Download 109: Toxic Alcohols

109: Toxic Alcohols
Sage W. Wiener
HISTORY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY
Methanol was a component of the embalming fluid used in ancient Egypt. Robert Boyle first isolated
the molecule in 1661 by distilling boxwood, calling it spirit of box.29 The molecular composition was
determined in 1834 by Dumas and Peligot, who coined the term “methylene” from the Greek roots
for “wood wine.”202 Industrial production began in 1923, and today most methanol is used for the
synthesis of other chemicals. Methanol containing consumer products that are commonly
encountered include model airplane and model car fuel, windshield washer fluid, solid cooking fuel
for camping and chafing dishes, photocopying fluid, colognes and perfumes, and gas line antifreeze
(“dry gas”). Methanol is also used as a solvent by itself or as an adulterant in “denatured”
alcohol.138Most reported cases of methanol poisoning in the United States involve ingestions of one
of the above products, with more than 60% involving windshield washer fluid,58 although most
inhalational exposures involve carburetor cleaner.87 In a Tunisian series, ingested cologne was the
most common etiology.30 In a Turkish series, cologne was also most common, accounting for almost
75% of ingestions.129 Perfume was one of several exposures in a patient with methanol poisoning in
a report from Spain,173 and methanol poisoning from cologne has also been reported in India.12 There
are sporadic epidemics of mass methanol poisoning, most commonly involving tainted fermented
beverages.23,130These epidemics are a continuing problem in many parts of the world.16,146,153,166,187,218,257
Ethylene glycol was first synthesized in 1859 by Charles-Adolphe Wurtz and first widely produced as
an engine coolant during World War II, when its precursor ethylene oxide became readily
available.70 Today its primary use remains as an engine coolant (antifreeze) in car radiators.
Antifreeze used in gas tanks generally contains methanol. Because of its sweet taste, it is often
consumed unintentionally by animals and children. Aversive bittering agents may be added to
ethylene glycol containing antifreeze to try to prevent ingestions by making the antifreeze
unpalatable, an approach required by law in two states. However, there is no evidence that this
strategy is effective, and comparisons in poison center data between ethylene glycol ingestions
where bittering agents were required and where they were not have revealed no significant
differences in frequency or volume of ingestion, or any other outcome variable (Chap. 135).253,254
Isopropanol is primarily available as rubbing alcohol. Typical household preparations contain 70%
isopropanol. It is also a solvent used in many household, cosmetic, and topical pharmaceutical
products. Perhaps because it is so ubiquitous, inexpensive, and with a common name that contains
the word “alcohol”, isopropanol ingestions are the most common toxic alcohol exposure reported to
poison centers in the United States,36typically in cases where it was used as an ethanol substitute
(Chap. 136).
CHEMISTRY
Alcohols are hydrocarbons that contain a hydroxyl (-OH) group. The term “toxic alcohol” traditionally
refers to alcohols other than ethanol that are not intended for ingestion. In a sense, this is arbitrary,
since all alcohols are toxic, causing inebriation and end organ effects if taken in excess. The most
common clinically relevant toxic alcohols are methanol and ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol).
Ethylene glycol contains two hydroxyl groups; molecules with this characteristic are termed diols or
glycols because of their sweet taste. Other common toxic alcohols include isopropanol (isopropyl
alcohol or 2-propanol), benzyl alcohol (phenylmethanol), and propylene glycol (1,3-propanediol).
Primary alcohols, such as methanol and ethanol, contain a hydroxyl group on the end of the
molecule (the terminal carbon), whereas secondary alcohols, such as isopropanol, contain hydroxyl
groups bound to middle carbons. Glycol ethers are glycols with a hydrocarbon chain bound to one or
more of the hydroxyl groups (forming the basic structure R1 O-CH2-CH2-O-R2 or R1 O-CH2-CH2-CH2OR2). Glycol ethers commonly encountered include ethylene glycol butyl ether (also known as 2butoxyethanol, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, or butyl cellosolve), ethylene glycol methyl ether (2methoxyethanol), and diethylene glycol (2,2′-dihydroxydiethyl ether). Poisoning with these
compounds may clinically resemble toxic alcohol poisoning, and diethylene glycol is discussed in
detail in Special Considerations: SC7.
TOXICOKINETICS/TOXICODYNAMICS
Alcohols are rapidly absorbed after ingestion74,88 but are not completely bioavailable because of
metabolism by gastric alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), as well as by first-pass hepatic metabolism.
Occasionally, delayed or prolonged absorption may occur.68 Although methanol may also be
absorbed in significant amounts by inhalation, poisoning by this route is uncommon. In workers
exposed to methanol fumes from industrial processes for up to 6 hours at concentrations of 200 ppm
(Occupational Health and Safety Administration {OSHA} permissible exposure limit {PEL}), there
was no significant accumulation of methanol or its metabolite formate.148 Another study showed that
with methanol use in the semiconductor industry, ambient methanol concentrations generally do not
approach this OSHA limit even in a room with poor ventilation due and with no local exhaust
ventilation.80 Surprisingly, concentrations far in excess of the OSHA PEL can be present within the
passenger compartment of a car when using the windshield wipers with methanol-containing
windshield washing fluid.21 No cases of human poisoning are reported from this type of exposure,
probably because these concentrations are not sustained over a long time. Two patients with
occupational inhalational exposure aboard a tanker carrying methanol developed consequential
toxicity, including the death of one; both patients reportedly used appropriate personal protective
equipment.139 Additionally, cases of inhalational poisoning are reported with intentional inhalation of
methanol as a drug of abuse, typically in the form of carburetor cleaning fluid (“huffing”) (Chap. 84),
and with massive exposures of rescue workers responding to the scene of an overturned rail car
filled with methanol.14,75,87,158,244,250 Two case series suggest that patients who present after chronic
inhalation of methanol have good clinical outcomes with folate and ADH blockade alone and without
need for hemodialysis,20,158 although in another series, patients with inhalational exposure were as
likely to require dialysis as patients with methanol ingestion.87 Transdermal methanol exposure can
be consequential if exposure is prolonged.131 Ethylene glycol has low volatility and is not reported to
cause poisoning by inhalation. In one study, human volunteers inhaled vaporized ethylene glycol at
a concentration of 1340 to 1610 ppm for 4 hours to simulate an industrial exposure. Afterward, the
volunteers had detectable but not clinically significant concentrations of ethylene glycol and its
metabolites.242 Most alcohols have some dermal absorption, although isopropanol and methanol are
able to penetrate the skin much better than ethylene glycol.63,154,248 Most reported cases of toxic
alcohol poisoning by this route involve infants57 because of their greater body surface area–to–
volume ratio, and likely this also involved simultaneous inhalation. One reported case of transdermal
methanol poisoning involved a 51 year-old woman, but details of the exposure were not
reported.230Another case involved a 52 year-old woman who reportedly frequently massaged with
methanol containing cologne and spirit over the course of 3 days. That patient suffered significant
visual and neurologic sequelae despite aggressive treatment with ethanol and hemodialysis.2 One
methanol fatality was deemed to be caused by transdermal absorption (in addition to blunt trauma)
when high tissue methanol concentrations were measured in the absence of detectable methanol in
the gastrointestinal tract,15 but inhalational exposure could also conceivably have contributed. When
human volunteers were exposed to 100% ethylene glycol applied to a 66 cm2 area of skin under an
occlusive dressing for 6 hours, detectable but not clinically significant amounts were absorbed.242
Once absorbed, alcohols are rapidly distributed to total body water. In human volunteers given an
oral dose of methanol on an empty stomach, the measured volume of distribution was 0.77 L/kg,
with a distribution half-life of about 8 minutes.88 This is only slightly longer than the absorption halflife, so serum concentrations typically peak soon after ingestion and then begin to fall.
Without intervention, toxic alcohols are metabolized through successive oxidation by ADH and
aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), each of which is coupled to the reduction of NAD+to NADH.
Methanol is metabolized to formaldehyde, then to formic acid (Fig. 109–1). Ethylene glycol has two
hydroxyl groups that are serially oxidized by ADH and ALDH, producing, in turn, glycoaldehyde,
glycolic acid, glyoxylic acid, and finally oxalic acid (Fig. 109–2). Like ethanol, this metabolism follows
zero-order kinetics, with a rate that is reported to be about 10 mg/dL/h.50,118,169 Additionally, this rate is
apparently unchanged in chronic ethanol users.97,98 Alternate minor metabolic pathways such as
catalase exist for methanol and ethylene glycol.
FIGURE 109–1.
Major pathway of methanol metabolism.
View Full Size |
Favorite Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)
FIGURE 109–2.
Pathways of ethylene glycol metabolism. Thiamine and pyridoxine enhance formation of nontoxic metabolites.
View Full Size |
Favorite Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)
After methanol ingestion, the formate metabolite is bound by tetrahydrofolate and then undergoes
metabolism by 10-formyltetrahydrofolate dehydrogenase to carbon dioxide and water. Ethylene
glycol is also metabolized to ketoadipate and glycine using thiamineand pyridoxine as
cofactors.178 Because of the low toxicity of these ethylene glycol metabolites, these normally minor
metabolic pathways are attractive targets for potential therapy.
Methanol and ethylene glycol are eliminated from the body as unchanged parent compounds. When
kidney function is normal, ethylene glycol is cleared with a half-life of approximately 11 to 18
hours.28,47,226 Methanol does not have significant renal elimination (about 1% of the ingested dose in
patients with intact hepatic metabolism) and is cleared much more slowly than is ethylene glycol,
presumably as a vapor in expired air (half-life, 30–54 hours).34,144,188
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS
Acute Central Nervous System Effects
All alcohols may cause inebriation, depending on the dose. Based on limited animal data, it appears
that higher molecular weight alcohols are more intoxicating than lower molecular weight alcohols on
a molar basis (therefore, isopropanol ≈ ethylene glycol > ethanol > methanol).251 However, the
absence of apparent inebriation does not exclude ingestion, particularly if the patient chronically
drinks ethanol and is thereby tolerant to its central nervous system (CNS) effects.235 Additionally,
serum methanol concentrations of 25 to 50 mg/dL may potentially be associated with toxicity,
whereas in most states one may legally drive a car with a blood alcohol concentration of up to 80
mg/dL.
The CNS manifestations of toxic alcohol poisoning are incompletely understood. It is assumed by
analogy that inebriation is similar to that of ethanol, where effects are mediated through increased γaminobutyric acid (GABA)–ergic tone both directly and through inhibition of presynaptic GABA,
GABAA receptors as well as inhibition of the N-methyl-D-aspartic acid glutamate
receptors.10,42,90,105,172 Although the CNS effects of other alcohols are clinically similar, there is no direct
evidence that they are mechanistically the same.
Metabolic Acidosis
Metabolic acidosis with an elevated anion gap is a hallmark of toxic alcohol poisoning. This is a
consequence of the metabolism of the alcohols to toxic organic acids. The acids have no rapid
natural metabolic pathway of elimination, and therefore they accumulate, unlike acetic acid resulting
from ethanol metabolism, which can enter the Krebs cycle. In methanol poisoning, formic acid is
responsible for the acidosis, whereas in ethylene glycol poisoning, glycolic acid is the primary acid
responsible for the acidosis, with other metabolites making a minor contribution. An exception to the
formation of an acid metabolite is isopropanol, which is metabolized to acetone. Acetone is a ketone,
not an aldehyde, and therefore cannot be further metabolized by ALDH (Fig. 109–3). Thus
isopropanol has no organic acid metabolite and does not cause metabolic acidosis. In fact, ketosis
without acidosis is essentially diagnostic of isopropanol poisoning. Occasionally, a non–anion gap
(hyperchloremic) metabolic acidosis may result from ethylene glycol poisoning (almost 18% in one
series), often concurrently with anion gap acidosis.229 The mechanism for this is unclear, but a similar
pattern has been observed in the setting of diabetic ketoacidosis, alcoholic ketoacidosis, and toluene
poisoning.
FIGURE 109–3.
Isopropanol metabolism.
