4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Lead, Mercury, and Arsenic Poisoning Due to Topical Use of Traditional Chinese Medicines

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 126, Issue 5, Pages 451-454

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.01.001

Keywords

Arsenic poisoning; Chinese mineral medicine; Dermal exposure; Heavy metals; Lead poisoning; Mercury poisoning; Peripheral neuropathy; Topical

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Metal poisonings through a mucocutaneous route are reported rarely in the literature. METHODS: We report 2 cases of heavy metal intoxication from inappropriate use of Chinese mineral medicines confirmed by toxicologic investigations. RESULTS: A 51-year-old man developed perianal gangrene and a high fever after a 2-week anal use of hong-dan herbal mixtures for anal fistula. He presented gastrointestinal and constitutional symptoms, followed by skin rash, anemia, hair loss, peripheral neuropathy, and muscle atrophy. Elevated urine arsenic and mercury confirmed the heavy metal poisonings. The hong-dan mixture contained lead tetraoxide, arsenic, and mercury. He was treated with 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid, with partial improvement, but peripheral neuropathy persists 4 years later. A 75-year-old man developed anorexia, weight loss, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, weakness, and anemia after a 3-month use of an herbal patch for chronic leg ulcer. His blood lead concentration was 226 mu g/dL,and the lead content of the herbal patch was 517 mg/g. Chelation with ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid and dimercaptosuccinic acid was followed by clinical recovery. CONCLUSION: These cases documented serious systemic poisoning after the short-term use of traditional Chinese medicines containing heavy metals in damaged or infected tissue. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc. The American Journal of Medicine (2013) 126, 451-454

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available