Let’s Talk Science: The Research Behind ReadyRESCUE™

Let’s Talk Science: The Research Behind ReadyRESCUE™

Welcome to a deep dive into the science behind ReadyRESCUE™, our revolutionary product designed to safeguard your pet when they’ve ingested something harmful. At the heart of ReadyRESCUE™ is a commitment to safety and efficacy, upheld by a team of distinguished professionals, including our CEO, a board-certified veterinary surgeon, and esteemed advisors specializing in anesthesia, critical care, internal medicine, toxicology, and pharmacology. Our approach is rooted in rigorous medical research, ensuring every aspect of ReadyRESCUE™ meets the highest standards of veterinary care.

The effectiveness of ReadyRESCUE™ can be likened to its active ingredients used in medical dialysis tubing. Much like how dialysis removes toxins from the blood in patients who have absorbed harmful substances, ReadyRESCUE™ employs a similar level of purity and precision to protect your pets from ingested toxins. This comparison underscores the exceptional quality and scrutiny behind our product, setting a new standard far beyond typical oral activated charcoal solutions. Together, let’s explore the science and research that make ReadyRESCUE™ a trusted ally for all pet owners.

What research supports ReadyRESCUE™? 

ReadyRESCUE™ is an advanced form of activated charcoal that is more compact, cleaner and easier to administer. The research that supports activated charcoal use is the research that we use to justify ReadyRESCUE™ and position it as a truly life saving product. There has been extensive research in human and veterinary medicine that supports the use of activated charcoal for various toxicities. There is also extensive research in human and veterinary medicine that indicate that 1) Vomiting is an inconsistent method of gastric decontamination, and 2) The key to preventing the harmful effects of toxin ingestion lies in quickly intervening soon after the exposure. This consistent and timely intervention is precisely what ReadyRESCUE™ uniquely offers.

Let's explore the facts behind ReadyRESCUE™. Below, we review a series of key assertions about our product, each followed by supporting evidence from relevant literature, affirming the reliability and effectiveness of ReadyRESCUE™.

Our Assertion: The time gap between exposure to a toxin and the start of treatment is crucial in determining how effective gastric decontamination will be.

Literature in support: Literature below supports that as you lengthen the time between intoxication and treatment, more toxin is absorbed by the body.

  • Abdallah Tye et al (1967) - 0.3 mg/kg Apomorphine administered at 0, 30 and 60 minutes post toxin ingestion reduced serum plasma levels of toxins by 78, 64, and 25% respectively (at 1 hour post ingestion efficacy of treatment drops by 2/3).
  • Bond et al (1989) - Clinical evaluation of children treated for Acetaminophen overdose. Serum levels for children treated prior to 30 min, between 30 and 60 min, 60-90 min, and 90 and 120 min were 50%, 53%, 40%, and 22%, no difference when compared to untreated.

Our Assertion: Making an animal vomit is not as effective as giving activated charcoal.

Literature in support: The literature below supports the conclusion that making animals vomit to remove ingested poison, has an inconsistent result- and when it does work it does not eliminate the majority of the toxin.

  • Abdallah Tye et al (1967) - Apomorphine @ 0.15 mg/kg (recommended dose 0.04 mg/kg) resulted in recovery of only 54% of barium administered prior to treatment. 
  • Tandberg and Murphy (1989) - Emesis induced 10 minutes after gastric tracer administration, only recovered 47% of the tracer.
  • Kahn et al (2012) - When H2O2 is administered to induce emesis in dogs, recovery of an intoxicant only occurs in 60% of animals, and when it occurs only 45% recovered. 
  • Corby et al (1968) - Study in children showed Apomorphine and Ipecac recovered 31% and 28% respectively when administered for treatment of intoxication.
  • Tenenbein et al, Annals of emergency Medicine, 1987 - Activated charcoal administration is 50% and 78% more effective than inducing emesis and gastric lavage for prevention of ampicillin absorption (in experimental model of toxicity).
  • Hojer et al, Clinical Toxicology (2013), systematic review of literature - Making a subject vomit before AC administration can reduce effectiveness of AC administration (by delaying administration by 1-2 hours).
  • Vale JA, American Academy of clinical toxicology (1997) - Statement by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists Position Statement - “Gastric lavage should not be considered unless a patient has ingested a potentially life-threatening amount of a poison and the procedure can be undertaken within 60 minutes of ingestion. Even then, clinical benefit has not been confirmed in controlled studies.”
  • Kulig et al, Annals of Emergency Medicine (1985) - Found no benefit to ipecac-induced emesis plus activated charcoal over activated charcoal alone. In fact, aspiration pneumonia was more common in patients receiving combined treatment. 
  • Merigian et al, American Journal of Emergency Medicine (1990) - Gastric emptying with activated charcoal vs. activated charcoal alone, showed that gastric emptying plus activated charcoal failed to show benefit and these patients were more likely to have been admitted to the ICU and to have suffered aspiration pneumonia.
  • Excerpts from Heard et al, Medical Clinics of North America (2005)
    • The “effect [of emesis] is highly time dependent and is unlikely to be clinically relevant beyond 30 minutes post-ingestion.“
    • “No studies demonstrate that the use of ipecac in the treatment of acute poisoning changes clinical outcome. Several studies have shown that ipecac use may result in complications and prolonged [Emergency Department] course…this author believes that ipecac has no role in the routine management of acutely poisoned patients.”
    • Gastric lavage is likely not beneficial after 60 minutes.
    • “Studies report no benefit when [Gastric Lavage] is added to [Activated Charcoal]  in the management of undifferentiated acute poisoning patients”