View Full Size |
Favorite Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)
End-Organ Manifestations
Additional end-organ effects depend on which alcohol is involved. Methanol causes visual
impairment, ranging from blurry or hazy vision or defects in color vision, to “snowfield vision” or total
blindness in severe poisoning. Although it is counterintuitive, vision loss may not be
symmetric.48,161 On physical examination, central scotoma may be present on visual field testing, and
both hyperemia and pallor of the optic disc, papilledema, and an afferent papillary defect are
described as characteristic findings.23,183,260Electroretinography may demonstrate a diminished bwave,240 a marker of bipolar cell dysfunction, and optical coherence tomography (similar in principle
to ultrasound, but using reflected light waves to image translucent tissues) may demonstrate
peripapillary nerve fiber swelling and intraretinal fluid accumulation.77 Formate is a mitochondrial
toxin, inhibiting cytochrome oxidase and it thereby interferes with oxidative
phosphorylation.69,179,180 Although it is unclear why this results in ocular toxicity while other tissues are
relatively spared, retinal pigmented epithelial cells and optic nerve cells appear to be uniquely
susceptible.66,165,239,240 Proteomic analysis of retinas in rats poisoned by methanol showed 24 proteins
were different from baseline (14 increased, 10 decreased),46 so the underlying pathophysiology of
retinal toxicity from methanol may be more complex than is currently understood. Years after
exposure, optic nerve atrophy, disc pallor and severe cupping may be still be present, even with
normal intraocular pressure.221
Interestingly, neurons in the basal ganglia appear to be similarly susceptible to this toxicity. Bilateral
basal ganglia lesions, bilateral necrosis of the putamen (with or without hemorrhage), and less
commonly, caudate nucleus are characteristically abnormal visualized on cerebral computed
tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after methanol
poisoning.3,6,12,24,26,60,64,72,78,99,100,123,124,131,190,205,208,217,224,237,243 While lesions of this type are nonspecific, and may
also occur in hypoxia, hypotension, and carbon monoxide poisoning, in methanol poisoning they
occur in the absence of hypotension and hypoxia,167 suggesting a direct toxic mechanism. Patients
have developed parkinsonism after poisoning by methanol, a finding consistent with the lesions in
the basal ganglia lesions.92,166,200 In one series, typical radiological lesions were present in six of nine
cases.217 Other CNS lesions reported include necrosis of the corpus callosum134 and intracranial
hemorrhage.13,216 Pathologic examination of the brain reveals lesions similar to those found
radiologically.132 Increased glial fibrillary acidic protein and decreased CD34 expression are
pathologic markers in affected tissues, although how these relate to the underlying pathophysiology
is not yet clear.241
Both retinal and neurological toxicity of methanol poisoning may be permanent. Among 86 survivors
of a methanol poisoning outbreak in Estonia in 2001, 26 had died six years later (many from alcohol
intoxication) and 33 could not be tracked down. Of the five patients who could be found out of 20
patients that had been discharged with retinal or neurologic sequelae, all had persistent effects.
Interestingly, 8 out of the 22 patients found who were discharged without sequelae had newly
identified neurological and visual sequelae 6 years later (among 66 initially discharged without
sequelae). The newly identified visual sequelae may have actually been present initially but missed
due to lack of ophthalmologic evaluation, or symptoms may have developed more gradually in these
patients. New neurologic symptoms were probably due to continued drinking.186 In another series
from Iran, 37 of 50 survivors of methanol poisoning with retinal toxicity were followed 1 year later; 16
patients improved before discharge from the hospital. Seven patients had their visual disturbance
resolve within 2 weeks; 5 were blind at discharge but partially recovered within 3 to 4 weeks; 5 were
blind at discharge and had no improvement 1 year later; and 4 were blind at discharge, had partial
recovery within 1 month, but then had worsening vision within the subsequent 9 months.211 This
suggests that, long-term outcomes of retinal toxicity are difficult to predict.
Rarely, injury to other tissues may also occur. Both acute kidney injury (AKI) and pancreatitis are
reported after methanol poisoning.102,140 For unclear reasons, one case series showed a much higher
incidence of pancreatitis (50%)102 and in another, 11 of 15 patients had pancreatitis,247 but this is not
typical. Some of the AKI that results from methanol poisoning may be due to myoglobinuria.91 In one
series of methanol poisoned patients with AKI about half had associated myoglobinuria, presumably
due to atraumatic rhabdomyolysis. One reported patient with methanol poisoning had
rhabdomyolysis severe enough to cause compartment syndrome in both legs, requiring
fasciotomy.51Patients with AKI were also more likely than a control group of patients to have severe
poisoning, as manifested by low initial serum pH, high initial osmolality, and high peak formate
concentration.247 Pathologic abnormalities of the liver, esophagus, and gastric mucosa are also found
in some fatal cases of methanol poisoning.4,44
The most prominent end-organ effect of ethylene glycol is nephrotoxicity. The oxalic acid metabolite
forms a complex with calcium to precipitate as calcium oxalate monohydrate crystals in the renal
tubules, leading to AKI.73,93,95,168,196,234,238 The diagnosis of ethylene glycol poisoning has been
established at autopsy by demonstrating this abnormality, including in one homicide case11,151; in
another case, the diagnosis was established by kidney biopsy.134 Although the intermediate products
of ethylene glycol metabolism, and possibly ethylene glycol itself, are directly toxic to the renal
tubules in some studies,49,73,195,198 this appears not to occur at clinically relevant
concentrations.93Currently no explanation exists for the presence of necrotic lesions to the glomerular
basement membrane on some pathology specimens73 as oxalic acid generally does not cause
glomerular injury.125
Ethylene glycol can occasionally affect other organ systems. In severe poisoning, the oxalic acid
metabolite may be present in sufficient amounts to cause hypocalcemia following precipitation as
calcium oxalate. This can result in prolongation of the QT interval on the electrocardiogram and
ventricular dysrhythmias.215 Cerebral edema was present on CT scan in two patients who died of
ethylene glycol poisoning.76,238 Two reported patients had delayed neurological manifestations. One
patient developed increased intracranial pressure, with papilledema and an abducens (CN VI) palsy
approximately 9 days after recovering from acute ethylene glycol poisoning and without another
clear etiology.59 Another patient developed the same cluster of delayed effects (increased intracranial
pressure, papilledema and an abducens palsy) on day 13 of hospitalization,
after fomepizole, thiamine, pyridoxine, and hemodialysis. He subsequently developed a facial (CN
VII) palsy, sensory neuropathy, and autonomic neuropathy, including postural hypotension and
gastroparesis.199 Precipitation of calcium oxalate crystals in the brain was found on autopsy after
severe ethylene glycol poisoning8,73,76 and may account for the multiple cranial nerve abnormalities
that occasionally develop,59,231 although there is as yet no direct evidence of causation. Peripheral
polyradiculoneuropathy can be diagnosed by electromyography and nerve conduction studies in
cases of ethylene glycol poisoning,7,17 and intracranial hemorrhage involving the globus pallidus can
occur.39 A leukemoid reaction may also occur in the setting of severe ethylene glycol poisoning, but
the mechanism remains unclear.160,176 One pediatric case of hemophagocytic syndrome and liver
failure in the setting of ethylene glycol poisoning resulted in fatality.145Parkinsonism can also
occur.200 Two severe cases of unintentional ethylene glycol ingestion in the United Kingdom resulted
in blindness and deafness; one with associated cranial neuropathies and one with multiple
peripheral neuropathies.41,62 One patient had a myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation while
poisoned with ethylene glycol, but survived after cardiac catheterization and placement of five stents,
as well as treatment with ethanol and hemodialysis.236 Finally, death can result from massive
ethylene glycol ingestion with no elevation of its metabolites, suggesting direct toxicity of the alcohol,
probably through respiratory depression.81
Hemorrhagic gastritis is associated with isopropyl alcohol intoxication. Although this is often
assumed to be caused by a local irritant effect, one reported case of hemorrhagic gastritis after
percutaneous isopropanol exposure suggests that this is not the only mechanism, and may in fact be
a specific end-organ effect.65 Hemorrhagic tracheobronchitis has occurred in fatal cases of
isopropanol aspiration.5 The acetone metabolite of isopropyl alcohol may also interfere with some
creatinine assays, causing a falsely elevated result,137 but it does not actually cause AKI.
DIAGNOSTIC TESTING
Toxic Alcohol and Metabolite Concentrations
Serum methanol, formate, ethylene glycol, oxalate, and isopropanol concentrations (as appropriate)
would be the ideal tests to perform when toxic alcohol poisoning is suspected shortly after exposure.
However, these concentrations are most commonly measured by gas chromatography with or
without mass spectrometry confirmation, methodologies that are not available in most hospital
laboratories on a 24 hour basis, if at all. In fact, in many hospitals these are only available as “send
out” tests, so results arrive too late for early clinical decision making.133 Enzymatic assays for
methanol, formic acid, ethylene glycol, and glycolic acid have been developed,27,232,249 and these may
lead to more readily available clinical tests. However, the commercial product is currently approved
for veterinary use only. This veterinary test is effective for confirming the qualitative presence of
ethylene glycol in human poisoning, although false positives may occur with propylene glycol.157 In a
murine model, a commercially available ethanol in saliva point of care test can detect the presence
of a low concentration of methanol but not ethylene glycol.96Unfortunately, it would not distinguish
between methanol and ethanol, limiting the clinical utility of this test. A group in Finland described a
point of care breath test for methanol, using a portable Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) analyzer
similar to the “breathalyzers” used by law enforcement agents.147 Although analyzers like this are
used to check for methanol as a combustion product in industry, they are not yet approved for
medical use in the United States. Once approved, they would be useful for early clinical decision
making because they are easy to use and provide a rapid result. They also can provide continuous
monitoring of concentrations, a feature that would be very helpful during hemodialysis.
Unfortunately, this methodology could not be used to detect ethylene glycol because of its low
volatility.
Patients presenting late after ingestion may already have metabolized all parent compound to toxic
metabolites and thus may have low or no measurable toxic alcohol concentrations. Fortuitously, the
enzymatic assay for ethylene glycol is also capable of detecting glycolic acid, although as
mentioned, this assay is approved only for veterinary use. Some authors have actually advocated for
routine testing for glycolic acid in addition to testing for the parent compound when ethylene glycol
poisoning is suspected.198Serum and urine oxalate concentrations may also be
determined,233 although their clinical utility is unclear. Similarly, a formate concentration may be
valuable when a patient presents late after methanol ingestion.115,184 Formate was detected in blood
samples from 97% of patients who died of methanol poisoning in one series; all of these patients
also had detectable blood or vitreous methanol concentrations.126 Clearly, a low or undetectable toxic
alcohol concentration must be interpreted within the context of the history and other clinical data,
such as the presence of acidosis and end-organ toxicity, with glycolate and formate concentrations
as potentially valuable additions.
Samples must be handled correctly for accurate toxic alcohol results. Particularly with the more
volatile alcohols methanol and isopropanol, concentrations may be falsely low if the sample tubes
are not airtight. This commonly results in low concentrations if alcohol concentrations are done as
“add on” tests to samples already opened for electrolyte or osmol determinations.
Other alcohols such as benzyl alcohol and propylene glycol are not routinely assessed for by gas
chromatography. Thus these xenobiotics present a much greater diagnostic challenge than
methanol and ethylene glycol. Enzymatic assays for methanol or ethylene glycol would also fail to
detect these, although false positive ethylene glycol tests may occur if propylene glycol is present.
Thus a high index of suspicion is critical to establishing the diagnosis in these cases. If suspected on
the basis of history, specific toxic alcohol testing should be performed.
Once alcohol concentrations are obtained, their interpretation represents a further point of
controversy. Traditionally, a methanol or ethylene glycol concentration greater than 25 mg/dL has
been considered toxic, but the evidence supporting this as a threshold is often questioned. In a case
series of methanol poisoned patients from the 1950s, a methanol concentration of 52 mg/dL was the
lowest associated with vision loss.23 This may have been the origin of the 25 mg/dL threshold,
incorporating a 50% reduction as a margin of safety. However, the patient with the 52 mg/dL
concentration presented 24 hours after his initial ingestion, and therefore was much more severely
poisoned than suggested by his serum concentration at that point. In fact, almost all reported cases
of methanol poisoning involve patients with delayed presentations who already have a metabolic
acidosis.141 The only reported patient who went untreated after presenting early with an elevated
methanol concentration (45.6 mg/dL) never developed acidosis or end-organ toxicity.32,141 A
systematic review found that 126 mg/dL was the lowest methanol concentration resulting in an
acidosis in a patient who arrived early after ingestion and met the inclusion criteria. The authors
concluded that the available data are currently insufficient to apply a 25 mg/dL treatment threshold in
a patient presenting early after ingestion without acidosis.141However, until better data are available
demonstrating the safe application of a higher concentration, it seems prudent to use a conservative
concentration such as 25 mg/dL as a threshold for treatment.
Because of the problems with obtaining and interpreting actual serum concentrations, many
surrogate markers have been used to assess the patient with suspected toxic alcohol poisoning. The
initial laboratory evaluation should include serum electrolytes, including calcium, blood urea nitrogen,
serum creatinine concentrations, urinalysis, measured serum osmolality, and a serum ethanol
concentration. Blood gas analysis with a lactate concentration is also helpful in the initial evaluation
of ill appearing patients.
