Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.

html

Table of Contents

Background Information
Physiological Changes Caused by Alcohol
Signs and Symptoms of Alcohol Withdrawal
Natural History of the Alcohol Withdrawal Process: Foy et al, QJM, 1997
Assessment of Alcohol Withdrawal
CIWA-A Shaw et al 1981
Use of CIWA in General Medical Facilities
CIWA-A Evolution
CIWA-A Used To Guide Treatment
Guidelines for Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal
Conclusion

Acute Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment

David Bridgers, M.D.

March 26, 2002

Background Information

In 1990 there were approximately 11-18 million persons in the US alone who report heavy alcohol abuse and
dependence. Almost half of these patients meet criteria for alcohol dependence. At any time in the United States as
many as 400,000 persons are in treatment for alcoholism as the principal or supporting diagnosis. There are greater
than 1 million discharges from acute care facilities with an alcohol-related diagnosis as reported in 1997. This figure is
most likely higher in 2002. The lifetime prevalence of alcohol dependence and abuse is 8% and 14% respectively. We
as physicians will frequently encounter alcoholism or its effects throughout our careers in medicine; therefore we must
me able to adequately identify and treat this condition.

Physiological Changes Caused by Alcohol

One of the keys to accomplishing the above-mentioned tasks is to understand how alcohol affects the brain leading to
dependence and withdrawal. The main effects of alcohol intoxication are euphoria, anesthesia, amnesia, and at higher
levels of intoxication respiratory depression and coma. These effects are caused not by a single mechanism, but by
several within the cell and cell membrane, thus making treatment of alcoholism with a single medication virtuously
impossible. First alcohol activates the n-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, which is a glutamate receptor. This
activation leads to intoxication, impaired cognition and learning. Chronic attenuation of NMDA also causes the
reported excitotoxic effects on neurons resulting in cell death likely leading to Wernicke-Korsokoff syndrome,
blackouts and cerebellar degeneration, and susceptibility to seizures during withdrawal. Second, alcohol results in
increase in endogenous opioids in the brain causing the euphoric state, which reinforces further intake of alcohol.
Activation of the GABA A-type receptors, which causes inhibitory chloride flux into the cell, resulting in the anxiolytic,
motor skill impairment, and sedative effects seen in intoxication with alcohol. Finally, alcohol effects the serotonin and
dopamine reward centers in the brain leading to further use. Although drugs such as naltrexone, Disulfram and
Fluoxetine have been used in the treatment of alcoholism, they are simply tools in treatment and are not cures for the
disease.

Metabolic abnormalities such as hypokalemia, due to alterations in aldosterone level, renal and extra-renal losses,
and changes in the distribution of potassium levels across the cell membrane are often seen in withdrawal.
Hypomagnesemia is common and may predispose the patient to withdrawal seizures. Hypophosphatemia is common
due to malnutrition and is frequently symptomatic, thus predisposing the patient to fatal cardiac failure and
rhabdomyolysis. Finally because of hyperthermia, diaphoresis, vomiting, and tachypnea, patients in alcohol withdrawal
are often volume depleted leading to severe cardiovascular compromise.

Signs and Symptoms of Alcohol Withdrawal

Alcohol withdrawal is a clinical condition that physicians must be knowledgeable about, as it extends across the
disciplines of medicine. It is more than just a single entity but rather a spectrum of signs and symptoms ranging from
very mild to the severest form, delirium tremens, which is associated with a documented risk of mortality. Sutton first
clinically documented the alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the medical literature in 1813 in Tracts on Delirium
Tremens. Alcohol withdrawal is defined in the DSM-IV by a history of cessation or reduction in heavy and prolonged

1 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

use of alcohol, and the presence of two or more of the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. The physician must be able
to distinguish the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal from other health problems. Patients presenting with alcohol
withdrawal often have other existing medical problems, so identification is crucial. The mildest form of alcohol
withdrawal includes symptoms due to increased central nervous system and sympathetic activity. These usually
consist of agitation, increased sweating, tachycardia, increased hand tremor, GI upset, insomnia, palpitations,
headache, and anorexia. Alcoholic hallucinosis may also be present in the form of transient tactile visual or auditory
hallucinations, with visual being the most common. Alcoholic hallucinosis should not be confused with hallucinations
seen with delirium tremens because the latter is usually associated with clouding of the sensorium, where as the
former is not. Patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal may also have seizures. Alcoholic withdrawal seizures are
usually generalized tonic-clonic convulsions occurring within the first 48 hours after the last drink. Seizures can be
attributed to alcohol withdrawal if the patient has a normal EEG, and a history of documented seizure activity in
withdrawal, and no other cause for their seizures can be determined.

