Calcium Channel Blocker Overdose

Emergency medicine residents and medical students on emergency medicine rotation. Calcium channel blocker (CCB) overdoses can be severe with potentially serious adverse outcomes. CCBs work by blocking the calcium channels on smooth and cardiac muscle tissue. At low dose ranges, dihydropyridine CCBs (such as nifedipine, amlodipine, and nicardipine) block the L-type calcium receptors in the peripheral vasculature, whereas non-dihydropyridine CCBs (such as: verapamil and diltiazem) affect the L-type calcium receptors in the myocardium.1 Because of this distinction, dihydropyridine CCB toxicity manifests as arterial vasodilation and non-dihydropyridine CCB toxicity is associated with cardiac manifestations such as bradycardia and negative inotropy.2 It is important to note that in high concentrations (such as in overdoses), CCBs lose specificity for their specific receptors and can show all the manifestations of toxicity such as bradycardia, peripheral vasodilation, and hypotension. Patients can develop both vasoplegic shock from peripheral vasodilation and cardiogenic shock. This is a high acuity low occurrence case with infrequently used but specific treatments, and thus this case provides educational value. At the end of this oral board session, examinees will: (1) demonstrate ability to evaluate a patient with undifferentiated shock with bradycardia and discuss the differential diagnosis, (2) recognize the signs and symptoms of calcium channel blocker overdose, (3) demonstrate ability to manage treatment of a patient with calcium channel overdose. This oral board case followed the standard American Board of Emergency Medicine-style case in a tertiary care hospital with access to all specialists and resources needed. This case was tested using 12 resident volunteers ranging from PGY 1-2 in an ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) accredited emergency medicine residency program. Immediate feedback was solicited both from the learners and from the evaluators following the debriefing session. Residents were asked to evaluate the educational value of the case using a 1-5 Likert scale (5 being excellent). Evaluators were asked to score the residents using the ACGME core competencies with a scale of 1-8, 1-4 being unacceptable and 5-8 being acceptable. Seven PGY1 residents and five PGY2 residents, thus twelve residents in total, completed the case. The average score was 5.10/8. Three residents missed zero critical actions. The most common c