Anion Gap and Osmol Gap
For a full discussion of the anion gap concept, refer to Chap. 19. As previously discussed, anion gap
elevation is a hallmark of toxic alcohol poisoning. In fact, the possibility of methanol or ethylene
glycol poisoning is often first considered when patients present with an anion gap acidosis of
unknown etiology, frequently with no history of ingestion. Unless clinical information suggests
otherwise, it is important to exclude metabolic acidosis with elevated lactate concentration and
ketoacidosis, which are the most common causes of anion gap acidosis, before pursuing toxic
alcohols in these patients. This is because of the extensive evaluation required and expensive,
potentially invasive course of therapy to which they are otherwise committed. However, elevated
lactate concentrations may be present in the setting of both methanol and ethylene glycol
poisoning.163,170,219
The unmeasured anions in toxic alcohol poisoning are the dissociated organic acid metabolites
discussed above. The acidosis takes time to develop, sometimes up to 16 to 24 hours for methanol.
Thus the absence of an anion gap elevation early after reported toxic alcohol ingestion does not
exclude the diagnosis. If ethanol is present in the body, the development of acidosis will not begin to
occur until enough ethanol has been metabolized that it can no longer effectively inhibit ADH
(see Ethanol Concentration, below).
A potential early surrogate marker of toxic alcohol poisoning is an elevated osmol gap (the principles
and the calculations are discussed in detail in Chap. 19). However, it is important to recognize that
osmol gap elevation is neither sensitive nor specific for toxic alcohol poisoning. Since a baseline
osmol gap is generally not available when evaluating a patient (with rare exceptions),113 and a normal
osmol gap ranges from –14 to +10 osmols, so-called “normal” osmol gaps cannot exclude toxic
alcohol poisoning.108 For example, in a patient with a baseline osmol gap of –10, a current gap of +5
potentially represents a methanol concentration of 47 mg/dL or an ethylene glycol concentration of
93 mg/dL, values that might require hemodialysis. Inversely, a moderately elevated osmol gap (+10
to +20) is not necessarily diagnostic of toxic alcohol poisoning because other disorders such as
alcoholic ketoacidosis and metabolic acidosis with elevated lactate concentration, may raise the
osmol gap.214 Furthermore, mean osmol gaps vary within populations over time, further limiting their
utility.142 However, a markedly elevated osmol gap (>50) is difficult to explain by anything other than a
toxic alcohol.
Further complicating matters, the anion gap and osmol gap have a reciprocal relationship over time.
This is because soon after ingestion, the alcohols present in the serum raise the osmol gap but do
not affect the anion gap because metabolism to the organic acid anion has not yet occurred. As the
alcohols are metabolized to organic acid anions, the anion gap rises while the osmol gap falls,
because the metabolites are negatively charged particles that have already been accounted for in
the calculated osmolarity by doubling of the sodium. Thus patients who present early after ingestion
may have a high osmol gap and normal anion gap, while those who present later may have the
reverse.111,117 Figure 109–4 depicts a more intuitive visual representation of this process.
FIGURE 109–4.
The reciprocal relationship of anion gap and osmol gap over time (hours). Note that patients presenting early may
have a normal anion gap while patients who present late may have a normal osmol gap.
View Full Size |
Favorite Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)
One retrospective and one prospective study have attempted to evaluate the performance
characteristic of the osmol gap as a diagnostic test. Although in both cases, the osmol gap
performed fairly well, the studies were small, 20 patients with toxic alcohol poisoning in the
retrospective study and 28 patients with methanol poisoning in the prospective study, and the
prospective study identified three patients with significant poisoning and acidosis but “normal” osmol
gaps, defined in the study as less than 25.111,162 Therefore, these data do not eliminate the concern
that a patient with significant poisoning could be missed by relying on the osmol gap alone to
exclude poisoning.
Ethanol Concentration
A serum ethanol concentration is an important part of the assessment of the patient with suspected
toxic alcohol poisoning. As discussed in Chap. 19, the ethanol concentration is necessary to
determine the calculated osmolarity. In addition, because ethanol is the preferred substrate of ADH
(4:1 over methanol and 8:1 over ethylene glycol), a significant concentration would be protective if
coingested with a toxic alcohol. In fact, ethanol concentrations near 100 mg/dL virtually preclude
toxic alcohols as the cause of an unknown anion gap metabolic acidosis because the presence of
such a concentration should have prevented metabolism to the organic acid. A possible exception
would be ingestion of ethanol several hours after ingestion of a toxic alcohol.106 If a breath alcohol
analyzer is used to determine ethanol concentration, a false positive ethanol value may be obtained
if significant methanol concentrations are present, and the machine may not indicate that an
interfering substance is present (as it does with acetone).40 Therefore, even if a prehospital breath
alcohol analyzer indicates a significant ethanol concentration, this should be confirmed by
determining the serum ethanol concentration.
Lactate Concentration
Both methanol and ethylene glycol poisoning can result in elevated lactate concentrations, for
different reasons. Formate, as an inhibitor of oxidative phosphorylation, can lead to anaerobic
metabolism and resultant lactate elevation. Additionally, metabolism of all alcohols results in an
increased NADH/NAD+ ratio, which favors the conversion of pyruvate to lactate. Furthermore,
hypotension and organ failure in severely poisoned patients can also produce an elevated lactate
concentrations. However, lactate production by these mechanisms tends to result in serum
concentrations no greater than 5 mmol/L.
In ethylene glycol poisoning, the glycolate metabolite may also cause a false positive lactate
elevation when measured by some analyzers, particularly with whole blood arterial blood gas
analyzers. The Radiometer ABL series (625, 700, 725, 825, 835) is most widely reported to result in
a false positive lactate; other specific models implicated to varying degrees include: Beckman LX 20,
Bayer/Chiron Rapidlab series (860, 865), Roche Modular, Architect c8000, Vitros Fusion 5.1, Cobas
Integra, GEM Premier 4000 and Hitachi 911 analyzers, but not the Vitros 950 or Vitros 250 or the
Beckman Coulter DxC-800 chemistry analyzer.35,45,53,71,163,170,175,191,197,213,256 In such cases, the degree of
lactate elevation directly correlates with the concentration of glycolate present,163,170 and the artifact
results from the lack of specificity of the lactate oxidase enzyme used in these
machines,170,175,197,256 although direct oxidation of glycolate at the analyzer anode is also suggested as
a possible mechanism.222 Thus the presence of a “lactate gap” might also be used to diagnose
ethylene glycol poisoning in hospitals where lactate assays are available with and without sensitivity
to glycolate, or two lactate assays with different sensitivities to lactate.222,246 Ingestion of propylene
glycol can also result in elevated lactate concentrations, but in this case, it is not a false positive
lactate but rather an accurate measurement of a metabolite of propylene glycol.127,128
Other Diagnostics
Serum glucose concentration is generally obtained as part of routine laboratory analysis.
Hyperglycemia, defined as serum glucose greater than 140 mg/dL (7.77 mmol/L) in nondiabetic
patients, portended a greater risk of death after methanol poisoning, with an odds ratio of 6.5 in one
retrospective study.210 This has not yet been prospectively validated.
The urine may provide information in the assessment of the patient with suspected ethylene glycol
poisoning. Calcium oxalate monohydrate (spindle-shaped) and dihydrate (envelope-shaped) crystals
may be seen when the urine sediment is examined by microscopy, although this finding is neither
sensitive nor specific.79,118,174 In fact, calcium oxalate crystals were present in the urine of only 63% (12
of 19) of patients with proven ethylene glycol ingestion in one series.33
Some brands of antifreeze contain fluorescein to facilitate the detection of radiator leaks. If one of
these products is ingested and the urine is examined with a Woods lamp within the first 6 hours,
there may be urinary fluorescence.255 Gastric aspirate may also demonstrate fluorescence.56 False
positive fluorescence may result from examining the urine in glass or plastic containers due to the
inherent fluorescence of these materials, so if this test is performed, an aliquot of the urine should be
poured onto a piece of white gauze or paper. Recent work has suggested a lack of utility of this test.
Almost all children had urinary fluorescence, and there was poor interrater agreement in determining
fluorescence of specimens.43,189
The evaluation of patients with known or suspected ethylene glycol poisoning should also include
serum calcium and creatinine concentrations. Patients with methanol poisoning and abdominal pain
also warrant an assessment of liver function tests and serum lipase because of the possibility of
associated hepatitis and pancreatitis.
Although characteristic brain CT and MRI abnormalities are frequently reported in the setting of
methanol poisoning, it is unclear what role they have in the routine evaluation of these patients. The
presence of putaminal hemorrhage or insular subcortex white matter necrosis was associated with a
greater odds ratio of death (8 and 10, respectively) in one study of patients with methanol
poisoning.237 However, in the absence of neurological abnormalities on physical examination, routine
CT or MRI are probably not indicated.
Diagnostic Testing and Risk Assessment
Increases in both anion gap and osmolar gap may be useful for risk stratification in methanol
poisoning, and a venous or arterial blood gas should be performed. A review of reported toxic
alcohol cases attempted to identify risk factors for mortality in adults with methanol or ethylene glycol
poisoning. For methanol poisoning, no patient with an anion gap less than 30 mEq/L or an osmolar
gap less than 49 osmols died. A pH less than 7.22 was an even better predictor of mortality, as no
patient with a pH greater than 7.22 died. For ethylene glycol, the tests were less useful. One patient
with an osmolar gap of only 25 osmols died, no patient with an anion gap less than 20 mEq/L died,
and pH did not predict mortality with statistical significance.54 This study has been criticized for
missing a substantial number of patients,207 and it still needs to be validated in another population.
Another retrospective study of risk factors for poor outcomes in methanol poisoning only found that
pH less than 7.00 (as well as coma or a >24-hour delay to presentation) was associated with
death.103 In a large series from several epidemics of methanol poisoning, a pH less than 7.00 and
coma were again identified as risk factors associated with death. In patients with a pH less than
7.00, PCO2 greater than or equal to 23.3 mm Hg (3.1 kPa) was also a risk factor.185 In methanol
poisoned patients unlikely to die, the pH may still be useful for predicting retinal toxicity. Another
retrospective study examined markers for poor visual outcome after methanol poisoning and again
found pH to be the best predictor, with a pH greater than 7.20 associated with a high likelihood of
only transient visual sequelae.61
MANAGEMENT
As always, immediate resuscitation of critically ill patients starts with management of the airway,
breathing, and circulation. Because alcohols may cause respiratory depression and coma, intubation
and mechanical ventilation are commonly necessary for patients with severe poisoning. Alcoholinduced vasodilation combined with vomiting often lead to hypotension, and many patients will
require fluid resuscitation with intravenous crystalloid. Gastrointestinal decontamination is rarely, if
ever, indicated for toxic alcohols because of their rapid absorption and limited binding to activated
charcoal. However, placement of a nasogastric tube and aspiration of any gastric contents is
probably worthwhile in intubated patients, as absorption may sometimes be delayed after a large
dose.68
Alcohol Dehydrogenase Inhibition
The most important part of the initial management of patients with known or suspected toxic alcohol
poisoning (after initial resuscitation) is blockade of ADH. This allows for the establishment of a
definitive diagnosis and arrangement for hemodialysis while preventing the formation of toxic
metabolites. Additionally, in some cases ADH blockade may itself serve as definitive therapy.
Teleologically, ADH exists for the purpose of metabolizing ethanol, so it is not surprising that the
enzyme has a higher affinity for ethanol than for other alcohols. ADH metabolizes ethanol with a Km
that is 15 to 20 times lower in vitro than its Km for methanol metabolism and 67 times lower than its
Km for ethylene glycol metabolism.55,192,193 Thus significant concentrations of ethanol prevent
metabolism of other alcohols to their toxic products. Ethanol is the traditional method of ADH
inhibition and may still be the only option in some institutions. A 10% solution is administered
through a central venous catheter and titrated to maintain a serum concentration of 100 mg/dL
(Antidotes in Depth: A31). Complications of the infusion include hypotension, respiratory depression
(with supratherapeutic concentrations), flushing, hypoglycemia, hyponatremia, pancreatitis, and
gastritis, as well as inebriation, so patients receiving intravenous ethanol require admission to an
intensive care unit. The true incidence of these adverse events is unclear. In one study,
complications of ethanol infusion in children were uncommon.203 However, in another review of 49
adults treated with ethanol infusions for toxic alcohol poisoning, 92% of patients had at least one
adverse event.252 Orally administered ethanol is also effective and may be considered when intensive
monitoring is unavailable, particularly in rural areas where there may be a significant delay in getting
the patient to a hospital.