The most severe form of alcohol withdrawal is delirium tremens (DTs), which carries a mortality risk. The medical
literature of the early twentieth century reported this mortality risk to be approximately 37%. Improvements in
recognition, pharmacotherapy, and treatment of co-morbid conditions have led to the more modern figure of 1-5%.
In-patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal approximately 5% will develop DTs. Death, when it occurs in DTs, is
usually due to arrhythmias or complications from the DTs, such as pneumonia. Ferguson et al, describe the following
risk factors for the development of DTs:

History of Sustained Drinking

Age Greater than 30
History of previous DTs
Presence of concurrent illness
Greater number of days since last drink

The characteristic features of DTs are hallucinations, diaphoresis, agitation, low-grade fever, tachcycardia,
hypertension, and disorientation. Other physiologic changes seen in DTs include elevated cardiac indices, oxygen
delivery, and oxygen consumption. Because of Hyperventilation and respiratory alkalosis, there is a significant
decrease in cerebral blood flow, which has been shown to correlate with the length of the preceding alcohol binge,
and the degree of delirium.

Natural History of the Alcohol Withdrawal Process: Foy et al, QJM, 1997

Victor and Adams wrote the fist comprehensive account of the natural history of alcohol withdrawal in 1953. They
described four different "states" seen either separately from one another, or in combination during the withdrawal
process. Their states were listed as tremulous, hallucinatory, epileptic, and delirious. They determined that the
tremulous/transient hallucination symptom complex peaked within the first day and lasted for "a few days"; seizures
were most common early on the second day, hallucinations usually began within the first 24 hours and lasted about 3
days. The delirious state began most commonly on the fourth day and was often over in 72 hours. Mortality form
delirium was determined to be 15%. No other more modern studies in the natural history of alcohol withdrawal were
conducted until 1997, when Foy et al conducted a study in order to determine a more accurate view of the natural
history of alcohol withdrawal, incidences of seizures, hallucinations, delirium, and the risk factors for these events.

They found that complications occurred in the following order: seizures, followed by hallucinations and then delirium.
Seizures occurred the earliest with 50% occurring on admission and 90% by 9 hours. Of those whom had
hallucinations, 50% occurred by 20.5 hours and 90% by 64 hours. The hallucinations were mostly short-lived with a
median duration of 6 hours and 90th percentile of 46 hours.

Of the patients who experienced delirium, 50% occurred within 46 hours and 90% by 85 hours. The duration of
delirium was wider and more variable with a median duration of 23 hours and 90th percentile of 100 hours. Excluding
the patients admitted already with complicated withdrawal, the median time of onset of withdrawal was 5 hours and
90% were withdrawing by 24 hours from admission. The median time of onset of withdrawal of those who
experienced complications was 7 hours versus 4 hours for those who did not experience complications during the
withdrawal. For the patients that had a measured BAL of 0, the median time to onset was 0 hours (i.e. on admission)
and 75% were in withdrawal with in 1 hour. The median time of resolution of withdrawal for those with complications
was 33 hours versus 22 hours for those without, and 99% of the reactions were over in 120 hours.

Of the 426 patients in the study, 113 experienced complications. There were 46 deaths either during the admission or
subsequently, but only 2 died within the period of alcohol withdrawal. Both deaths were due to complications of over
sedation during delirious episodes leading to fatal respiratory failure. Of the 113 complications, there were a few
patients who experienced more than one complication; therefore, reports of events are higher than the total number of
patients with complications. Ten patients developed seizures, 90 hallucinations, and 45 experienced delirium.

