Quality Review
Meet the Q&PS Team
MedicASK Answers
MedicASK Answers Full List
Patient Safety Incident Report
Loss or theft of controlled substances
MedicASK
Files
Drug Discrimination
Question# 955
What is the reasoning / ethics of the Contraindication
"Non-opioid drug overdose/toxicology" under Medical Cardiac Arrest Directive.
As I understand it, patients who are in Cardiac Arrest due to a toxidrome should be transported early (following first rhythm analysis) and would be contraindicated for TOR, UNLESS it's an opiate overdose?
This seems like a case of Drug Discrimination
A retrospective cohort study found that paramedics were unable to distinguish opioid from other causes of overdose.
85% of OA-OHCA cases also had a benzodiazepine or other substance present.
AHA states that survival in OA-OHCA is similar to or greater than that in OHCA with other causes.
These and other similar observations suggest that young age and lack of chronic comorbidities may explain similar or better survival among patients with drug-overdose OHCA
I am curious where this discrimination against a whole drug class arose.
"Non-opioid drug overdose/toxicology" under Medical Cardiac Arrest Directive.
As I understand it, patients who are in Cardiac Arrest due to a toxidrome should be transported early (following first rhythm analysis) and would be contraindicated for TOR, UNLESS it's an opiate overdose?
This seems like a case of Drug Discrimination
A retrospective cohort study found that paramedics were unable to distinguish opioid from other causes of overdose.
85% of OA-OHCA cases also had a benzodiazepine or other substance present.
AHA states that survival in OA-OHCA is similar to or greater than that in OHCA with other causes.
These and other similar observations suggest that young age and lack of chronic comorbidities may explain similar or better survival among patients with drug-overdose OHCA
I am curious where this discrimination against a whole drug class arose.
Answer:
Thank you for raising this important question. I also want to acknowledge that questions about TOR in toxicologic cardiac arrest can create real moral distress, especially when the presentation feels potentially reversible. With that in mind, here are a few key points that may help provide clarity and reassurance.
The directive is based on the principle of reversibility, not on judging or differentiating drug classes.
The Medical Cardiac Arrest Directive lists “non‑opioid drug overdose/toxicology” as a contraindication because many toxicologic arrests require hospital‑based antidotes or therapies that paramedics cannot provide in the field. OBHG companion notes identify toxins broadly as reversible causes where early transport is appropriate.
Historically, opioids were treated differently because paramedics already have access to the primary treatments required: effective ventilation, airway management, high‑quality CPR, and naloxone. These address the immediate life‑threatening physiology of opioid toxicity. In contrast, other toxidromes (e.g., tricyclic antidepressants, calcium‑channel blockers, sodium‑channel blockers) require interventions available only in hospital settings.
Paramedics are currently able to provide all key treatments for opioid‑associated arrest on scene.
In opioid toxicity—whether pure opioid or mixed with today’s common sedative adulterants like benzodiazepines, xylazine, or medetomidine—the mainstay of treatment is the same:
ACLS care
These interventions are most effective when performed on scene, not during transport, which is why the directive emphasizes achieving ACLS goals before moving the patient. If those goals are being met, transporting the patient does not add benefit in cases of isolated opioid-induced arrest.
Polysubstance use does not fundamentally change field management.
You are absolutely right that most opioid‑associated cardiac arrests involve other agents. The AHA reports polysubstance involvement in roughly 85% of opioid‑related OHCAs. But the critical point is that the immediate threats to life—respiratory arrest leading to hypoxia and then cardiac arrest—are still managed in the field with airway support and ACLS. The presence of sedatives does not create a unique reversible pathology that hospitals can rapidly correct during arrest.
So while polysubstance use complicates interpretation, it does not alter the core treatment priorities that paramedics are already delivering.
If a paramedic ever feels uncertain about TOR, they are empowered to transport.
This is an important safeguard. Even when all TOR criteria are met, clinical judgment remains central. If at any time the paramedic feels uncomfortable, feels something is not fitting the expected pattern, or feels transport better aligns with patient interest or their own professional integrity, they are fully supported in continuing resuscitation and transporting.
The opioid vs. non‑opioid distinction reflects older clinical assumptions and is gradually evolving.
Your observation about blurred real‑world distinctions is absolutely valid. The AHA acknowledges that distinguishing opioid overdose from other causes in the field is often difficult and that survival in drug‑related OHCA can be similar—or sometimes better—because these patients are generally younger and healthier.
The current Ontario wording reflects historical decision-making based on available evidence at the time, rather than any intent to treat opioid‑related arrests differently on moral grounds. As evidence and practice evolve, these distinctions may continue to shift.
In summary
The goal of the directive is to ensure that reversible toxicologic arrests receive early transport when hospital-only therapies exist, while avoiding unnecessary and potentially harmful transport when paramedics already provide the definitive interventions (as in opioid-related arrests). Paramedic judgment remains paramount, and discomfort with TOR is always a valid reason to continue resuscitation and transport.
The directive is based on the principle of reversibility, not on judging or differentiating drug classes.
The Medical Cardiac Arrest Directive lists “non‑opioid drug overdose/toxicology” as a contraindication because many toxicologic arrests require hospital‑based antidotes or therapies that paramedics cannot provide in the field. OBHG companion notes identify toxins broadly as reversible causes where early transport is appropriate.
Historically, opioids were treated differently because paramedics already have access to the primary treatments required: effective ventilation, airway management, high‑quality CPR, and naloxone. These address the immediate life‑threatening physiology of opioid toxicity. In contrast, other toxidromes (e.g., tricyclic antidepressants, calcium‑channel blockers, sodium‑channel blockers) require interventions available only in hospital settings.
Paramedics are currently able to provide all key treatments for opioid‑associated arrest on scene.
In opioid toxicity—whether pure opioid or mixed with today’s common sedative adulterants like benzodiazepines, xylazine, or medetomidine—the mainstay of treatment is the same:
- aggressive and effective oxygenation
- airway and breathing support
- high‑quality compressions
ACLS care
These interventions are most effective when performed on scene, not during transport, which is why the directive emphasizes achieving ACLS goals before moving the patient. If those goals are being met, transporting the patient does not add benefit in cases of isolated opioid-induced arrest.
Polysubstance use does not fundamentally change field management.
You are absolutely right that most opioid‑associated cardiac arrests involve other agents. The AHA reports polysubstance involvement in roughly 85% of opioid‑related OHCAs. But the critical point is that the immediate threats to life—respiratory arrest leading to hypoxia and then cardiac arrest—are still managed in the field with airway support and ACLS. The presence of sedatives does not create a unique reversible pathology that hospitals can rapidly correct during arrest.
So while polysubstance use complicates interpretation, it does not alter the core treatment priorities that paramedics are already delivering.
If a paramedic ever feels uncertain about TOR, they are empowered to transport.
This is an important safeguard. Even when all TOR criteria are met, clinical judgment remains central. If at any time the paramedic feels uncomfortable, feels something is not fitting the expected pattern, or feels transport better aligns with patient interest or their own professional integrity, they are fully supported in continuing resuscitation and transporting.
The opioid vs. non‑opioid distinction reflects older clinical assumptions and is gradually evolving.
Your observation about blurred real‑world distinctions is absolutely valid. The AHA acknowledges that distinguishing opioid overdose from other causes in the field is often difficult and that survival in drug‑related OHCA can be similar—or sometimes better—because these patients are generally younger and healthier.
The current Ontario wording reflects historical decision-making based on available evidence at the time, rather than any intent to treat opioid‑related arrests differently on moral grounds. As evidence and practice evolve, these distinctions may continue to shift.
In summary
The goal of the directive is to ensure that reversible toxicologic arrests receive early transport when hospital-only therapies exist, while avoiding unnecessary and potentially harmful transport when paramedics already provide the definitive interventions (as in opioid-related arrests). Paramedic judgment remains paramount, and discomfort with TOR is always a valid reason to continue resuscitation and transport.