Fomepizole is a competitive antagonist of ADH that has many advantages over ethanol. It reliably
inhibits ADH when administered as an intravenous bolus every 12 hours, and concentrations do not
need to be monitored as with an ethanol infusion.33,34 It does not cause inebriation and is associated
with fewer adverse effects, so it does not require intensive care unit monitoring.18,19,33,34,150 For these
reasons, it has become the preferred method of ADH blockade, despite being significantly more
expensive than ethanol.225 In theory, the savings in intensive care unit (ICU) monitoring and
laboratory costs probably compensate for the higher drug cost of fomepizole, unless the patient
requires intensive monitoring regardless based on the severity of illness.28 However, one study
showed that even after fomepizole was introduced to their hospital, 95% of patients received ICU
admission and hemodialysis,89 so this may not be a large area of savings. Additionally, the cost
difference will vary depending on the setting of poisoning and the health care delivery system of the
country involved. A series in Belgium found that treating with ethanol and dialysis was much less
expensive than fomepizole without dialysis within their system.9
The dose of fomepizole is 15 mg/kg intravenously as an initial loading dose followed by 10 mg/kg
every 12 hours. Bradycardia and hypotension may occur after fomepizole infusion, so vital signs
should be monitored closely during and after each dose.149 After 48 hours of
therapy, fomepizole induces its own metabolism, so the dose must be increased to 15 mg/kg every
12 hours. Although one review advocates giving doses as high as 20 mg/kg every 12 hours with no
adjustment for induced metabolism,25 this dosing regimen is not supported by the manufacturer or
any current clinical guideline. A review of reported cases in which fomepizole was used in children
suggests that it is safe and effective with the same weight based dosing as adults.32 Pharmacokinetic
data from a human volunteer study show that there is no significant difference in serum
concentrations between oral and intravenous fomepizole.164 However, there is currently no oral
preparation offomepizole on the market (Antidotes in Depth: A30).
Indications for fomepizole or ethanol therapy may be based on the history or on laboratory data. Any
patient with a believable history of methanol or ethylene glycol ingestion should be treated until
concentrations are available because, as previously discussed, early symptoms and laboratory
markers other than serum concentrations may be absent. In addition, any patient with an anion gap
acidosis without another explanation or a markedly elevated osmol gap should also be treated. Once
concentrations are available, therapy should be continued until the serum toxic alcohol concentration
is predicted or measured to be below 25 mg/dL, although as discussed previously, this value is
based more on consensus opinion than on data.
The antiretroviral medication abacavir is a substrate for ADH and seemed to delay metabolism of
methanol in one case.84 It has been suggested that abacavir could have potential as an alternative
to fomepizole in places where fomepizole is unavailable.212Similarly, ranitidine is an inhibitor of
gastric and hepatic ADH, and in a rat model, ranitidineimproved pH, formate concentrations, and
retinal histopathology.67 Although these are intriguing possibilities, there are currently no data to
support the use of either abacavir orranitidine in human poisoning.
Hemodialysis
The definitive therapy for symptomatic patients poisoned by toxic alcohols is hemodialysis.
Hemodialysis clears both the alcohols and their toxic metabolites from the blood and corrects the
acid–base disorder. The indications for hemodialysis have become more restricted with the advent
of fomepizole because of its effectiveness combined with its low incidence of adverse effects.
Particularly for ethylene glycol, which can generally be expected to be cleared within a few days
once ADH is blocked as long as the glomerular filtration rate is normal,37,152,245 some have argued that
the risks of an invasive and costly procedure such as hemodialysis are not warranted in minimally
symptomatic patients with normal kidney function and without acidosis.38,82 Even a patient with a
moderately elevated serum methanol concentration, 80 mg/dL (2.5 mmol/L), was successfully
treated with fomepizole alone.204 Based on toxicokinetic data, some patients with methanol poisoning
might be treated without dialysis or with delayed dialysis, particularly in epidemic scenarios, where
the need for hemodialysis may exceed the availability.112However, patients with end-organ toxicity or
severe acidosis have significant amounts of toxic metabolites, a problem not addressed by ADH
blockade, and acidosis is associated with poor prognosis.156 Additionally, although formate is
normally cleared rapidly once ADH is blocked, the half-life increases with higher serum methanol
concentrations and varies from 2.5 to 12.5 hours.101,110 In one patient with severe poisoning, formate
was eliminated at an extremely slow rate with a half-life of 77 hours until hemodialysis was
initiated,114 underscoring the importance of hemodialysis in patients with significant metabolic
acidosis. In addition, patients with AKI will not eliminate the parent compound once ADH is blocked,
except very slowly in expired air in the case of methanol. Therefore, the consensus is that metabolic
acidosis, signs of end-organ toxicity, including coma and seizures, and AKI are indications for
hemodialysis. A “toxic concentration” and possibly a very high osmol gap194 are more relative
indications for hemodialysis, and decisions must be based on the judgment of the clinician for the
specific clinical scenario, considering the available resources. Some authors have advocated using
toxic metabolite concentrations if available as additional criteria for hemodialysis. In data from one
case series, an elevated formate concentration appears to be a better predictor of clinically important
toxicity than methanol concentrations.184 Similarly, glycolate concentrations are a better predictor of
death and AKI than ethylene glycol concentrations.198 However, although clearance of formate by
hemodialysis is substantial,121,122,136 the overall clearance in one case series did not appear to increase
significantly above endogenous clearance in patients also treated with folate and
bicarbonate.136 Some have questioned the data quality in this series, pointing out that (a) the
predialysis clearance in two patients was calculated using only two data points and in the three
others was calculated using three points, generally considered the minimum; (b) several patients
actually had decreased clearance during dialysis, contradicting all previous data; and (c) two of the
patients had variable blood flow during dialysis.112,258
The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (AACT) practice guidelines are ambiguous with
respect to a threshold methanol concentration for hemodialysis in the absence of acidosis, AKI, endorgan effects, or worsening clinical status.18 However, until additional investigations are completed, a
methanol concentration of 50 mg/dL remains a reasonable indication for consideration of
hemodialysis in the absence of significant acidosis or end-organ effects. The AACT guidelines for
ethylene glycol actually advise against hemodialysis for a concentration alone without any of these
clinical indications.19Still, ethylene glycol remains the second most common toxin to be removed by
hemodialysis in the US.109 Clearly, there are still insufficient data to establish threshold
concentrations of alcohols or their metabolites where dialysis is absolutely indicated, and the
decision is ultimately a subjective one based on the overall clinical scenario.107
Although hemodialysis effectively clears isopropanol and acetone from the blood, it is rarely if ever
indicated for this purpose. Because isopropanol does not cause a metabolic acidosis and very rarely
results in significant end-organ effects, the risks of hemodialysis likely outweigh the benefits.
Many patients will require multiple courses of hemodialysis to clear the toxic alcohol. Nephrologists
may estimate the dialysis time required using the formula:
t = – V ln (5/A)/0.06k
where t is the dialysis time required to reach a 5 mmol/L toxin concentration, V is the Watson
estimate of total body water (liters), A is the initial toxin concentration (mmol/L), and k is 80% of the
manufacturer specified dialyzer urea clearance (mL/min) at the observed initial blood flow
rate.104,259 Additionally, the normalization of the osmol gap may guide the required duration of dialysis,
but this has not been validated.116 Regardless of how the duration of dialysis is determined, ADH
blockade should be continued during and after hemodialysis until a subsequent concentration of the
offending alcohol is confirmed to be nontoxic. Ethanol infusion rates must be increased during
hemodialysis to maintain a therapeutic serum concentration as the ethanol is cleared (Antidotes in
Depth: A31).Fomepizole should be redosed every 4 hours during hemodialysis to maintain
therapeutic serum concentrations.18,19
Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) such as venovenous hemodiafiltration has
occasionally been used in patients with toxic alcohol poisoning. Hemodialysis is much more efficient
at clearing xenobiotics than CRRT and is virtually always the preferred modality if available.
However, if there is a contraindication to hemodialysis, such as hemodynamic instability or severe
cerebral edema,86 or if hemodialysis is unavailable, CRRT may be considered as an intervention that
may offer some advantage over no extracorporeal removal at all. In a pharmacokinetic model, the
addition of CRRT can decrease the treatment time by 40%.55
Adjunctive Therapy
There are several therapeutic adjuncts to ADH blockade with or (especially) without hemodialysis
that should be considered for these patients. One of the differences that has been invoked to explain
the absence of retinal toxicity from methanol in some species is the relative abundance of hepatic
folate stores in these species such as the rat. Folate and leucovorin enhance the clearance of
formate in animal models.181,182 Thiamineenhances the metabolism of ethylene glycol to ketoadipate,
and pyridoxine enhances its metabolism to glycine and ultimately hippuric acid (Fig. 109–2).178 While
all of these modalities offer theoretical advantages, they have yet to be proven to change outcome in
humans. However, there is one human case report showing enhanced formate elimination with
folinic acid therapy.120 Additionally, some have suggested that the apparent lack of an increase in
formate clearance by hemodialysis was because it was dwarfed by the effectiveness of folate
supplementation in both the study group and the control group.136Because of the safety of vitamin
supplementation, the potential benefit likely outweighs the risk of therapy (Antidotes in Depth: A10,
A14, and A24).
Formate is much less toxic than undissociated formic acid, likely because formic acid has a much
higher affinity for cytochrome oxidase in the mitochondria, the ultimate target site for toxicity.155 In
addition, the undissociated form is better able to diffuse into target tissues.122 Alkalinization with a
bicarbonate infusion shifts the equilibrium to favor the less toxic, dissociated form, in accordance
with the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. This also enhances formate clearance in the urine by ion
trapping.122 Data from uncontrolled case series demonstrate that patients treated with bicarbonate
alone had better than expected outcomes after severe methanol poisoning,177 but the results are
equivocal in patients also treated with ADH blockade and hemodialysis.34,119,171 Additionally, the
severity of the metabolic acidosis after methanol poisoning is a good predictor of severe neurological
effects such as coma and seizures,156 although it is not proven that alkalinization prevents these
effects. However, in the absence of contraindications to a bicarbonate infusion (eg, hypokalemia,
volume overload), alkalinization should be used in the patient with suspected methanol poisoning
and a significant acidemia. A blood pH greater than 7.20 is a reasonable endpoint. Alkalinization
should also be considered for patients with ethylene glycol poisoning and life-threatening metabolic
acidosis.
Aluminum citrate has potential promise as an adjunctive therapy for ethylene glycol poisoning. It
interacts with the surface of calcium oxalate monohydrate crystals and prevents their aggregation.
This decreases tissue damage from calcium oxalate monohydrate crystals in an in vitro model of
human proximal tubule cells.94 However, there are not yet any in vivo human studies or even case
reports, so it cannot be recommended for clinical use.
Some have suggested a possible benefit of corticosteroids for retinal injury following methanol
poisoning. In an uncontrolled case series, 13 of 15 patients showed improvement in their vision after
treatment with 1 g of methylprednisolone daily for 3 days, with one having worsening vision and one
unchanged.223 A patient in another case report had permanent vision loss despite corticosteroid
therapy using the same regimen.77Another uncontrolled case series used a slightly different dosing
regimen, with 250 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone administered every 6 hours followed by
oral prednisolone1 mg/kg daily for 10 days. After treatment, the mean best corrected visual acuity
improved, but methanol concentrations were not reported so exposure was not confirmed, and
acuity data were not reported for individual patients, so it is unclear whether any
worsened.1,209 Another series of four patients with mild methanol poisoning given the same treatment
regimen showed some improvement in vision.228 An uncontrolled case series with delayed
presentations, incomplete follow up, and an inconsistent corticosteroid regimen showed
improvement in some patients.206,220 In a series of 63 patients with methanol poisoning from a 2009
epidemic in India, all patients with evidence of optic neuritis (at least 60% of 46 survivors), were
treated with retrobulbar injections oftriamcinolone (dose not reported); 75% had some
improvement.218 Currently, however, these data are insufficient to support the routine use of
corticosteroids in methanol poisoning.227
SPECIAL POPULATIONS
Pregnant Women and Perinatal Exposure
There are very few reported cases of pregnant women with toxic alcohol poisoning, but some
conclusions can be drawn from the available data. Toxic alcohols readily cross the placenta, and
perinatal maternal methanol ingestion has resulted in death of a newborn.22One woman was initially
misdiagnosed with eclampsia after ingesting ethylene glycol and presenting with seizures and
metabolic acidosis in her 26th week of pregnancy. An emergency cesarean section was performed,
and she was later treated with hemodialysis and ethanol once the correct diagnosis was recognized.
The child was severely ill, with an initial pH of 6.63 and an initial serum ethylene glycol concentration
of 220 mg/dL. The baby was treated with exchange transfusion and ultimately survived without
sequelae after a long hospital course.143 In rat but not rabbit models of chronic high dose ethylene
glycol exposure, fetal axial skeletal malformations occur and are thought to be caused by
glycolate.52 No human case of chronic exposure has yet been reported.
OTHER ALCOHOLS
Propylene Glycol
Propylene glycol is commonly used as an alternative to ethylene glycol in “environmentally safe”
antifreeze. It is also used as a diluent for many pharmaceuticals (such as phenytoin and lorazepam).
This alcohol is successively metabolized by ADH and ALDH to lactate, so a metabolic acidosis
results. This can result in extremely high lactate concentrations typically that would be incompatible
with life if generated by any disease process. In other diseases associated with lactate accumulation
and acidosis, the lactate is a reflection of underlying anaerobic metabolism, a marker of severe
illness rather than part of the underlying pathophysiology. Lactic acidosis from propylene glycol is
surprisingly well tolerated because it represents nothing more sinister than its own metabolism, and
it is rapidly cleared by oxidation to pyruvate, which then undergoes normal carbohydrate metabolism
(Chap. 55).
