Advertisement

Factors influencing magnesium infusions in hematopoietic cell transplants

  • Michael S. Gin
  • Todd W. CanadaEmail author
Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

We read with interest the comparison of intravenous (IV) short (mean 2.07 g/h; actual 0.8–6 g/h) vs. prolonged (0.5 g/h) magnesium sulfate infusions in hospitalized autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) patients [1]. These different rates of magnesium infusion showed no significant improvement in the percentage of days in the therapeutic serum magnesium range of 2–2.7 mg/dL. This was also similarly seen in an outpatient allogeneic HCT population comparing 4 g/h vs. 4 g/2 h with lower magnesium doses (median 2.2 vs. 2.9 g/day, respectively) needed over the shorter infusion duration of 1 h [2].

The short magnesium infusion group had a mean hospital length of stay of 24.4 days with 6.2 days of magnesium repletion totaling 21.4 g received compared to the prolonged magnesium infusion group staying 29 days in the hospital with 7.2 days of magnesium repletion totaling 22.5 g received. The magnesium dosing and treatment threshold for hypomagnesemia was...

Notes

Authorship

Authors had access to the data and participated in writing the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ku PM, Waller JL, Sportes C, Clemmons AB (2018) Prolonged versus short infusion rates for intravenous magnesium sulfate administration in hematopoietic cell transplant patients. Support Care Cancer 26:2809–2814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Snyder M, Shillingburg A, Newton M, Hamadani M, Kanate AS, Craig M, Cumpston A (2016) Impact of intravenous magnesium infusion rate during ambulatory replacements on serum magnesium concentrations after allogeneic stem cell transplant. Support Care Cancer 24:4237–4240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shechter M, Hod H, Chouraqui P, Kaplinsky E, Rabinowitz B (1995) Magnesium therapy in acute myocardial infarction when patients are not candidates for thrombolytic therapy. Am J Cardiol 75:321–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raghu C, Peddeswara Rao P, Seshagiri Rao D (1999) Protective effect of intravenous magnesium in acute myocardial infarction following thrombolytic therapy. Int J Cardiol 71:209–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rasmussen HS, McNair P, Norregard P, Backer V, Lindeneg O, Balslev S (1986) Intravenous magnesium in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1(8475):234–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Woods KL, Fletcher S, Roffe C, Haider Y (1992) Intravenous magnesium sulphate in suspected acute myocardial infarction: results of the second Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial (LIMIT-2). Lancet 339:1553–1558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Furlanetto TW, Faulhaber GA (2011) Hypomagnesemia and proton pump inhibitors: below the tip of the iceberg. Arch Intern Med 171:1391–1392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamill-Ruth RJ, McGory R (1996) Magnesium repletion and its effect on potassium homeostasis in critically ill adults: results of a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med 24:38–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at Austin College of PharmacyAustinUSA
  2. 2.Division of PharmacyUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations