Transfusion · 2013
Intravascular immune hemolysis caused by the contrast medium iomeprol.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mayer Beate, Leo Albrecht, Herziger Angela, Houben Philipp, Schemmer Peter, Salama Abdulgabar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Immune-mediated hemolysis is not included in the list of adverse reactions related to contrast medium (CM). Here, we report on a patient who developed immune hemolytic anemia (IHA) related to iomeprol, a nonionic CM.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A 34-year-old female patient developed massive hemolysis during infusion of 50 mL of iomeprol. Serologic studies were performed using standard techniques.
RESULTS: Before hemolysis, the patient's serum was weakly positive with e+ red blood cells (RBCs; autoanti-e) and the direct antiglobulin test (DAT) was negative. After hemolysis, the patient's serum samples became significantly reactive with e- RBCs in the presence of iomeprol but not in the presence of two other similar CM. The DAT became strongly positive only with anti-C3d.
CONCLUSION: Initially, an allergic reaction was suggested, and as the hemolysis became obvious, a toxic hemolysis was suspected. However, serologic reexamination revealed an iomeprol-dependent antibody. IHA related to CM has yet only been described in one patient in 1991. The hemolysis in that patient was related to Isopaque, an older ionic CM. Here, we describe an additional patient and recommend that CM should be considered as a rare risk in the development of IHA.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A 34-year-old female patient developed massive hemolysis during infusion of 50 mL of iomeprol. Serologic studies were performed using standard techniques.
RESULTS: Before hemolysis, the patient's serum was weakly positive with e+ red blood cells (RBCs; autoanti-e) and the direct antiglobulin test (DAT) was negative. After hemolysis, the patient's serum samples became significantly reactive with e- RBCs in the presence of iomeprol but not in the presence of two other similar CM. The DAT became strongly positive only with anti-C3d.
CONCLUSION: Initially, an allergic reaction was suggested, and as the hemolysis became obvious, a toxic hemolysis was suspected. However, serologic reexamination revealed an iomeprol-dependent antibody. IHA related to CM has yet only been described in one patient in 1991. The hemolysis in that patient was related to Isopaque, an older ionic CM. Here, we describe an additional patient and recommend that CM should be considered as a rare risk in the development of IHA.