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzyl alcohol is used as a preservative for intravenous solutions. Although it is no longer used in
neonatal medicine, it has been responsible for “neonatal gasping syndrome,” involving multiorgan
system dysfunction, metabolic acidosis, and death because of its metabolism to benzoic acid and
hippuric acid (Chap. 55).83,159
SUMMARY

Early symptoms of toxic alcohol poisoning may include inebriation, and subsequent toxicity
results from metabolism to organic acid anions that cause metabolic acidosis and end organ
effects.

The time required for this metabolism results in a delay before toxicity is clinically manifest.

Until serum concentrations are available, the serum anion gap and osmol gap may help with
decision making but do not exclude toxicity if the history is concerning.

Therapy consists of ADH antagonism with fomepizole or ethanol, as well as adjunctive
therapy with bicarbonate, folate or folinic acid, pyridoxine, and thiamine.

Hemodialysis is the definitive therapy for clinically ill patients as it removes the alcohol as well
as toxic metabolites while correcting the metabolic acidosis and electrolyte abnormalities.
Acknowledgments
Neal E. Flomenbaum, MD, Mary Ann Howland, PharmD, Neal A. Lewin, MD, and Adhi N. Sharma,
MD, contributed to this chapter in previous editions.
References
1.
Abrishami M, Khalifeh M, Shoayb M, Abrishami M: Therapeutic effects of high-dose
intravenous prednisolone in methanol-induced toxic optic neuropathy. J Ocul Pharmacol
Ther. 2011;27:261–263.
CrossRef [PubMed: 21663445]
2.
Adanir T, Ozkalkanli MY, Aksun M: Percutaneous methanol intoxication: a case report.Eur J
Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:560–561.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16045152]
3.
Ahsan H, Akbar M, Hameed A: Diffusion weighted image (DWI) findings in methanol intoxication. J
Pak Med Assoc. 2009;59:322–323.
4.
Akhgari M, Panahianpour MH, Bazmi E et al.: Fatal methanol poisoning: features of liver
histopathology. Toxicol Ind Health. 2013;29:136–141.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22082823]
5.
Alexander CB, McBay AJ, Hudson RP: Isopropanol and isopropanol deaths: ten years’
experience. J Forensic Sci 1982;27:541–548. [PubMed: 7119710]
6.
Almansori M, Ahmed SN: CT findings in methanol intoxication. CMAJ. 2007;176:620–623.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17325325]
7.
Alzouebi M, Sarrigiannis PG, Hadjivassilou M: Acute polyradiculoneuropathy with renal failure:
mind the anion gap. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79:842–844.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18559464]
8.
Anderson TJ, Shuaib A, Becker WJ: Neurologic sequelae of methanol
poisoning.CMAJ. 1987;136:1177–1179. [PubMed: 3567778]
9.
Anseeuw K, Sabbe MB, Legrand A: Methanol poisoning: the duality between “fast and cheap” and
“slow and expensive.” Eur J Emerg Med. 2007;15:107–109.
CrossRef
10.
Ariswodola OJ, Weiner JL: Ethanol potentiation of GABAergic synaptic transmission may be selflimiting: role of presynaptic GABAB receptors. J Neurosci.2004;24:10679–10686.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15564584]
11.
Armstrong EJ, Engelhart DA, Jenkins A, Balraj EK: Homicidal ethylene glycol intoxication: a report
of a case. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2006;27:151–155.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16738434]
12.
Arora V, Nijjar IB, Multani AS et al.: MRI findings in methanol intoxication: a report of two
cases. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:e243–e246.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17959915]
13.
Askar A, Al-Suwaida A: Methanol intoxication with brain hemorrhage: catastrophic outcome of late
presentation. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant. 2007;18:117–122.
14.
Aufderheide TP, White SM, Brady WJ, Stueven HA: Inhalational and percutaneous methanol
toxicity in two firefighters. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:1916–1918.
CrossRef [PubMed: 8239116]
15.
Avella J, Briglia E, Harleman G, Lehrer M: Case report: percutaneous absorption and distribution
of methanol in a homicide. J Anal Toxicol. 2005;29:734–737.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16419410]
16.
Azmak D: Methanol related deaths in Edirne. Legal Med. 2006;8:39–42.
CrossRef
17.
Baldwin F, Sran H: Delayed ethylene glycol poisoning presenting with abdominal pain and multiple
cranial and peripheral neuropathies: a case report. J Med Case Rep.2010;4:220–223.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20663174]
18.
Barceloux DG, Bond GR, Krenzelok EP et al.: American Academy of Clinical Toxicology practice
guidelines on the treatment of methanol poisoning. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2002;40:415–446.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12216995]
19.
Barceloux DG, Krenzelok EP, Olson K, Watson W: American Academy of Clinical Toxicology
practice guidelines on the treatment of ethylene glycol poisoning. J Toxicol Clin
Toxicol. 1999;37:537–560.
CrossRef [PubMed: 10497633]
20.
Bebarta V, Heard K, Dart RC: Inhalational abuse of methanol products: elevated methanol and
formate levels without vision loss. Am J Emerg Med. 2006;24:725–728.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16984844]
21.
Becalski A, Bartlett KH: Methanol exposure to car occupants from windshield washing fluid: a pilot
study. Indoor Air. 2006;16:153–157. [PubMed: 16507042]
22.
Belson M, Morgan BW: Methanol toxicity in a newborn. Clin Toxicol. 2004;42:673–677.
CrossRef
23.
Bennett IL, Cary FH, Mitchell GL, Cooper MN: Acute methyl alcohol poisoning: a review based on
experiences in an outbreak of 323 cases. Medicine. 1953;32:432–463.
CrossRef
24.
Bessell-Browne RJ, Bynevelt M: Two cases of methanol poisoning: CT and MRI
features. Australasian Radiol. 2007;51:175–178.
CrossRef
25.
Bestic M, Blackford M, Reed M: Fomepizole: a critical assessment of current dosing
recommendations. J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;49:130–137.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19004845]
26.
Blanco M, Casado R, Vázquez F, Pumar JM: CT and MR imaging findings in methanol
intoxication. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:452–454.
27.
Blomme B, Lheureux P, Gerlo E, Maes V: Cobas Mira S endpoint enzymatic assay for plasma
formate. J Anal Toxicol. 2001;25:77–80.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11300510]
28.
Boyer EW, Mejia M, Woolf A, Shannon M: Severe ethylene glycol ingestion treated without
hemodialysis. Pediatrics. 2001;107;172–173.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11134452]
29.
Boyle R: Sceptical Chymist. London: F. Crooke; 1661;292.
30.
Brahmi N, Blel Y, Abidi N et al.: Methanol poisoning in Tunisia: report of 16 cases.Clin
Toxicol. 2007;45:717–720.
CrossRef
31.
Brent J: Fomepizole for the treatment of pediatric ethylene and diethylene glycol, butoxyethanol,
and methanol poisonings. Clin Toxicol. 2010;48:401–406.
CrossRef
32.
Brent J, Lucas M, Kulig K, Rumack B: Methanol poisoning in a 6-week-old infant. J
Pediatr. 1991;118:644–666.
CrossRef [PubMed: 1801762]
33.
Brent J, McMartin K, Phillips S et al.: Fomepizole for the treatment of ethylene glycol poisoning. N
Engl J Med. 1999;340:832–838.
CrossRef [PubMed: 10080845]
34.
Brent J, McMartin K, Phillips S et al.: Fomepizole for the treatment of methanol poisoning. N Engl
J Med. 2001;344:424–429.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11172179]
35.
Brindley PG, Butler MS, Cembrowski G, Brindley DN: Falsely elevated point-of-care lactate
measurement after ingestion of ethylene glycol. CMAJ. 2007;176:1097–1099.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17420492]
36.
Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr et al.: 2007 Annual Report of the American
Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 25th Annual
Report. Clin Toxicol. 2008;46:927–1057.
CrossRef
37.
Buchanan JA, Alhelail M, Cetaruk EW et al.: Massive ethylene glycol ingestion treated
with fomepizole alone—a viable therapeutic option. J Med Toxicol.2010;6:131–134.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20422336]
38.
Buller GK, Moskowitz CB: When is it appropriate to treat ethylene glycol intoxication
with fomepizole alone without hemodialysis? Semin Dial. 2011;24:441–442.
CrossRef [PubMed: 21801226]
39.
Caparros-Lefebvre D, Policard J, Sengler C et al.: Bipallidal hemorrhage after ethylene glycol
intoxication. Neuroradiology. 2005;47:105–107.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15714272]
40.
Caravati EM, Anderson KT: Breath alcohol analyzer mistakes methanol poisoning for alcohol
intoxication. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55:198–200.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19833410]
41.
Carr S, Strachan DR, Summerfield AQ et al.: Outcomes with bilateral cochlear implantation
following sudden dual sensory loss after ethylene glycol poisoning.Cochlear Implants
Int. 2011;12:173–176.
CrossRef [PubMed: 21917206]
42.
Carta M, Mameli M, Valenzuela CF: Alcohol enhances GABAergic transmission to cerebellar
granule cells via an increase in Golgi cell excitability. J Neurosci.2004;24:3746–3751.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15084654]
43.
Casavant MJ, Shah MN, Battels R: Does fluorescent urine indicate antifreeze ingestion by
children? Pediatrics. 2001;107:113–114.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11134443]
44.
Cascallana JL, Gordo V, Montes R: Severe necrosis of oesophageal and gastric mucosa in fatal
methanol poisoning. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;220:e9–e12.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22398189]
45.
Chaudhry SD, Pinnell AE: Lactate gap and ethylene glycol poisoning. Eur J
Anaesthesiol. 2007;25:508–524.
46.
Chen JM, Zhu GY, Xia WT, Zhao ZQ: Proteomic analysis of rat retina after methanol
intoxication. Toxicology. 2012;293:89–96.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22257634]
47.
Cheng JT, Beysolow TD, Kaul B et al.: Clearance of ethylene glycol by kidneys and
hemodialysis. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1987;25:95–108.
CrossRef [PubMed: 3035205]
48.
Chung TN, Kim SW, Park YS, Park I: Unilateral blindness with third cranial nerve palsy and
abnormal enhancement of extraocular muscles on magnetic resonance imaging of orbit after the
ingestion of methanol. Emerg Med J. 2010;27:409–410.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20442183]
49.
Clay KL, Murphy RC: On the metabolic acidosis of ethylene glycol intoxication.Toxicol Appl
Pharmacol. 1977;39:39–49.
CrossRef [PubMed: 14421]
50.
Clay KL, Murphy RC, Watkins DW: Experimental methanol toxicity in the primate: analysis of
metabolic acidosis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1975;34:49–61.
CrossRef [PubMed: 819]
51.
Coll GF, Fitó GA, Gonzàlez MI et al.: Bilateral compartment syncrome in thighs and legs by
methanol intoxication: a case report. Emerg Med J. 2008;25:540–541.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18660418]
52.
Corley RA, Meek ME, Carney EW: Mode of action: oxalate crystal-induced renal tubule
degeneration and glycolic acid-induced dysmorphogenesis—renal and developmental effects of
ethylene glycol. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2005;35:691–702.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16417036]
53.
Cornes MP, Ford C, Gama R: The lactate gap revisited: variable interference with lactate analysis
in ethylene glycol poisoning. Br J Biomed Sci. 2010;67:148–150. [PubMed: 20973412]
54.
Coulter CV, Farquhar SE, McSherry CM et al.: Methanol and ethylene glycol acute poisonings—
predictors of mortality. Clin Toxicol. 2011;49:900–906.
CrossRef
55.
Coulter CV, Ibister GK, Duffull SB: The pharmacokinetics of methanol in the presence of
ethanol. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50:245–251.
CrossRef [PubMed: 21271747]
56.
Darracq MA, Ly BT: Gastric aspirate fluorescence in ethylene glycol poisoning. J Emerg
Med. 2012;43:e457–e458.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22975284]
57.
Darwish A, Roth CE, Duclos P et al.: Investigation into a cluster of infant deaths following
immunization: evidence for methanol intoxication. Vaccine. 2002;20:3585–3589.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12297405]
58.
Davis LE, Hudson A, Benson BE et al.: Methanol poisoning exposures in the United States: 1993–
1998. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2002;40:499–505.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12217003]
59.
Delany C, Jay W: Papilledema and abducens nerve palsy following ethylene glycol
ingestion. Semin. Opthalmol. 2004;19:72–74.
CrossRef
60.
Deniz S, Oppenheim C, Lehericy S et al.: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a
case of methanol intoxication. Neurotoxicology. 2000;21:405–408.
61.
Desai T, Sudhalkar A, Vyas U, Khamar B: Methanol poisoning—predictors of visual
outcomes. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131:358–364.
CrossRef [PubMed: 23303293]
62.
