episodic methanol poisoning referrals Variables Epidemic (n=88) Episodic (n =66) P Dialysis session 1 57 (64.8) 60 (90.9) 0.001 ≥ 2 31 (35.2) 6 (9.1) Hospitalization duration (days) Median (IQR) 1 (1-3) 1 (1-2.5) 0.171 Need for Intubation Yes 6 (6.8) 2 (3.0) 0.295 Final Outcome Complete recovery 79 (90.8) 59 (92.2) Recovery with complication 3 (3.4) 3 (4.7) 0.706 Death 5 (5.8) 2 (3.1) Data are presented as number (%). IQR: inter quartile range. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem M. Hadipourzadeh et al. 10 Table 4: Logistic regression analysis for independent predictive factors of repeated dialysis (dialysis sessions) and being in a methanol out- break based on on-arrival variables Variable Beta SE OR (95% CI) R# P value Dialysis sessions* (1 vs. ≥2) Outbreak 2.10 0.82 8.16 (1.62-41.09) 0.477 <0.001 Visual disturbance 1.71 0.81 5.52 (1.13, 26.96) Being in a methanol outbreak (yes vs. no)† Pulse rate 0.061 0.027 1.06 (1.0, 1.12) Creatinine 2.07 1.03 7.92 (1.04, 60.21) 0.379 0.012 Lactate dehydrogenase -0.005 0.002 0.996 (0.995, 0.998) *all variables with p values less than 0.2 were entered in the model including: Creatinine, methanol level, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, temperature, pulse and respiratory rate, on-arrival pH, pCO2 , HCO3 , Glasgow coma scale, lag period between consumption and presentation, outbreak (yes vs. no), visual disturbance (yes vs. no). † all variables with p values less than 0.2 were entered in the model including: Creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, lactate dehydrogenase, methanol level, diastolic blood pressure, temperature, respiratory rate, and vomiting (yes vs. no). #: Nagelkerke R square. OR: odds ratio, SE: standard error. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem Introduction Methods Results Discussion Limitations Conclusion List of abbreviations Declarations References