MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044060616 · doi:10.1177/0148607110361906

Aluminum Contamination of Parenteral Nutrition Fluids

2010· article· en· W2044060616 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jay M. Mirtallo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompoundingAluminiumParenteral nutritionContaminationMedicineToxicityPharmacyIntensive care medicineMaterials sciencePharmacologyMetallurgyInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Those ordering and preparing PN should be aware of the potential for aluminum contaminants in these products. The compounding pharmacy may wish to develop a database of the aluminum content of products used in preparation of PN. Clinicians may want to purchase equivalent products that have the lowest aluminum content and monitor changes in the pharmaceutical market that affects aluminum concentrations. All healthcare providers involved with PN should attempt to limit aluminum exposure in at risk patients. Patient monitoring of aluminum toxicity may not be possible or reliable in many clinical settings. Since the FDA rule, we have learned more about aluminum in PN fluids as well as other sources of aluminum in patients receiving parenteral therapy. In PN, calcium and phosphate salts as well as cysteine hydrochloride are major contributors to the overall aluminum content in adult and neonatal formulations.3,7 Using the labeled amount of aluminum in PN products to estimate aluminum content, Driscoll and Driscoll8 found that it is virtually impossible to prepare a PN that is less than the FDA limit of 5 µg/kg/d and meet the nutritional needs of the patient. Speerhas and Seidner9 found that the measured content of aluminum was 7–10 times lower than that estimated from the product labels. However, the amount of aluminum in all of the neonatal and pediatric solutions tested exceeded the FDA limits whereas only 2 of the adult formulations exceeded the limit. Canada10 reviewed the studies of aluminum contamination in PN fluids and found that those prepared in other countries had less aluminum than those prepared in the United States. The lower aluminum content was attributed to the use of an organic phosphorus source that contains less aluminum than the inorganic salts used in the United States. The organic phosphorus is also more compatible with calcium chloride, which has lower aluminum content than the gluconate salt. Canada also reported on the success in Germany by Frey and Maier11 in reducing aluminum concentration by 96% as the result of repackaging calcium gluconate from glass containers to polyethylene vials. This reduced the daily intake of pediatric patients receiving PN from a range of 30–40 µg/kg/d down to 2–3 µg/kg/d. Bohrer et al7,12,13 and de Oliveira et al14 provide further credence to the FDA rule and remind us that aluminum continues to be a concern that should be addressed. In previous publications, this group demonstrated that aluminum in commercial products was present in the raw materials of the product but the amount did not fully explain the entire content of aluminum measured.7 This group also determined that the amount of aluminum leached from glass containers with rubber closures is a significant contributor to aluminum present in parenteral products.12,13 In their article published in this issue of JPEN, de Oliveira et al14 demonstrate that product manipulation during preparation and the products used for parenteral administration contribute significantly to the amount of aluminum infused to neonates. All steps involved in the preparation and administration of intravenous solutions for premature infants were assessed for potential contribution to the daily aluminum load being administered. Commercial products used in PN preparation, injectable medications, and products used in packaging and administering parenteral products (bags, burettes, syringes, and administration sets) were contaminated with aluminum. Although commercial products were the main source of aluminum, product manipulation, containers, and administration sets increased aluminum levels by 40%. This is a substantial amount of aluminum not originally considered in the FDA rule. Neonates are the patient population most likely to be adversely affected by aluminum loads infused in parenteral therapy. In the United States, calcium and phosphorus intakes need to be eliminated or substantially decreased below nutritional needs for neonates in order to limit the aluminum load presented by PN. An alternative to reducing aluminum loads to neonates is to not administer PN because the aluminum content of PN prepared in the United States is too high. These are not acceptable options to clinicians caring for neonates. Aluminum is present in all products used in parenteral therapy. Even though PN contributes the majority of aluminum that is infused, drug products, administration sets, and product manipulation will also influence the final amount of aluminum infused on a daily basis. The new information provided by de Oliveira et al14 reinforces the recommendation that clinicians have a heightened awareness of aluminum contamination of parenteral products ordered and administered in their daily practice. Ingredients with the lowest amount of aluminum should be used in the preparation of PN. The use of products packaged in glass containers with rubber closures should be avoided. We as clinicians should insist that small-volume parenterals be packaged in polyethylene containers. Finally, it may be time to partner with manufacturers to bring to the U.S. market organic phosphorus products for PN compounding like those that have allowed our European colleagues to substantially limit the amount of aluminum contamination in their PN fluids.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral NutritionSame topicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animalsFrench-language works237,207