2 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

From the study they identified the following risk factors for developing complications during withdrawal:

1. Age greater than 70

2. Need for assisted ventilation
3. Pathology of the CNS, hypoxia, and femur fractured conveyed a greater risk of delirium
4. Seizures on admission
5. Delaying initial assessment and subsequent diagnosis for more than 24 hours

Assessment of Alcohol Withdrawal

As above mentioned, alcohol withdrawal syndrome has a wide variation in presentation and symptoms, thus leading to
great subjectivity in the assessment of the severity of withdrawal by healthcare workers. There is a need for objective
analysis in assessing severity for use in guiding healthcare workers in administering the proper treatment to the
patient experiencing withdrawal from alcohol. This problem was identified by Gross et al in 1973 who developed one
of the earliest scales in assessing withdrawal severity, which consisted of a 32 item scoring system called the Total
Severity Assessment Scale (TSA), which they then modified to an eleven item scale called the Selective Severity
Assessment Scale (SSA). This scale was deficient in its applicability in following the clinical course of the withdrawal
reaction and application of appropriate treatment.

CIWA-A Shaw et al 1981

Shaw et al identified the need for a scale that could be applied more frequently and used to adequately quantify and
direct patient treatment. They called their scale the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol Withdrawal or
CIWA-A. This scale incorporated the original SSA items of observed tremor, sweating, clouding of the sensorium,
hallucinations, quality of contact, agitation, and seizures. They substituted nausea and vomiting for sleeping and eating
disturbances, to allow the scale to be scored every 30 minutes rather than daily. Also they substituted tactile, visual,
and auditory disturbances for hallucinations, since these usually precede hallucinations in alcohol withdrawal.
Headache and flushing of face were also added. The scale was scored on a basis of 1-7 points of severity in each
interaction, with the total score being tallied to determine severity of withdrawal as defined in their study results as:

Mild-20.4 (+/-2.6)
Moderate 24.2 (+/- 5.4)
Severe 29 (+/- 7.6)

The nurses were educated on how to use the scale prior to administering it to patients. The group found an
interratter reliability of 0.94. Only 11% variability was found due to nurse-nurse inconsistency in rating the same
patients. The validity of the CIWA-A was determined by the excellent correlates between nurse ratings and
physicians’ three-point global ratings of patient severity of withdrawal. They determined a significant difference
(p<0.025) between the means of the three definitions of severity.

The CIWA-A scores were used to calculate the initial severity of the patient’s symptoms and also the
subsequent response to treatment. One premise of their study was that patients admitted with alcohol
withdrawal could, if objectively assessed, be treated by a program of "supportive care". Their supportive care
program consisted of minimizing environmental stimuli, and administering comfort measures such as fluids,
blankets and smoking when desired every 30 minutes.

Procedure:

The study consisted of 38 patients who had CIWA-A scores initially of >19, and were entered in the supportive
care program. CIWA-A scores were performed every 30 min until CIWA-A scores were reduced to <10 for
three consecutive assessments or for 4 hours, which ever occurred first. If after 4 hours the CIWA-A was
greater than 10 and less than 19, they received another period of supportive care. If the score was 19 or
greater then they received a single IV dose or multiple oral doses of diazepam. When the CIWA was reduced
to 10 or less then the patient was kept in the hospital for 72 hours with CIWA-A scores calculated four times
daily. At the end of the 72 hours the patient was offered rehab as appropriate.

Results:

The group defined supportive care as a success when the CIWA-A score after 8 hours was reduced to <10
and there was no rebound during the 72 hours of admission. Of the 38 patients admitted to the study 28
patients were declared a success by the above criteria. Two developed late complications: one had a seizure
greater than 72 hours after admission, and one developed hallucinations 48 hours after admission. 10 had no
response to the supportive care program, but were managed well using diazepam as described without
complication.

