rethinkTHC Search
Menu
Study breakdown

Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome Drove 134,000 ER Visits Over Nine Years

ObservationalStrong evidence
The takeaway

Analysis of 248 million ER encounters from 2016-2024 found 134,059 visits for cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, with 13.5% admission rates, affecting mainly young adults (mean age 32) and most commonly treated with haloperidol after ondansetron.

Emergency medicine physicians, gastroenterologists, health system administrators, and cannabis policy researchers.

What the researchers found

CHS accounted for 134,059 of 248,293,507 ED encounters (0.05%). Mean patient age was 32 years. Admission rate remained steady at ~13.5% with mean 3.8-day hospital stay. Ondansetron was the most common treatment (58.7%), followed uniquely by haloperidol (32.6%) rather than the metoclopramide used for gastroparesis and cyclic vomiting.

Why it matters

This is the largest dataset ever analyzed for CHS emergency department visits. The steady admission rate and distinctive treatment patterns (haloperidol for CHS vs. metoclopramide for other vomiting disorders) confirm CHS as a clinically distinct entity requiring different management than other vomiting syndromes.

The numbers in context

248,293,507 total ED encounters. GP: 165,857 (0.07%). CVS: 204,636 (0.08%). CHS: 134,059 (0.05%). CHS mean age: 32. CHS admission rate: ~13.5% (stable). CHS mean LOS: 3.8 days. CHS medications: ondansetron 58.7%, haloperidol 32.6%. All three conditions primarily affected females.

How the study worked

Retrospective cohort study of all ED presentations for gastroparesis, cyclic vomiting syndrome, and CHS from 2016-2024 in the Epic Cosmos database (248 million encounters). ICD-10 codes identified cases. Outcomes included incidence, admission rates, medications, and length of stay.

What this study cannot tell us

ICD-10 coding may undercount CHS (misdiagnosed as CVS) or overcount it (coding errors). Epic Cosmos captures only participating health systems. Cannot determine cannabis use patterns or product types. Admission rates and treatments reflect clinical practice variation, not evidence-based guidelines.

How to read the evidence

Massive national dataset with nine years of data, providing robust epidemiologic estimates despite ICD-10 coding limitations.

When this study was published

Published 2025, analyzing 2016-2024 Epic Cosmos data.

The bigger picture

The emergence of CHS as a condition generating over 134,000 ED visits in less than a decade underscores the real-world health burden of heavy cannabis use. The distinctive haloperidol treatment pattern reflects clinical learning about what actually works for CHS versus other vomiting disorders.

Questions still open

  • Whether CHS incidence is increasing over this period as cannabis access expands
  • Why haloperidol is effective for CHS but not for gastroparesis or cyclic vomiting

Common questions

Why is haloperidol used for CHS but not other vomiting conditions?
Haloperidol (an antipsychotic) appears to be uniquely effective for CHS-related vomiting, likely because CHS involves different neurochemical pathways than gastroparesis or cyclic vomiting. Standard anti-nausea drugs like metoclopramide are less effective for CHS.
How common is CHS compared to other vomiting disorders?
CHS was slightly less common than gastroparesis (0.05% vs. 0.07% of all ER visits) and cyclic vomiting syndrome (0.08%). However, CHS had the youngest patient population (mean age 32 vs. 45 for gastroparesis) and shortest hospital stays (3.8 vs. 5.8 days).

Read the original research

Presentations to United States emergency departments for gastroparesis, cyclic vomiting, and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome from 2016 to 2024.

The American journal of emergency medicine, 96, 201-207

Citation

Shalaby, Michael; Moyer, Eric; Buell, Kevin G; Bernard, Kyle; Gottlieb, Michael. (2025). Presentations to United States emergency departments for gastroparesis, cyclic vomiting, and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome from 2016 to 2024.. The American journal of emergency medicine, 96, 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.06.067

Explore the wider topic