The Role of Chelation in the Treatment of Other Metal Poisonings.

These proceedings will review the role of chelation in five metals—aluminum, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, and uranium—in order to illustrate various chelation concepts. The process of “chelation” can often be oversimplified, leading to incorrect assumptions and risking patient harm. For chelation to be effective, two critical assumptions must be fulfilled: the presumed “metal toxicity” must correlate with a given body or a particular compartment burden, and reducing this compartmental or the body burden (through chelation) attenuates toxicity. Fulfilling these assumptions requires an established dose–response relationship, a validated, reproducible means of toxicity assessment (clinical, biochemical, or radiographical), and an appropriate assessment mechanisms of body or compartment burden. While a metal might “technically” be capable of chelation (and readily demonstrable in urine or feces), this is an insufficient endpoint. Clinical relevance must be affirmed. Deferoxamine is an accepted chelator for appropriately documented aluminum toxicity. There is a very minimal treatment window in order to address chelation in cadmium toxicity. In acute toxicity, while no definitive chelation benefit is described, succimer (DMSA), diethylenetriaminepentaacetate (DTPA), and potentially ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) have been considered. In chronic toxicity, chelation is unsupported. There is little evidence to suggest that currently available chromium chelators are efficacious. Similarly, scant human evidence exists with which to provide recommendation for cobalt chelation. DTPA has been recommended for cobalt radionuclide chelation, although DMSA, EDTA, and N-acetylcysteine have also been suggested. DTPA is unsupported for uranium chelation. Sodium bicarbonate is currently recommended, although animal evidence is conflicting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]