3 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

Conclusions:

The study found that:

1. The systematic evaluation of patients using the CIWA-A scale to score the severity of their withdrawal
coupled with "supportive" nursing care was effective in the treatment of patients suffering from alcohol
withdrawal.
2. 75% of the patients in their study required no medication at all in their treatment.
3. Nurses could be trained to administer the scale in a timely fashion, and use it to objectively evaluate the
effectiveness of their care without direct physician supervision.
4. The scale was also valid when compared to physician assessments.
5. Using the scale was also important because frequent nursing intervention was beneficial to the patient.
The interaction reoriented the patient and helped calm them, thus preventing the need for medication in
many circumstances.

Use of CIWA in General Medical Facilities

Although Shaw developed and proved the validity of the CIWA-A scale, their study did not include patients with more
than just alcohol withdrawal as their primary diagnosis. It was not clear if the use of such a scale would be beneficial
in a general medical facility, where patients often had other existing co-morbidities. In 1988 Foy et al set out to
determine its usefulness in such a situation. Their study was performed in the Royal Newcastle Hospital in Australia on
203 adult general medical and surgical patients age 20-75, who in addition to various other conditions, met criteria for
alcohol withdrawal in hopes to determine that CIWA testing was valid in this population.

Treatment Protocol:

Patients were assessed by nursing staff using the CIWA-A every 4 hours for the first 24-48 hours. Scoring then
ceased when it was less than or equal to 10. When the score was greater than 10 it was increased to every 2 hours.
If >15, scores were done hourly. Treatment was advised when scores were >15 on 2 separate occasions, or >20
once. The recommended treatment was the loading technique of diazepam20 mg at 2-hour intervals until the scores
had fallen to <10.

Results:

The group assessed the following outcomes: Occurrence of severe withdrawal (confusion, hallucination, or seizures
after admission), highest score prior to developing complications, or if no complications, prior to discharge, and use of
benzodiazepines for symptoms. One hundred ten had scores>15 and received at least 1 dose of medication. Fifteen
of the remaining 93 who had scores <15 received prophylactic treatment with at least 20 mg of diazepam. They had
37 complications (4 seizures, 33 confusion). These patients had mean highest scores of 21.8 compared to those who
had no complications having a mean highest score of 15.6 (statistically significant p<0.001). Of the patients who had
scores >15, 75 were treated, with only 11 developing severe withdrawal versus 35 who were not treated of which 21
developed severe withdrawal (RR 3.72). Of the 93 with CIWA-A <15, 78 were not treated and only 5 developed
severe withdrawal (RR 1.92). Of the 15 with scores of <15 who received prophylactic diazepam none developed
severe withdrawal.

Eleven patients who had high scores and were adequately treated or had low scores went on to have severe
withdrawal. These patients were suffering from femur fractures (3), shock (2), and septicemia (1).

Conclusion:

The key findings from this study were as follows:

1. Patients who developed severe alcohol withdrawal had higher scores on assessment scales than other
patients even before the development of seizures, hallucinations or confusion; therefore, a severity scale used
in a general hospital does predict who is at greater risk for severe withdrawal.
2. The higher the score the greater the risk that an untreated patient would develop severe withdrawal.
3. The scale can be used as a guide to treatment.
4. Benzodiazepines do appear to prevent complications when given early as determined by a high CIWA-A score.
5. The only limitations to using the CIWA-A in a general hospital were in dealing with patients who were critically
ill (hypoxia, shock or septicemia) or had femur fractures, and thus require special attention.

CIWA-A Evolution

In 1987 Sullivan et al identified that the original CIWA-A had several items that were redundant and by eliminating

4 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

these, it could be more efficient to administer without losing accuracy of assessing the withdrawal severity. They
reviewed data from 137 subjects involved in previous studies in alcohol withdrawal who underwent CIWA-A scoring as
part of the protocol. After analyzing the cases and their scores, he found the items of convulsions, quality of contact,
general hallucinations, flushing, and thought disturbances to be inadequate or redundant, and reassessed the cases
using his revised scale the CIWA-Ar and determined that improved efficacy was achieved without any significant loss
in accuracy. Trained nursing staff could reliably administer this scale in <1 minute. His scale consists of vomiting,
sweats, tremor, anxiety, agitation, tactile disturbances, auditory hallucinations, visual hallucinations, headache, and
clouding of the sensorium, and is the one which is preferred in most hospitals that use assessment scales in the
evaluation of alcohol withdrawal. (See attachment)

CIWA-Ar Used To Guide Treatment

In 1991 Sullivan put his CIWA-Ar to test to see if it not only would help in the assessment of alcohol withdrawal, but
also serve as a guide in the treatment of the condition. He identified that patients receiving fixed-dosing of
benzodiazepines may be over-medicated and thus would benefit from using the CIWA-Ar to help titrate the medication
which is administered in a more appropriate fashion.