Dezso A, Ramsden R, Saeed SR et al.: Bilateral cochlear implantation after ethylene glycol
intoxication: a case report. Cochlear Implants Int. 2011;12:170–172.
CrossRef [PubMed: 21917205]
63.
Driver J, Tardiff RG, Sedik L et al.: In vitro percutaneous absorption of [14 C] ethylene glycol by
man. J Exposure Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1993;3:277–284.
64.
Dujardin M, Peeters E, Ernst C, Stadnik T: Bilateral putaminal necrosis due to methanol
abuse. JBR-BTR. 2006;89:315–317. [PubMed: 17274589]
65.
Dyer S, Mycyk MB, Ahrens WR, Zell-Kanter M: Hemorrhagic gastritis from topical isopropanol
exposure. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36:1733–1735.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12398569]
66.
Eells JT, Henry MM, Lewandowski MF et al.: Development and characterization of a rodent model
of methanol-induced retinal and optic nerve toxicity. Neurotoxicology.2000;21:321–330. [PubMed:
10894122]
67.
El-Bakary AA, El-Dakrory SA, Attalla SM et al.: Ranitidine as an alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitor
in acute methanol toxicity in rats. Hum Exp Toxicol.2010;29:93–101.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20026516]
68.
Elwell RJ, Darouian P, Bailie GR et al.: Delayed absorption and postdialysis rebound in a case of
acute methanol poisoning. Am J Emerg Med. 2004;22:126–127.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15011234]
69.
Erecinska M, Wilson DF: Inhibitors of cytochrome c oxidase. Pharmacol Ther.1980;8:1–10.
CrossRef
70.
Ethylene glycol: Chemeurope.com information
service.http://www.chemie.de/lexikon/e/Ethylene_glycol. Accessed August 8, 2008.
71.
Fijen J, Kemperman H, Ververs FFT, Meulenbelt J: False hyperlactatemia in ethylene glycol
poisoning. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32:626–627.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16501949]
72.
Fontenat AP, Pelak VS: Development of neurologic symptoms in a 26-year-old woman following
recovery from methanol intoxication. Chest. 2002;122:1436–1439.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12377876]
73.
Frang D, Csata S, Szemenyei K, Hamvasi G: Kidney damage caused by ethylene glycol
poisoning. Z Urol Nephrol. 1967;60:465–471. [PubMed: 5585489]
74.
Frantz SW, Beskitt JL, Grosse CM et al.: Pharmacokinetics of ethylene glycol. I. Plasma
disposition after single intravenous, peroral, or percutaneous doses in female Sprague-Dawley rats
and CD-1 mice. Drug Metab Dispos. 1996;24:911–921. [PubMed: 8869828]
75.
Frenia ML, Schauben JL: Methanol inhalation toxicity. Ann Emerg Med.1993;22:1919–1923.
CrossRef [PubMed: 8239117]
76.
Froberg K, Dorion RP, McMartin KE: The role of calcium oxalate crystal deposition in cerebral
vessels during ethylene glycol poisoning. Clin Toxicol. 2006;44:315–318.
CrossRef
77.
Fujihara M, Kikuchi M, Kurimoto Y: Methanol-induced retinal toxicity patient examined by optical
coherence tomography. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2006;50:239–241.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16767379]
78.
Fujita M, Tsuruta R, Wakatsuki J et al.: Methanol intoxication: differential diagnosis from anion
gap-increased acidosis. Intern Med. 2004;43:750–754.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15468980]
79.
Gaines L, Waibel KH: Calcium oxalate crystalluria. Emerg Med J. 2007;24:310.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17384397]
80.
Gaffney S, Moody E, McKinley M et al.: Worker exposure to methanol vapors during cleaning of
semiconductor wafers in a manufacturing setting. J Occup Environ Hyg.2008;5:313–24.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18330801]
81.
Garg U, Frazee C, Johnson L, Turner JW: A fatal case involving extremely high levels of ethylene
glycol without elevation of its metabolites or crystalluria. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2009;30:273–
275.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19696585]
82.
George M, Al-Duaij N, Becker ML, Eswald MB: Re: ethylene glycol ingestion treated only
with fomepizole. J Med Toxicol. 2008;4:67.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19043893]
83.
Gershanik J, Boecler B, Ensley H et al.: The gasping syndrome and benzyl alcohol poisoning. N
Engl J Med. 198225307:1384–1388.
CrossRef
84.
Ghannoum M, Haddad HK, Lavergne V et al.: Lack of toxic effects of methanol in a patient with
HIV. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010;55:957–961.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20176424]
85.
Gil HW, Hong JR, Song HY, Hong SY: A case of methanol intoxication caused by methomyl
pesticide ingestion. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2012;31:1299–1302.
CrossRef [PubMed: 23023026]
86.
Gilbert C, Baram M, Marik PE: Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration in severe metabolic
acidosis secondary to ethylene glycol ingestion. South Med J.2010;103:846–847.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20622722]
87.
Givens M, Kalbfleisch K, Bryson S: Comparison of methanol exposure routes reported to Texas
poison control centers. West J Emerg Med. 2008;9:150–153. [PubMed: 19561731]
88.
Graw M, Haffner HT, Althaus L et al.: Invasion and distribution of methanol. Arch
Toxicol. 2000;74:313–321.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11005677]
89.
Green R: The management of severe toxic alcohol ingestions at a tertiary care center after the
introduction of fomepizole. Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25:799–803.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17870485]
90.
Grobin AC, Matthews DB, Devaud LL, Morrow AL: The role of GABAA receptors in the acute and
chronic effects of ethanol. Psychopharmacologia. 1998;139:2–19.
CrossRef
91.
Grufferman S, Morris D, Alvarez J: Methanol poisoning complicated by myoglobinuric renal
failure. Am J Emerg Med. 1985;3:481–483.
CrossRef [PubMed: 4041203]
92.
Guggenheim MA, Couch JR, Weinberg W: Motor dysfunction as permanent complication of
methanol ingestion. Arch Neurol. 1971;24:550–554.
CrossRef [PubMed: 5089901]
[Archives of Neurology Full Text]
93.
Guo C, Cenac TA, Li Y, McMartin KE: Calcium oxalate, and not other metabolites, is responsible
for the renal toxicity of ethylene glycol. Toxicol Lett. 2007;173:8–16.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17681674]
94.
Guo C, McMartin KE: Aluminum citrate inhibits cytotoxicity and aggregation of oxalate
crystals. Toxicology. 2007;230:117–125.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17161516]
95.
Guo C, McMartin KE: The cytotoxicity of oxalate, metabolite of ethylene glycol, is due to calcium
oxalate monohydrate formation. Toxicology. 2005;208:347–355.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15695020]
96.
Hack JB, Early J, Brewer KL: An alcohol oxidase dipstick rapidly detects methanol in the serum of
mice. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:1130–1134.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18045886]
97.
Haffner HT, Banger M, Graw M et al.: The kinetics of methanol elimination in alcoholics and the
influence of ethanol. Forensic Sci Int. 1997;89:129–136.
CrossRef [PubMed: 9306671]
98.
Haffner HT, Wehner HD, Scheytt KD, Besserer K: The elimination kinetics of methanol and the
influence of ethanol. Int J Legal Med. 1992;105:111–114.
CrossRef [PubMed: 1520634]
99.
Halavaara J, Valanne L, Setala K: Neuroimaging supports the clinical diagnosis of methanol
poisoning. Neuroradiology. 2002;44:924–928.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12428128]
100.
Hantson P, Duprez T, Mahieu P: Neurotoxicity to the basal ganglia shown by magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) following poisoning by methanol and other substances. J Toxicol Clin
Toxicol. 1997;35:151–161.
CrossRef [PubMed: 9120884]
101.
Hantson P, Haufroid V, Wallemacq P: Formate kinetics in methanol poisoning. Hum Exp
Toxicol. 2005;24:55–59.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15850279]
102.
Hantson P, Mahieu P: Pancreatic injury following acute methanol poisoning. J Toxicol Clin
Toxicol. 2000;38:297–303.
CrossRef [PubMed: 10866330]
103.
Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Pajoumand A, Dadgar SM, Shadnia SH: Prognostic factors in
methanol poisoning. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2007;26:583–586.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17884962]
104.
Hirsch DJ, Jindal KK, Wong P, Fraser AD: A simple method to estimate the required dialysis time
for cases of alcohol poisoning. Kidney Int. 2001;60:2021–2024.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11703622]
105.
Hoffman PL: NMDA receptors in alcoholism. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2003;56:35–82. [PubMed:
14696310]
106.
Hoffman RJ, Hoffman RS, Nelson LS: Ethylene glycol toxicity despite therapeutic ethanol level. J
Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2001;39:302.
CrossRef
107.
Hoffman RS: Does consensus equal correctness? J Toxicol Clin Toxicol.2000;38:689–690.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11192453]
108.
Hoffman RS, Smilkstein MJ, Howland MA, Goldfrank LR: Osmol gaps revisited: normal values and
limitations. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1993;31:81–93.
CrossRef [PubMed: 8433417]
109.
Holubek WJ, Hoffman RS, Goldfarb DS, Nelson LS: Use of hemodialysis and hemoperfusion in
poisoned patients. Kidney Int. 2008;74:1327–1334.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18800032]
110.
Hovda KE, Andersson KS, Urdal P, Jacobsen D: Methanol and formate kinetics during treatment
with fomepizole. Clin Toxicol. 2005;43:221–227.
CrossRef
111.
Hovda KE, Hunderi OH, Rudberg N et al.: Anion and osmolal gaps in the diagnosis of methanol
poisoning: clinical study in 28 patients. Intensive Care Med.2004;30:1842–1846.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15241587]
112.
Hovda KE, Jacobsen D: Expert opinion: fomepizole may ameliorate the need for hemodialysis in
methanol poisoning. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2008;27:539–546.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18829729]
113.
Hovda KE, Julsrud J, Øvreb⊘ S et al.: Studies on ethylene glycol poisoning: one patient—154
admissions. Clin Toxicol. 2011;49:478–484.
CrossRef
114.
Hovda KE, Mundal H, Urdal P et al.: Extremely slow formate elimination in severe methanol
poisoning: a fatal case report. Clin Toxicol. 2007;45:516–521.
CrossRef
115.
Hovda KE, Urdal P, Jacobsen D: Case report: increased serum formate in the diagnosis of
methanol poisoning. J Anal Toxicol. 2005;29:586–588.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16168185]
116.
Hunderi OH, Hovda KE, Jacobsen D: Use of the osmolal gap to guide the start and duration of
dialysis in methanol poisoning. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006;40:70–74.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16452060]
117.
Jacobsen D, Bredesen JE, Eide I, Ostborg J: Anion and osmolal gaps in the diagnosis of
methanol and ethylene glycol poisoning. Acta Med Scand. 1982;212:17–20.
CrossRef [PubMed: 7124457]
118.
Jacobsen D, Hewlett TP, Webb R et al.: Ethylene glycol intoxication: evaluation of kinetics and
crystalluria. Am J Med. 1988;84:145–152.
CrossRef [PubMed: 3337119]
119.
Jacobsen D, Jansen H, Wiik-Larsen E et al.: Studies on methanol poisoning. Acta Med
Scand. 1982;212:5–10.
CrossRef [PubMed: 7124461]
120.
Jacobsen D, McMartin KE: Methanol and ethylene glycol poisonings: mechanism of toxicity, clinical
course, diagnosis and treatment. Med Toxicol. 1986;1:309–334. [PubMed: 3537623]
121.
Jacobsen D, Ovrebo S, Sejersted OM: Toxicokinetics of formate during hemodialysis. Acta Med
Scand. 1983;214:409–412.
CrossRef [PubMed: 6660049]
122.
Jacobsen D, Webb R, Collins TD, McMartin KE: Methanol and formate kinetics in late diagnosed
methanol intoxication. Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp. 1988;3:418–423.
CrossRef [PubMed: 3193890]
123.
Jain N, Himanshu D, Verma SP, Parihar A: Methanol poisoning: characteristic MRI findings. Ann
Saudi Med. 2013;33:68–69. [PubMed: 22634487]
124.
Jarwani BS, Motiani P, Divetia R, Thakkar G: Rare combination of bilateral putaminal necrosis,
optic neuritis, and polyneuropathy in a case of acute methanol intoxication among patients met with
hooch tragedy in Gujarat, India. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2012;5:356–359.
CrossRef [PubMed: 23248510]
125.
Jeghers H, Murphy R: Practical aspects of oxalate metabolism. N Engl J Med.1945;233:208–215.
CrossRef
126.
Jones GR, Singer PP, Rittenbach K: The relationship of methanol and formate concentrations in
fatalities where methanol is detected. J Forensic Sci.2007;52:1376–1382. [PubMed: 17868264]
127.
Jorens PG: Ethylene glycol poisoning and lactate concentrations. J Anal Toxicol.2009;33:395.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19796512]
128.
