Three cases of hemodialysis-associated hypersensitivity reactions.

According to the United States Food and Drug Administration, untoward reactions to capillary hemodialyzers occur at a rate of 3.5 of every 100,000 dialyzers sold. Allergic symptoms immediately after initiation of dialysis consist of burning retrosternal pain, sensation of diffuse heat, cold perspiration, periorbital and facial edema, flushing, laryngeal stridor, bronchial hypersecretion, hypotension, bradycardia, and loss of consciousness. In 1982 Popli et al. reported four patients suffering from such allergic manifestations; three were successfully managed after being taken off dialysis. These investigators thought that inadequate rinsing of cuprammonium cellulose capillary dialyzers was responsible for the reactions, and recommended rinsing the blood compartment with 2 liters of normal saline, and the dialysate compartment with 10 liters of dialysate, both in a single-pass fashion over 20 minutes. Nichols and Platts (1982) (3) reported 15 patients with urticaria, severe bronchospasm, and shock occurring immediately after the blood had been returned from the dialyzer. These authors suggested that the sterilizing agent, ethylene oxide (ETO), was responsible. Poothullil et al. (1975) (4) described a patient with pruritus, severe dyspnea, and hypotension during dialysis. On the basis of a positive skin prick test (dermal reaction to ETO-exposed human albumin) and of antigen-induced histamine release from peripheral leucocytes, these workers suggested that ETO was responsible for the allergic reactions. Marshall et al. (1984) (5) reported that 8.9% of hemodialysis patients had positive skin tests to ETO and that 12.1% were ETO-radioallergosorbent test (RAST) positive.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)