Study Design:

The study consisted of retrospectively analyzing the medical record of 117 patients who had been treated for alcohol
withdrawal in the previous 24 months without the use of the CIWA-Ar. This S- (control) group and they were treated
with fixed-dosing of benzodiazepines without criteria for drug administration. The S+ group consisted of 133 patients
treated after the initiation of the scale over the next 24 months, and examined prospectively. They were similar in age,
race, sex, co-morbidities, drinking history, and admitting BAL to the S- group. These patients were evaluated by
trained nurses and the decision on weather or not to treat the patient was made by house staff at Roger Williams
General Hospital (a subsidiary of Brown University), based on their CIWA-Ar scores.

Treatment Protocol:

Patients were evaluated hourly during the initial phases of the withdrawal period, and then as needed with the
CIWA-Ar. If they had a score>10 they received Diazepam 20 mg, or Librium 100 mg orally.

Results:

Total dosage was calculated as diazepam equivalents (DZE). They found that the S+ group required a mean dose of
50 mg, versus the S- group requiring a mean of 75mg. There was a greater proportion of people in the S+ group
receiving low-dose (<20 mg DZE) treatment (44/133) compared with the S- group (25/117). There was no difference
in the rate of complications between the groups, and each had one patient enter the DTs, both of whom had addiction
to medium range benzodiazepines prior to admission.

Conclusions:

From the study it can be concluded that:

1. The CIWA-Ar was an effective guide in directing medication administration.

2. Using the CIWA-Ar led to an improvement in the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy without a difference in
morbidity.
3. When the scale was used, patients with greater dependence, and hence worse withdrawal received greater
amounts of medicine and vice versa. Thus, there was titration of drug administration to therapeutic requirement
in a more appropriate manner when the CIWA-Ar was used.
4. A lower average of medication used in the CIWA-Ar would lead to financial savings without increasing the rate
of complications.
5. The use of the CIWA-Ar scale can also help in writing the appropriate amount of PRN medication.

Guidelines for Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal

The treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal is one that in the past has undergone many studies in the medical
literature, but still the treatments used varied widely among physicians. In1997 Mayo-Smith formulated a working
group on pharmacological management of alcohol withdrawal in order to produce guidelines for the treatment of
alcohol withdrawal. The performed a meta-analysis on 134 articles, which included 65 prospective controlled trials
and 42 different medications, addressing the outcomes they were interested in studying. These outcomes were: (1)
severity of alcohol withdrawal, (2) withdrawal delirium, and (3) seizures from withdrawal, (4) completion of
withdrawal, (5) entry into rehab, (6) adverse effects, and (7) cost.

5 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

Agent of Choice:

They first looked at the agents used in treating alcohol withdrawal. It was determined that the benzodiazepines were
the agent of choice in treating alcohol withdrawal. It appeared that all of the benzodiazepines were equally efficacious
in reducing the signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, but some were preferred over others. They found that the
longer acting agents such as Chlordiazepoxide (Librium) may be more effective in preventing seizures, and also lead
to a smoother withdrawal with less breakthrough or rebound symptoms. These agents also could cause excess
sedation in special populations such as the elderly or those with marked liver disease. The longer-acting agents also
have less potential for abuse than do shorter acting agents such as alprazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam. Several
other agents that have been used in the past in treating withdrawal were also examined:

b -Blockers: There was some evidence that they may reduce the autonomic manifestations of withdrawal, but no
studies showed they conferred any benefit in reducing seizure activity. Delirium is a known side effect of the more
centrally penetrating b -Bs such as propanolol, and in one case lead to improper diagnosis of delirium from alcohol
withdrawal. There were no studies that either proved or disproved this as a class effect among all b -Bs.