Jorens PG: Falsely elevated lactate and ethylene glycol. Clin Toxicol. 2009;47:691.
CrossRef
129.
Kalkan S, Cevik AA, Cavdar C et al.: Acute methanol poisonings reported to the drug and poison
information center in Izmir, Turkey. Vet Hum Toxicol. 2003;5:334–337.
130.
Kane RL, Talbert W, Harlan J et al.: A methanol poisoning outbreak in Kentucky.Arch Environ
Health. 1968;17:119–129.
CrossRef [PubMed: 5671079]
131.
Karaduman F, Asil T, Balci K et al.: Bilateral basal ganglionic lesions due to transdermal methanol
intoxication. J Clin Neurosci. 2009;16:1504–1506.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19628396]
132.
Karayel F, Turan AA, Sav A et al.: Methanol intoxication—pathological changes of central nervous
system. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2010;31:34–36.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20010293]
133.
Kearney J, Rees S, Chiang WK: Availability of serum methanol and ethylene glycol levels: a
national survey . J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1997;35:509.
134.
Keiran S, Bhimani B, Dixit A: Ethylene glycol toxicity. Am J Kidney Dis.2005;46:e31–e3.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16134263]
135.
Keles GT, Orguc S, Toprak B et al.: Methanol poisoning with necrosis corpus callosum. Clin
Toxicol. 2007;45:307–308.
CrossRef
136.
Kerns W II, Tomaszewski C, McMartin K et al.: Formate kinetics in methanol poisoning. J Toxicol
Clin Toxicol. 2002;40:137–143.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12126185]
137.
Killeen C, Meehan T, Dohnal J, Leikin JB: Pseudorenal insufficiency with isopropyl alcohol
ingestion. Am J Ther. 2011;18:e113–e116.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20093926]
138.
Kinoshita H, Nishiguchi M, Ouchi H et al.: Methanol: toxicity of the solvent in a commercial product
should also be considered. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2005;24:663.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16408620]
139.
Kleiman R, Nickle R, Schwartz M: Medical toxicology and public health—update on research and
activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry inhalational methanol toxicity. J Med Toxicol. 2009;5:158–164.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19655291]
140.
Korchanov LS, Lebedev FM, Lizanets MN et al.: Treatment of patients with acute kidney
insufficiency caused by methyl alcohol poisoning. Urol Nefrol (Mosk).1970;35:66–67. [PubMed:
5457170]
141.
Kostic MA, Dart RC: Rethinking the toxic methanol level. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol.2003;41:793–800.
CrossRef [PubMed: 14677789]
142.
Krahn J, Khajuria A: Osmolality gaps: diagnostic accuracy and long-term variability.Clin
Chem. 2006;52:737–739.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16455871]
143.
Kralova I, Stepanek Z, Dusek J: Ethylene glycol intoxication misdiagnosed as eclampsia. Acta
Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:385–387.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16480476]
144.
Kraut JA, Jurtz I: Toxic alcohol ingestions: clinical features, diagnosis, and management. Clin J Am
Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:208–225.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18045860]
145.
Kuskonmaz B, Duzova A, Kanbur NO et al.: Hemophagocytic syndrome and acute liver failure
associated with ethylene glycol ingestion: a case report. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2006;23:427–432.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16728363]
146.
Kute VB, Godara SM, Shah PR et al.: Hemodialysis for methyl alcohol poisoning: a single center
experience. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2012;23:37–43. [PubMed: 22237216]
147.
Laakso O, Haapala M, Jaakkola P et al.: FT-IR breath test in the diagnosis and control of
treatment of methanol intoxications. J Anal Toxicol. 2001;25:26–30.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11215996]
148.
Leaf G, Zatman LJ: A study of the conditions under which methanol may exert a toxic hazard in
industry. Brit J Industr Med. 1952;9:19–31.
149.
Lepik KJ, Brubacher JR, DeWitt CR et al.: Bradycardia and hypotension associated
with fomepizole infusion during hemodialysis. Clin Toxicol. 2008;46:570–573.
CrossRef
150.
Lepik KJ, Levy AR, Sobolev BG et al.: Adverse drug events associated with the antidotes for
methanol and ethylene glycol poisoning: a comparison of ethanol andfomepizole. Ann Emerg
Med. 2009;53:439–450.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18639955]
151.
Leth PM, Gregersen M: Ethylene glycol poisoning. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;155:179–184.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16226155]
152.
Levine M, Curry SC, Ruha AM et al.: Ethylene glycol elimination kinetics and outcomes in patients
managed without hemodialysis. Ann Emerg med. 2012;59:527–531.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22226175]
153.
Levy P, Hexdall A, Gordon P et al.: Methanol contamination of Romanian home-distilled alcohol. J
Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2003;41:23–28.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12645964]
154.
Lewin GA, Oppenheimer PR, Wingert WA: Coma from alcohol sponging. J Am Coll Emerg
Physicians. 1977;6:165–167.
155.
Liesivuori J, Savolainen H: Methanol and formic acid toxicity: biochemical mechanisms. Pharmacol
Toxicol. 1991;69:157–163.
CrossRef [PubMed: 1665561]
156.
Liu JJ, Daya MR, Carrasquillo O, Kales SN: Prognostic factors in patients with methanol
poisoning. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1998;36:175–181.
CrossRef [PubMed: 9656972]
157.
Long H, Nelson LS, Hoffman RS: A rapid qualitative test for suspected ethylene glycol
poisoning. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:688–690.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19086326]
158.
LoVecchio F, Sawyers B, Thole D et al.: Outcomes following abuse of methanol-containing
carburetor cleaners. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2004;23:473–475.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15553172]
159.
Lovejoy FH Jr: Fatal benzyl alcohol poisoning in neonatal intensive care units. A new concern for
pediatricians. Am J Dis Child. 1982;136:974–975.
CrossRef [PubMed: 7124703]
160.
Lovrić M, Granić P, Cubrilo-Turek M et al.: Ethylene glycol poisoning. Forensic Sci
Int. 2007;170:213–215.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17629645]
161.
Lu JJ, Kalimullah EA, Bryant SM: Unilateral blindness following acute methanol poisoning. J Med
Toxicol. 2010;6:459–460.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20361364]
162.
Lynd LD, Richardson KJ, Purssell RA et al.: An evaluation of the osmole gap as a screening test
for toxic alcohol poisoning. BMC Emerg Med. 2008;8:1–10.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18218122]
163.
Manini AF, Hoffman RS, McMartin KE, Nelson LS: Relationship between serum glycolate and
falsely elevated lactate in severe ethylene glycol poisoning. J Anal Toxicol. 2009;33:227–229.
164.
Marraffa J, Forrest A, Grant W et al.: Oral administration of fomepizole produces similar blood
levels as identical intravenous dose. Clin Toxicol. 2008;46:181–186.
CrossRef
165.
Martin-Amat G, Tephly TR, McMartin KE et al.: Methyl alcohol poisoning II. Development of a
model for ocular toxicity in methyl alcohol poisoning using the rhesus monkey. Arch
Ophthalmol. 1977;95:1847–1850.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20870]
[Archives of Ophthalmology Full Text]
166.
Massoumi G, Saberi K, Eizadi-Mood N et al.: Methanol poisoning in Iran, from 2000 to 2009. Drug
Chem Toxicol. 2012;35:330–333.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22289573]
167.
McLean DR, Jacobs H, Mielke BW: Methanol poisoning: a clinical and pathological study. Ann
Neurol. 1980;8:161–167.
CrossRef [PubMed: 7425569]
168.
McMartin KE, Cenac TA: Toxicity of ethylene glycol metabolites in normal human kidney cells. Ann
N Y Acad Sci. 2000;919:315–317.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11083124]
169.
McMartin KE, Makar AB, Martin-Amat G et al.: Methanol poisoning, I: the role of formic acid in the
development of metabolic acidosis in the monkey and the reversal by 4-methylpyrazole. Biochem
Med. 1975;13:319–333.
CrossRef [PubMed: 2163]
170.
Meng QH, Adeli K, Zello GA et al.: Elevated lactate in ethylene glycol poisoning: true or
false? Clin Chim Acta. 2010;411:601–604.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20096388]
171.
Meyer RJ, Beard MEJ, Ardagh MW, Henderson S: Methanol poisoning. NZ Med J.2000;113:11–
13.
172.
Mihic SJ: Acute effects of ethanol on GABAA and glycine receptor function.Neurochem
Int. 1999;35:115–123.
CrossRef [PubMed: 10405995]
173.
Minguela JI, Lanzagorta MJ, Hernando A, Audicana J: Methanol poisoning. Evolution of blood
levels with high-flux haemodialysis. Nefrologia. 2011;31:120–121. [PubMed: 21270930]
174.
Morfin J, Chin A: Urinary calcium oxalate crystals in ethylene glycol intoxication. N Engl J
Med. 2005;353:e21.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16354887]
175.
Morgan TJ, Clark C, Clague A: Artifactual elevation of measured plasma l-lactate concentration in
the presence of glycolate. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:2177–2179.
CrossRef [PubMed: 10548202]
176.
Mycyk MB, Drendel A, Sigg T, Leikin JB: Leukemoid response in ethylene glycol intoxication. Vet
Human Toxicol. 2002;44:304–306.
177.
Naraqi S, Dethlefs RF, Slobodniuk RA, Sairere JS: An outbreak of acute methyl alcohol
intoxication. Aust NZ J Med. 1979;9:65–68.
CrossRef
178.
Nath R, Thind SK, Murthy MS et al.: Role of pyridoxine in oxalate metabolism. Ann NY Acad
Sci. 1990;585:274–284.
CrossRef
179.
Nicholls P: The effect of formate on cytochrome aa3, and on electron transport in the intact
respiratory chain. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1976;430:13–29.
CrossRef [PubMed: 4141]
180.
Nicholls P: Formate as an inhibitor of cytochrome c oxidase. Biochem Biophys Res
Commun. 1975;67:610–616.
CrossRef [PubMed: 1020]
181.
Noker PE, Eells JT, Tephly TR: Methanol toxicity: treatment with folic acid and 5-formyl
tetrahydrofolic acid. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1980;4:378–383.
CrossRef [PubMed: 7004236]
182.
Noker PE, Tephly TR: The role of folates in methanol toxicity. Adv Exp Med Biol.1980;132:305–
315. [PubMed: 6968503]
183.
Onder F, Ilker S, Kansu T et al.: Acute blindness and putaminal necrosis in methanol
intoxication. Int Ophthalmol. 1999;22:81–84.
CrossRef
184.
Osterloh JD, Pond SM, Grady S, Becker CE: Serum formate concentrations in methanol
intoxication as a criterion for hemodialysis. Ann Intern Med. 1986;104:200–203.
CrossRef [PubMed: 3946945]
185.
Paasma R, Hovda KE, Hassanian-Moghaddam H et al.: Risk factors related to poor outcome after
methanol poisoning and the relation between outcome and antidotes—a multicenter study. Clin
Toxicol. 2012;50:823–831.
CrossRef
186.
Paasma R, Hovda KE, Jacobsen D: Methanol poisoning and long term sequelae- a six years
follow-up after a large methanol outbreak. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2009;9:5.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19327138]
187.
Paasma R, Hovda KE, Tikkerberi A, Jacobsen D: Methanol mass poisoning in Estonia: outbreak
in 154 patients. Clin Toxicol. 2007;45:152–157.
CrossRef
188.
Palatnick W, Redman LW, Sitar DS, Tenenbein M: Methanol half life during ethanol
administration: implications for management of methanol poisoning. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;26:202–
207.
CrossRef [PubMed: 7618784]
189.
Parsa T, Cunningham SJ, Wall SJ et al.: The usefulness of urine fluorescence for suspected
antifreeze ingestion in children. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23:787–792.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16182989]
190.
Patankar T, Bichile L, Karnad D et al.: Methanol poisoning: brain computerized tomography scan
findings in four patients. Australasian Radiol. 1999;43:526–528.
CrossRef
191.
Pernet P, Maury E: False elevation of blood lactate reveals ethylene glycol poisoning. Am J Emerg
Med. 2009;27:132.e1–132.e2.
CrossRef
192.
Pietruszko R: Human liver alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition of methanol activity by pyrazole, 4methylpyrazole, 4-hydroxymethylpyrazole and 4-carbopyrazole. Biochem Pharmacol. 1975;24:1603–
1607.
CrossRef [PubMed: 172084]
193.
Pietruszko R, Voigtlander K, Lester D: Alcohol dehydrogenase from human and horse liversubstance specificity with diols. Biochem Pharmacol. 1978;27:1296–1297.
CrossRef [PubMed: 697930]
194.
Pizon AF, Brooks DE: Hyperosmolality: another indication for hemodialysis following acute ethylene
glycol poisoning. Clin Toxicol. 2206;44:181–183.
CrossRef
195.