Our Assertion: Activated charcoal has been proven effective through extensive research and practical application, consistently demonstrating its ability to bind and neutralize various toxins effectively.

Literature in support: There have been textbooks written about the effectiveness of activated charcoal for gastric decontamination. 

  • Zellner et al, Dtsch Arztebl Int (2019) - Administration of activated charcoal is indicated to treat moderately severe to life-threatening intoxication. It should be carried out as soon as possible, within the first hour of the ingestion; timed-release preparations can be given up to 6 hours after the ingestion.
  • Hoegberg et al, Clinical Toxicology (2021) - A large review of the literature
    • 296 human studies, 118 animal studies and 145 in vitro studies
    • Evaluating whether activated charcoal improved clinical outcome and improve survival in cases of intoxication
    • Various Important Findings of Studies
      • Acetaminophen
        • When AC administration was 5:1 the amount of acetaminophen ingestion, absorption was nearly 100%. (60 tablets per 30g vial)
        • Absorption is 122-720 mg/g charcoal
        • AC was instrumental in improving outcome in patients that received Acetaminophen overdoses compared with no treatment when administered within 4 hours of ingestion.
      • Antidepressants and antipsychotics
        • Heart arrhythmias were reduced by 
          • 60% if administered within 1 hr of ingestion (citalopram)
          • 20% if administered within 4 hours of ingestion (citalopram)
          • 35% reduction in QT prolongation (escitalopram)
        • Intubation
          • If given within 2 hours of overdose, AC reduced the incidence of patients needing intubation (Quetiapine)
      • Barbiturates
        • AC absorbs 200-400 mg/g of phenobarbitol
        • Barbiturates are well absorbed by AC
        • AC absorbed 97% of barbiturate when administered 5 min after intoxication and 57% when delayed by 1 hour
        • Oral AC removed 25-53% of injected barbiturates in one study
      • Carbamazapine (anti epileptic)
        • Significantly reduced serum levels when adminsiered oral AC. Also found that PEG reduced efficacy of AC
      • Digoxin
        • High absorption capacity of AC for digoxin
          • 98% reduction when given 5 min after ingestion vs. 40% when one hour after ingestion
        • ABle to pull digoxin out of blood when administered IV (and AC orally). Reduced half life by 26%
      • Oral Anticoagulants
        • Amount of anticoagulant absorbed was reduced by 51 and 26% when administered 2 and 6 hours after intoxication.
          • Half lives reduced by 60 and 63% 
        • Another study showed a reduction of anticoagulant of 43%, 31% and 29% for AC administered 2, 5, and 8hr after intoxication.
      • Ethanol
        • As expected, no effects
      • Salicylates
        • Absorption of salicylic acid with AC is approximately 550mg/g
      • Theophylline and aminophylline
        • Absorption capacity of AC was shown to be 203-282 mg/g
        • Significantly reduced absorption of theophylline when administered 30 or 60 min after ingestion (51-75% reduction respectively). 
      • TCAs (Tricyclic antidepressants)
        • Absorption capacity of AC was shown to be 500-790 mg/g
    • Window of administration
      • Efficacy up to 4 hours after administration in general
      • But papers also discussed delayed gastric emptying in patients that were poisoned. 
    • Animal studies included in the review (118)
      • Sorbitol and mannitol significantly reduced the adsorption of acetaminophen dogs treated with AC. 
      • Sorbitol did not help reduce the absorption of carprofen in the dog when combined with AC
    • Side Effects
      • Nausea was a common side effect in human patients that did NOT receive AC. 