Clonidine: Studies did show that Clonidine helped ameliorate the symptoms in mild to moderate withdrawal. There
was no data on the ability to reduce or increase the incidence of delirium or seizures. There is a well-documented
rebound hypertension effect with Clonidine.

Carbamazepine: This is widely used in Europe, and equal in efficacy to barbital and oxazepam in patients with mild to
moderate withdrawal. There was limited data comparing its efficacy in reducing seizures (except in animal studies)
and preventing delirium. There was no abuse potential.

Neuroleptic Agents: They have some effectiveness in reducing signs and symptoms, but less effective than
benzodiazepines in preventing delirium. Furthermore they increase the incidence of seizures No controlled studies
showed their effectiveness in calming patients.

Magnesium: No data showed benefit in reducing signs and symptoms, or reducing seizures and delirium.

Ethyl Alcohol: There have been small case reports of ETOH given orally or IV in preventing withdrawal symptoms
exist, but these are very small and uncontrolled without objective or quantitative assessment of withdrawal severity.
There are also no trials comparing it to benzodiazepines or placebo. IV infusions require very close monitoring and are
very expensive to administer. They are associated with tissue damage at the infusion site, and has well known and
severe side effects and toxicity. They furthermore are counterintuitive in the treatment of alcohol abuse for the
hospitalized patient.

Thiamin: It is useful in preventing Wernike-Korsakoff syndrome, but does not reduce delirium or seizures.

Timing of Medication Administration and Determination of Dose:

The working group also examined the studies already mentioned in this paper and others, and found the use of the
CIWA-Ar to be of great importance in treating alcohol withdrawal. They compared the long-time standard of fixed-
dosing of medication to symptom-triggered therapy. They found that symptom triggered therapy, which consists of
giving medication to patients based on symptomatic need, as determined by their CIWA-Ar score, was equally
effective as fixed-dosing.

In 1994 Saitz et al compare symptom triggered therapy with fixed dosing of medications. They randomized 111
patients in a double blinded placebo controlled study to receive either Chlordiazepoxide 50 mg every 6 hours for 4
doses then 25 mg for 8 doses, or placebo on the same schedule (the patients also received additional 25-100 mg if
CIWA-Ar was >8). The placebo group received only the 25-100 mg when CIWA-Ar scores were >8. This group was
also given placebo medication at the above listed fixed schedule. They concluded that patients receiving symptom-
triggered therapy required less medication (mean 100mg vs. 425 mg), and had a shorter duration of medication
treatment (9 hours vs. 68 hours), with no significant increase in complications (seizures, hallucination, or delirium)
during treatment of withdrawal. They also concluded that symptom-triggered therapy did not lead to a worsened
withdrawal severity; therefore, they concluded that fixed-dosing of medication leads to increased intensity of
treatment and prolongs hospital course. They did refer to similar critically ill patients, as previously mentioned in this
paper, that may need special consideration in determining scheduling of therapy due to their condition possibly
confusing their CIWA-Ar scores.

Cost:

They compared the average cost of Chlordiazepoxide 25 mg ($0.033), Diazepam 5 mg ($.071), and lorazepam 1 mg
($0.115). The cost of the longer acting agent is cheaper and is equally efficacious. Also they found that some
practitioners routinely use continuous infusions of short acting agents such as lorazepam, which can result in large
hospital costs. In one study by Hoey, hospital guidelines were established that led practitioners to use

6 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

Chlordiazepoxide whenever it was appropriate in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal. This led to an average cost of
$59.79 where the average cost of treatment before implementing the guidelines was $1008.72 due to physicians
regularly using short acting agents often in infusion form. They had equivalent outcomes and no increase in adverse
effects in their study after the guidelines were implemented. There is no evidence that infusion of short acting agents
provides better outcomes than oral or IV bolus therapy with longer acting agents.

Final Recommendations:

In their paper they put forth the final specific treatment recommendation:

Monitoring:

-Monitor patient every 4-8 hours by means of CIWA-Ar until score has been < 8-10 for 24 hours; use
additional assessments as needed.

