Hypermed’s Patent-Pending Advanced Rapid Opiate Detox Protocol: Stopping Addiction in 8 Hours Without Withdrawal and Without Relapse

This entry was posted in Rapid Detox on by .

Market of Rapid Opiate Detox Treatment

  • 70,000 Americans die every year from opiate-related drug overdose.
  • Las Vegas Rapid Detox Clinic uses patent-pending technique to stop opiate addiction in just 8 hours, without withdrawal or relapse.
  • We have treated 645 patients without complications since 2007.

Rapid Detox Clinic

We Often Are on First Page on Google and YouTube

Our websites, www.saferapiddetox.com often can be found on the first page of Google and YouTube when searching the key words: “rapid detox”

Patent-Pending Advanced Rapid Opiate Detox (AROD) Protocol

Special Features of protocol:

  • 8 hours of treatment, longer and more thorough than any other protocol; patients wake up with no withdrawal.
  • Utilizing FDA-approved medication Vivitrol, long-acting opiate antagonist, lasting 30 days, to prevent relapse.
  • Monitoring the brain waves and brain metabolism during the procedure to ensure patient safety

Published Articles on Rapid Detox

“Rapid Opioid Detoxification during General Anesthesia, A Review of 20 Patients”

Carl G. Gold, M.D., M.A.,* David J. Cullen, M.D., M.S.,†
Anesthesiology 1999; 91:1639–47

Background: Opioid addiction therapy includes successful detoxification, rehabilitation, and sometimes methadone maintenance. However, the patient may have physical, mental, and emotional pain while trying to achieve abstinence. A new detoxification technique that incorporates general anesthesia uses a high-dose opioid antagonist to compress detoxification to within 6 h while avoiding the withdrawal.

Methods: After Institutional Review Board approval and detailed informed consent, 20 patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists status I–II, addicted to various opioids underwent anesthesia-assisted rapid opioid detoxification. After baseline hemodynamics and withdrawal scores were obtained, anesthesia was induced. After testing with 0.4 mg intravenous naloxone, 4 mg nalmefene, was infused over 2 to 3 h. After emergence, severity of withdrawal was scored before and after administration of 0.4 mg intravenous naloxone. After 24 h, patients began outpatient follow-up treatment while taking oral naltrexone.

Results: All 20 patients were successfully detoxified with no adverse anesthetic events. After the first post-treatment test dose of 0.4 mg naloxone, 13 of 20 patients had no signs of withdrawal and hemodynamic changes were minimal. Withdrawal scores were always very low and similar before and after detoxification. Three of 17 patients (18%) available for follow-up have remained abstinent from opioids since treatment (< 18 months). Four other patients are clean after brief re- lapses.

“Rapid detoxification from opioid dependence under general anaesthesia versus standard methadone tapering: abstinence rates and withdrawal distress experiences”

PAUL KRABBE, KONING , NADIA HEINEN , ROBERT LAHEIJ , RM VICTORY VAN 1Department of Medical Technology Assessment University Medical Centre Nijmegen Nijmegen The Netherlands
Addiction Biology – Volume 8 Issue 3 Page 351-358, September 2003

The aim of this work was to study abstinence rates and withdrawal effects of rapid detoxification of opioid-dependents under general anaesthesia (RD-GA) compared to standard methadone tapering (SMT) using a prospective clinical trial with a follow-up of 3 months. Thirty opioid-dependent patients took part. Outcome measures included urine toxicology screening for opiates to determine abstinence and presence of objective and subjective opioid withdrawal distress symptoms.

Statistically significant differences in abstinence rate between RD-GA and SMT were present after one (RD-GA 100% vs. SMT 40%, p <0.01) and 2 months (RD-GA 93% vs. SMT 33%, p <0.01). After 3 months the difference in abstinence was still substantial, but no longer statistically significant (RD-GA 67% vs. SMT 33%, p =0.14). Objective and subjective withdrawal symptoms showed largely identical outcomes and were equally low in the two groups for those who remained in the study. There was a considerably higher percentage of abstinence in the RD-GA group after 1, 2 and 3 months of follow-up accompanied by relatively mild withdrawal symptoms of shorter duration. However, if one completes SMT the data suggest a greater chance of staying clean in the long term than those completing RD-GA.

Rapid and Ultrarapid Opioid Detoxification Techniques

Patrick G. O’Connor, MD, MPH; Thomas R. Kosten, MD

JAMA. 1998;279:229-234.

Data Synthesis.— A qualitative analysis was performed on the 12 studies of RD and the 9 studies of URD identified in our search. The RD studies enrolled 641 subjects (range for individual studies, 1-162): 7 were inpatient studies, and the protocols varied considerably, as did the outcomes assessed. Three RD studies included a control group, 2 used a randomized design, and 3 reported outcomes beyond 12 days. The URD studies enrolled 424 subjects (range for individual studies, 6-300): all were inpatient studies, the detoxification and anesthesia protocols varied, 3 included a control group, 2 used a randomized design, and 2 reported outcomes for URD beyond 7 days.

Anesthesia-Assisted vs Buprenorphine- or Clonidine-Assisted Heroin Detoxification and Naltrexone Induction: A Randomized Trial

Collins et al.
JAMA 2005;294:903-913.  

Methods of Detoxification and Their Role in Treating Patients With Opioid Dependence

JAMA 2005;294:961-963.  

The Use of Dexmedetomidine to Facilitate Opioid and Benzodiazepine Detoxification in an Infant

Finkel and Elrefai
Anesth. Analg. 2004;98:1658-1659.

Complications of Ultrarapid Opioid Detoxification with Subcutaneous Naltrexone Pellets

Hamilton et al.
Acad. Emerg. Med. 2002;9:63-68.

Rapid Heroin Detoxification Under General Anesthesia

Laheij et al.
JAMA 2000;283:1143-1143.

Neurobiological Adaptations to Psychostimulants and Opiates as a Basis of Treatment Development

Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2000;909:51-87.

Rapid Opioid Detoxification

Gevirtz et al.
JAMA 1998;279:1871-1872.

U.S. Patent Filed and Pending Approval