Independent literature in support of the use of activated charcoal for various intoxicants (this is not an exhaustive list)

  • Grapes and Raisins: Current proposed toxin is tartaric acid
    • Tartaric acid is adsorbed by activated charcoal and adsorption is improved in acidic environments. (Kahn et al, Pak. j. sci. indores., 1994)
    • 1 g of activated charcoal adsorbs up to 0.3g of tartaric acid. Experimental study that studied 6 different activated charcoals. (Mourgoues et al, Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, 1995)
    • Tartaric acid is adsorbed by activated charcoal. (Bartell and Miller, Adsorption by activated sugar charcoal, 1923)
  • Tylenol/acetaminophen
    • Activated charcoal administration within 1hr of Acetaminophen administration was nearly 100% effective at preventing absorption by the body when administered in a 5:1 ratio. (Wilson et al, Journal of Vet Emerg Critical Care, 2013 )
  • Anticoagulants
    • Anticoagulant absorption reduced by 43%, 31% and 29% when activated charcoal administered 2, 5, and 8 hours after ingestion (Ollier et al, Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 2017) 
  • NSAIDS (carprofen)
    • In a canine experimental study when 120mg/kg Carprofen was administered, activated charcoal at 1 hour reduced absorption by 46% (Koenigshof et al, JVECC, 2015) 
  • Methylxanthines
    • Significantly reduced absorption of Theophylline when administered 30 to 60 min after ingestion (51-75% reduction respectively)- (Lapatto et al, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2001 and Helliwell et al, J Int Med Res, 1981)
  • Antihistamines
    • In a canine study, the antihistamine Chlorpheniramine was found to be almost completely adsorbed by activated charcoal when administered in a 10:1 ratio, preventing plasma accumulation (Chin et al, Toxicol Appl. Pharmacol, 1970)
  • Prozac
    • In a humane experimental study of the effects of activated charcoal administration shortly after Fluoxetine administration, there was a 96% adsorption of the drug onto AC (Laine et al, Pharmacol. Toxicol., 1996).
  • Antibiotic: Ampicillin
    • Human experimental study comparing decontamination of ampicillin overdose using three different methods, orogastric lavage, Ipecac and activated charcoal. Reduction in ampicillin was 32%, 38% and 57% respectively - activated charcoal was considerably more effective. (Tenenbein et al, Annals of emergency Medicine, 1987)

Our Assertion: ReadyRESCUE™ is safe to administer even if intoxication is only suspected and the owner is not certain it has occurred.

Literature in support: Pre-hospitalization administration of activated charcoal is safe.

  • Human study showed that pre-hospitalization of activated charcoal for intoxications was safe (Villarreal et al, American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2014)
  • Activated Carbon has GRAS approval by the FDA which means it is Generally Recognized As Safe. This is a designation given only to the molecules that are considered the safest active ingredients by the FDA.

Assertion: Administering activated charcoal along with food does not clinically impact its ability to effectively absorb toxins. 

Literature in support: The literature below supports the conclusion that although activated charcoal will bind to any food it is administered with, it does not impact the overall effectiveness of detoxification. 

  • This paper investigates how effective activated charcoal is in the presence of dog food. In real-world scenarios, pets that have ingested toxins might also have food in their stomachs, which could potentially affect the charcoal’s ability to absorb these poisons. (Wilson et al, Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 2013)
    • The study was conducted in a controlled lab environment (in vitro), meaning it was not performed on living animals but instead aimed to replicate the conditions inside a dog’s stomach after eating. The researchers mixed activated charcoal with several common toxins, both in the presence and absence of dog food. They examined the charcoal’s ability to bind with these substances and compared the results between the two setups.
    • The findings showed that the addition of dog food only reduced the amount of toxin that was bound to the charcoal by 3.4%. This is important for pet owners and veterinary practitioners to note because in a real life intoxication scenario, such a small degree of reduced efficacy is negligible and would not truly reduce the effectiveness of the charcoal treatment. The implication is that when treating a poisoned pet with a charcoal product that is mixed with a food product, the reduction effectiveness of the treatment is not relevant. 


Previous post Next post