-For patients with CIWA-Ar <8-10, supportive non-pharmacologic monitoring is acceptable.

-Patients with CIWA-Ar scores 8-15 benefit from medication thus reducing risk of complications.

-CIWA-Ar scores ≥ 15 have a significant risk of major complications if left untreated.

Symptom Triggered Regimens:

Administer one of the following every hour when the CIWA-Ar ≥ 8-10:

Librium 50-100 mg

Diazepam 10-20 mg

Lorazepam 2-4 mg

Repeat CIWA-Ar 1 hour after every dose to assess need for further medication

Fixed Schedule Regimens:

If necessary to give medication on a fixed schedule then administer one of the following:

Librium 50 mg every 6 hours for 4 doses then 25 mg every 6 hours for 8 doses

Diazepam 10 mg every 6 hours for 4 doses then 5 mg every 6 ours four 8 doses

Lorazepam 2 mg every 6 hours for 4 doses then 1 mg every 6 hours for 8 doses

Provide additional medication as needed CIWA-Ar ≥ 8-10 with above.

Other benzodiazepines may be used at equivalent doses.

The group put forth the following caveats:

1. For patients with a history of withdrawal seizures it is reasonable to provide one of the listed
medications at presentation. It is also reasonable to monitor the patient the patient and provide
symptom-triggered therapy.
2. For patients with severe co-morbidities medication should be considered even if symptoms are mild to
moderate. (This is the group that fixed-dosing may be more appropriate.)
3. b -Blockers, Clonidine, and carbamazepine are not recommended as monotherapy because they do not
reduce delirium or seizures. Neuroleptics should not be used as monotherapy because they do not
reduce delirium and may increase seizures. They may be used in conjunction with benzodiazepines for
marked agitation or severe hallucinations.
4. Routine administration of magnesium is not beneficial.
5. Ethyl alcohol is not recommended due to lack of controlled studies and known adverse events.
6. It is recommended that thiamine be administered to all alcoholics at initial administration.

Conclusion

7 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

Alcohol withdrawal and the complications there of, is a common problem that all internists will be faced with treating in
their career. One of the cornerstones of the Internal medicine program here at Wake Forest University Medical
Center is practicing sound evidence based medicine. We do well in many instances, but in my experience, I have
found that the treatment of alcohol withdrawal is one area where we fall short. We currently do not use a standard
assessment scale, like the CIWA-Ar to evaluate those who present with alcohol withdrawal, nor do we employ the
use of such scales in following their progress throughout the hospital course. We also have no protocols to help
standardize the treatment of alcohol withdrawal in our patients. In this paper I have tried to present clear and
well-documented evidence in favor of using a system of objective assessment to guide medication administration
based on a protocol. Neighboring hospitals are currently using such a system with great success; therefore, in
keeping with our commitment to practice evidence based medicine; I propose the following recommendations:

1. The nursing and medical staff in our institution be educated in the use of the CIWA-Ar scale for scoring the
severity of alcohol withdrawal, as well as the use of guideline based medication administration. This task can
be accomplished in a timely manner by conducting in-service sessions on these issues.
2. The CIWA-Ar be employed to assess all patients who are suspected to be experiencing alcohol withdrawal,
with special attention paid to those who have severe co-morbidities such as severe hypoxia, septicemia, shock,
or femur fractures, due to these patients being at high risk for severe withdrawal, and the fact that their
condition may skew CIWA-Ar scoring.
3. The guide lines for alcohol withdrawal treatment, as put forth by the American Society of Addiction Medicine
Working Group on Pharmacological Management of Alcohol Withdrawal, listed in this paper be put in effect.
Since symptom-triggered therapy is shown to be as effective as fixed dosing, appropriate patients receive this
mode of medication administration.
4. Longer acting benzodiazepines, such as Chlordiazepoxide be preferred in oral or bolus administration over the
shorter acting agents when appropriate.
5. The above recommendations be compiled into an alcohol withdrawal treatment protocol, which can quickly and
easily be initiated upon arrival of the patient at this institution. This protocol after being initiated by the
managing physician can be carried out by the nursing staff until the alcohol withdrawal episode has subsided,
as evidenced by the patient’s CIWA-Ar scores.

