[Effectiveness of oral versus parenteral iron substitution in autologous blood donors].

E. Schindler,S. Scholz,J. Boldt,B. Zickmann,C. Knothe,G. Dietrich,G. Hempelmann

1994-08-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE Is intravenous iron therapy as efficient as oral iron supplementation in patients undergoing autologous blood donation? DESIGN Prospective, randomized study. PATIENTS AND SETTING 30 male and 30 female patients, separated into two groups were examined prior to total hip replacement. INTERVENTIONS Patients of group O were given 6 x 50 mg Fe2+ aspartate/day orally, and patients of group P were given 0.75 mg/kg BW complex-bound Fe3+ once a week by infusion. In both groups therapy was started two weeks prior to the first donation. The substitution was continued the following six weeks until surgery. Hemoglobin, ferritin plasma concentrations and reticulocytes were monitored. The appearance of unwanted side effects was studied by questionnaire. RESULTS Hb decreased significantly in both groups. A difference was seen in the reticulocyte count and in the ferritin levels. Here we found a significant increase in group P compared with group O. 40% of the patients who took the iron orally complained about unwanted side effects such as obstipation and diarrhoea, whereas none of the patients of the parenteral group had any complaints. CONCLUSIONS Stimulation of the erythropoiesis appeared to be more efficient with intravenous iron therapy than with oral iron supplementation. The oral dose has in about 40% unwanted side effects. For this reason a parenteral iron therapy can be considered, but one must be aware that in some cases dangerous anaphylactic reactions could appear.