Poldelski V, Johnson A, Wright S et al.: Ethylene glycol-mediated tubular injury: identification of
critical metabolites and injury pathways. Am J Kidney Dis.2001;38:339–48.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11479160]
196.
Pomara C, Fiore C, D’Errico S et al.: Calcium oxalate crystals in acute ethylene glycol poisoning:
a confocal laser scanning microscope study in a fatal case. Clin Toxicol. 2008;46:322–324.
CrossRef
197.
Porter WH, Crellin M, Rutter PW, Oeltgen P: Interference by glycolic acid in the Beckman
Synchron method for lactate: a useful clue for unsuspected ethylene glycol intoxication. Clin
Chem. 2000;46:874–875. [PubMed: 10839784]
198.
Porter WH, Rutter PW, Bush BA et al.: Ethylene glycol toxicity: the role of serum glycolic acid in
hemodialysis. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2001;39:607–615.
CrossRef [PubMed: 11762669]
199.
Rahman SS, Kadakia S, Balsam L, Rubinstein S: Autonomic dysfunction as a delayed sequelae
of acute ethylene glycol ingestion. J Med Toxicol. 2012;8:124–129.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22090149]
200.
Reddy NJ, Lewis LD, Gardner TB et al.: Two cases of rapid onset Parkinson’s syndrome following
toxic ingestion of ethylene glycol and methanol. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81:114–121.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17186009]
201.
Reddy NJ, Sudini M, Lewis LD: Delayed neurological sequelae from ethylene flycol, diethylene
glycol and methanol poisonings. Clin Toxicol. 2010;48:967–973.
CrossRef
202.
Roscoe HE, Schorlemmer C: A Treatise on Chemistry. New York: D. Appleton and Co; 1884:200.
203.
Roy M, Bailey B, Chalut D et al.: What are the adverse effects of ethanol used as an antidote in
the treatment of suspected methanol poisoning in children? J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2003;41:155–161.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12733853]
204.
Rozenfield RA, Leikin JB: Severe methanol ingestion treated successfully without
hemodialysis. Am J Ther. 2007;14:502–503.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17890942]
205.
Salzman M: Methanol neurotoxicity. Clin Toxicol. 2005;44:89–90.
CrossRef
206.
Sanaei-Zadeh H: Is high-dose intravenous steroid effective on preserving vision in acute methanol
poisoning? Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:244.
CrossRef [PubMed: 23080002]
207.
Sanaei-Zadeh H: Response to “Methanol and ethylene glycol acute poisonings-predictors of
mortality.” Clin Toxicol. 2012;50:225.
CrossRef
208.
Sanaei-Zadeh H: Typical bilateral putaminal lesions of methanol intoxication. J Emerg
Med. 2012;42:178–179.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19782499]
209.
Sanaei-Zadeh H: What are the therapeutic effects of high-dose intravenousprednisolone in
methanol-induced toxic neuropathy? J Ocul Pharmacol Ther.2012;28:327–328.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22304617]
210.
Sanaei-Zadeh H, Esfeh SK, Zamani N et al.: Hyperglycemia is a strong prognostic factor of
lethality in methanol poisoning. J Med Toxicol. 2011;7:189–194.
CrossRef [PubMed: 21336799]
211.
Sanaei-Zadeh H, Zamani N, Shadnia S: Outcomes of visual disturbances after methanol
poisoning. Clin Toxicol. 2011;49:102–107.
CrossRef
212.
Sanaei-Zadeh H, Zamani N, Shahmohammadi F: Can fomepizole be substituted by abacavir in the
treatment of methanol poisoning? J Med Toxicol. 2011;7:179–180.
CrossRef [PubMed: 21484534]
213.
Sandberg Y, Rood PPM, Russcher H et al.: Falsely elevated lactate in severe ethylene glycol
intoxication. Neth J Med. 2010;68:320–323. [PubMed: 20739730]
214.
Schelling JR, Howard RL, Winter SD, Linas SL: Increased osmolal gap in alcoholic ketoacidosis
and lactic acidosis. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:580–582.
CrossRef [PubMed: 2400167]
215.
Scully R, Galdabini J, McNealy B: Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Weekly
clinicopathological exercises. Case 38-1979. N Engl J Med.1979;301:650–657.
CrossRef [PubMed: 471004]
216.
Sebe A, Satar S, Uzun B et al.: Intracranial hemorrhage associated with methanol intoxication. Mt.
Sinai J Med. 2006;73:1120–1122. [PubMed: 17285208]
217.
Sefibakht S, Rasekhi AR, Kamali K et al.: Methanol poisoning: acute MR and CT findings in nine
patients. Neuroradiology. 2007;49:427–435.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17294234]
218.
Shah S, Pandey V, Thakore N, Mehta I: Study of 63 cases of methyl alcohol poisoning (hooch
tragedy in Ahmedabad). J Assoc Physicians India. 2012;60:34–36.
219.
Shahangian S, Ash KO: Formic and lactic acidosis in a fatal case of methanol intoxication. Clin
Chem. 1986;32:395–397. [PubMed: 3943215]
220.
Sharma R, Marasini S, Sharma AK et al.: Methanol poisoning: ocular and neurological
manifestations. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:178–182.
CrossRef [PubMed: 22127151]
221.
Shin YW, Uhm KB: A case of optic nerve atrophy with severe disc cupping after methanol
poisoning. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2011;25:146–150.
CrossRef [PubMed: 21461231]
222.
Shirey T, Sivilotti M: Reaction of lactate electrodes to glycolate. Crit Care Med.1999;27:2305–2307.
CrossRef [PubMed: 10548235]
223.
Shukla M, Shikoh I, Saleem A: Intravenous methylprednisolone could salvage vision in methyl
alcohol poisoning. Ind J Ophthalmol. 2006;54: 68–69.
CrossRef
224.
Singh A, Samson R, Girdhar A: Portrait of a methanol-intoxicated brain. Am J Med.2010;124:125–
127.
CrossRef [PubMed: 20951366]
225.
Sivilotti MLA: Ethanol: tastes great! Fomepizole: less filling! Ann Emerg Med.2008;53:451–453.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18986732]
226.
Sivilotti MLA, Burns MJ, McMartin KE, Brent J: Toxicokinetics of ethylene glycol
during fomepizole therapy: implications for management. Ann Emerg Med.2000;36:114–124.
CrossRef [PubMed: 10918102]
227.
Skolnik AB, O’Connor A, Ruha AM, Curry S: Recommendations regarding management of
methanol toxicity. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:816–817.
CrossRef [PubMed: 23178022]
228.
Sodhi PK, Goyal JL, Mehta PK: Methanol-induced optic neuropathy: treatment with intravenous
high dose steroids. Int J Clin Pract. 2001;55:599–602. [PubMed: 11770356]
229.
Soghoian S, Sinert R, Wiener SW, Hoffman RS: Ethylene glycol toxicity presenting with non-anion
gap metabolic acidosis. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2009;104:22–26.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19152550]
230.
Soysal D, Kabayegit OY, Yilmaz S et al.: Transdermal methanol intoxication: a case report. Acta
Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51:779–780.
CrossRef [PubMed: 17567277]
231.
Spillane L, Roberts JR, Meyer AE: Multiple cranial nerve deficits after ethylene glycol
poisoning. Ann Emerg Med. 1991;20:137–169.
CrossRef
232.
Standefer J, Blackwell W: Enzymatic method for measuring ethylene glycol with a centrifugal
analyzer. Clin Chem. 1991;37:1734–1736. [PubMed: 1914174]
233.
Stapenhorst L, Hesse A, Hoppe B: Hyperoxaluria after ethylene glycol poisoning.Pediatr
Nephrol. 2008;23:2277–2279.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18696123]
234.
Stokes MB: Acute oxalate nephropathy due to ethylene glycol ingestion. Kidney Int.2006;69:203.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16408105]
235.
Symington L, Jackson L, Klaassen: Toxic alcohol but not intoxicated—a case report.Scott Med
J. 2005;50:129–130. [PubMed: 16164003]
236.
Szponar J, Kwiecień-Obara E, Krajewska A et al.: Myocardial infarction in the course of ethylene
glycol poisoning—a case report. Przegl Lek. 2012;69:603–605. [PubMed: 23243941]
237.
Taheri MS, Moghaddam HH, Moharamzad Y et al.: The value of brain CT findings in acute
methanol toxicity. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:211–214.
CrossRef [PubMed: 19101105]
238.
Takahashi S, Kanetake J, Kanawahu Y, Funayama M: Brain death with calcium oxalate
deposition in the kidney: clue to the diagnosis of ethylene glycol poisoning.Legal Med. 2008;10:43–
45.
CrossRef
239.
Treichel JL, Henry MM, Skumatz CMB et al.: Formate, the toxic metabolite of methanol, in
cultured ocular cells. Neurotoxicology. 2003;24:825–834.
CrossRef [PubMed: 14637377]
240.
Treichel JL, Murray TG, Lewandowski MF et al.: Retinal toxicity in methanol
poisoning. Retina. 2004;24:309–312.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15097899]
241.
Türkmen N, Eren B, Fedakar R et al.: Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and CD34 expression in
the human optic nerve and brain in methanol toxicity. Adv Ther.2008;25:123–132.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18288452]
242.
Upadhyay S, Carstens J, Klein D et al.: Inhalation and epidermal exposure of volunteers to
ethylene glycol: kinetics of absorption, urinary excretion, and metabolism to glycolate and
oxalate. Toxicol Lett. 2008;178:131–141.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18430528]
243.
Vara-Castrodeza A, Peréz-Castrillón JL, Dueñas-Laita A: Magnetic resonance imaging in
methanol poisoning. Clin Toxicol. 2007;45:429–430.
CrossRef
244.
Velez LI, Kulstad E, Shepherd G, Roth B: Inhalational methanol toxicity in pregnancy treated twice
with fomepizole. Vet Human Toxicol. 2003;45:28–30.
245.
Velez LI, Shepherd G, Lee YC, Keyes DC: Ethylene glycol ingestion treated only
with fomepizole. J Med Toxicol. 2007;3:125–128.
CrossRef [PubMed: 18072148]
246.
Verelst S, Vermeersch P, Desmet K: Ethylene glycol poisoning presenting with a falsely elevated
lactate level. Clin Toxicol. 2009;47:236–238.
CrossRef
247.
Verhelst D, Moulin P, Haufroid V et al.: Acute renal injury following methanol poisoning: analysis
of a case series. Int J Toxicol. 2004;23:267–273.
CrossRef [PubMed: 15371171]
248.
Vicas IM, Beck R: Fatal inhalational isopropyl alcohol poisoning in a neonate. J Toxicol Clin
Toxicol. 1993;31:473–481.
CrossRef [PubMed: 8355323]
249.
Vinet B: An enzymic assay for the specific determination of methanol in serum. Clin
Chem. 1987;33:2204–2208. [PubMed: 3319289]
250.
Wallace EA, Green AS: Methanol toxicity secondary to inhalant abuse in adult men.Clin
Toxicol. 2009;47:239–242.
CrossRef
251.
Wallgren H: Relative intoxicating effects on rats of ethyl, propyl and butyl alcohols.Acta Pharmacol
Toxicol Toxicol. 1960;16:217–222.
CrossRef
252.
Wedge MK, Natarajan S, Johanson C et al.: The safety of ethanol infusions for the treatment of
methanol or ethylene glycol intoxication: an observational study. CJEM.2012;14:283–289. [PubMed:
22967695]
253.
White NC, Litovitz T, Benson BE et al.: The impact of bittering agents on pediatric ingestions of
antifreeze. Clin Pediatr. 2009;48:913–921.
CrossRef
254.
White NC, Litovitz T, White MK et al.: The impact of bittering agents on suicidal ingestions of
antifreeze. Clin Toxicol. 2008;46:507–514.
CrossRef
255.
Winter ML, Ellis MD, Snodgrass WR: Urine fluorescence using a Wood’s lamp to detect the
antifreeze additive sodium fluorescein: a qualitative adjunctive test in suspected ethylene glycol
ingestions. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19:663–667.
CrossRef [PubMed: 2344083]
256.
Woo MY, Greenway DC, Nadler SP, Cardinal P: Artifactual elevation of lactate in ethylene glycol
poisoning. J Emerg Med. 2003;25:289–293.
CrossRef [PubMed: 14585457]
257.
Yayci N, Agritmis H, Turla A, Koc S: Fatalities due to methyl alcohol intoxication in Turkey: an 8year study. Forensic Sci Int. 2003;131:36–41.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12505469]
258.
Yip L, Jacobsen D: Endogenous formate elimination and total body clearance during
hemodialysis. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2003;41:257–258.
CrossRef [PubMed: 12807308]
259.
Youssef GM, Hirsch DJ: Validation of a method to predict required dialysis time for cases of
methanol and ethylene glycol poisoning. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46:509–511.
CrossRef [PubMed: 16129213]
260.
Ziegler SL: The ocular menace of wood alcohol poisoning. JAMA. 1921;77:1160–1166.