By employing the above strategy this institution can manage alcohol withdrawal in a more effective, evidence-based
manner. We also can significantly reduce the costs incurred in treating alcohol withdrawal episodes by reducing
expenditures for medications and by decreasing the duration needed for treatment and thus the length of hospital
stay.

References

1. Saitz R, O’Malley SS. Pharmacotherapies for alcohol abuse. Med Clin N Am. 1997; 81(4): 881-907.

2. Sutton T. Tracts on delirium tremens, London, Thomas Underwood, 1813.

3. Etherington JM. Emergency management of acute alcohol problems part one: Uncomplicated withdrawal. Can
Fam Pyhs. 1996; 42:1052-1160.

4. Turner RC, Lichstein PR, Peden JG. Alcohol withdrawal syndromes: A review of pathophysiology, clinical
presentation, and treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 1989; 4: 432-438.

5. Boston LN. Alcohol withdrawal. Lancet. 1908; 1:18.

6. Ferguson JA, Subezer CJ, Eckert CJ, Zhou XH, Dittus RS. Risk factors for delerium tremens development. J
Gen Intern Med. 1996; 11:410-414.

7. Abraham E, Shoemaker WC, McCartney SF. Cardiorespiratory patterns in severe delirium tremens. Arch
Intern Med. 1985; 145:1057.

8. Victor M, Adams RD. The effect of alcohol on the nervous system. Res Pub Assoc Nerv & Mental Dis. 1953;
32: 526-572.

9. Foy A, Kay J, Taylor A. The course of alcohol withdrawal in a general hospital. QJM. 1997; 90: 253-261.

10. Gross MM, Goodenbough DR, Hester JM, rosenblatt SM, Lewis E. An improved quantitative system for
assessing the acute alcoholic psychosis and related states (TSA and SSA) in Gross MM (ed): Alcohol
intoxication and withdrawal. Experiments, Studies, and Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 35
NY, Planum press, 1973, pp. 365-765.

8 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

11. Shaw JM, Kolesar GS, Sellers EM, Kaplan HL, Sandor P. Development of optimal treatment tactics for alcohol
withdrawal, I: assessment and effectiveness of supportive care. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1981; 8:382-389.

12. Foy A, March S, Drinkwater V. Use of an objective clinical scale in the assessment of alcohol withdrawal on a
large general hospital. Alcoholism: Clin Exp Res. 1988; 12:360-364.

13. Sullivan JT, Sykora K, Schneiderman J, Naranjo CA, Sellers EM. Assessment of alcohol withdrawal: the
revised clinical institute withdrawal assessment for alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar). British Journal of Addiction. 1989;
84: 1353-1357.

14. Sullivan JT, Swift RM, Lewis DC. Benzodiazepine requirements during alcohol withdrawal syndrome: clinical
implications of using a standardized withdrawal scale. J Clin Psychopharm. 1991; 11: 291-295.

15. Mayo-Smith MF. Pharmacological management of alcohol withdrawal: a meta-analysis and evidence based
practice guideline. JAMA. 1997; 278(2): 144-151.

16. Saitz R, Mayo-Smith MF, Roberts MS, Redmond HA, Bernard DR, Calkins DR. Individualized treatment for
alcohol withdrawal. JAMA. 1994; 272(7): 519-523.

17. Hoey LL, Nahum A, Vance-Bryan K. A prospective evaluation of benzodiazepine guidelines in management of
patients hospitalized for alcohol withdrawal. Pharmacotherpy. 1994; 14(5): 579-585.

18. Hoey LL, Nahum A, Vance-Bryan K. A retrospective review and assessment of benzodiazepines in the
treatment of alcohol withdrawal in hospitalized patients. Pharmacotherapy. 1994; 14(5): 572-578.

Attachments

9 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

10 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56
Alcohol Withdrawal: Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment http://intmedweb.wfubmc.edu/grand_rounds/2001/alcohol.html

11 de 11 16-02-2009 14:56