• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

过敏反应指南的依从性:来自一家三级医院急诊科的真实世界数据。

Adherence to Anaphylaxis Guidelines: Real-World Data From the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Hospital.

机构信息

Department of Allergy, University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.

Biosanitary Institute of Salamanca, IBSAL, Salamanca, Spain.

出版信息

J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2018;28(4):246-252. doi: 10.18176/jiaci.0243. Epub 2018 Feb 21.

DOI:10.18176/jiaci.0243
PMID:29465401
Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Few studies have evaluated adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in emergency departments (EDs). Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in the ED of a tertiary hospital.

METHODS

Medical records of patients attended in the ED of University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain were reviewed. Those patients fulfilling the anaphylaxis criteria proposed by the NIAID/FAAN were selected.

RESULTS

During a 1-year period, we identified 89 patients (74 adults and 15 children). The anaphylactic reaction was moderate in 65% of adults, severe in 34%, and very severe in 1%. In children, all reactions were moderate. Fewer than half of the patients (42%) received adrenaline in the ED; this was administered intramuscularly in only 19% of cases. As for the severity of the reaction, 65% of patients with moderate reactions and 42% with severe reactions were not treated with adrenaline. At discharge from the ED, an adrenaline auto-injector was recommended to only 5.6% of patients. Fifty-two percent of patients received a documented allergy referral (57% adults vs 27% children, P=.047), 29% instructions about avoidance of triggers (31% adults vs 20% children, NS), and 51% written instructions for recognition of anaphylaxis warning signs (41% adults vs 100% children, P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study show a large discrepancy between recommendations in guidelines and management of anaphylaxis in the ED. Additional training efforts are needed to improve the treatment of patients with anaphylactic reactions.

摘要

背景与目的

很少有研究评估过急诊部门(ED)中对过敏反应指南的遵循情况。目的:本研究旨在评估西班牙萨拉曼卡大学医院 ED 中对过敏反应指南的遵循情况。

方法

回顾了在西班牙萨拉曼卡大学医院 ED 就诊的患者的病历。选择符合 NIAID/FAAN 提出的过敏反应标准的患者。

结果

在 1 年期间,我们确定了 89 名患者(74 名成人和 15 名儿童)。成人中 65%的过敏反应为中度,34%为重度,1%为极重度。在儿童中,所有反应均为中度。不到一半的患者(42%)在 ED 中接受了肾上腺素;其中只有 19%的病例给予了肌肉内注射。至于反应的严重程度,65%的中度反应患者和 42%的重度反应患者未接受肾上腺素治疗。在 ED 出院时,仅向 5.6%的患者推荐了肾上腺素自动注射器。52%的患者接受了记录过敏转诊(57%的成人与 27%的儿童,P=.047),29%的患者接受了避免触发因素的指导(31%的成人与 20%的儿童,无统计学差异),51%的患者接受了过敏反应警告信号识别的书面说明(41%的成人与 100%的儿童,P<.001)。

结论

研究结果表明,指南中的建议与 ED 中过敏反应的管理之间存在很大差异。需要进一步培训,以改善对过敏反应患者的治疗。

相似文献

1
Adherence to Anaphylaxis Guidelines: Real-World Data From the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Hospital.过敏反应指南的依从性:来自一家三级医院急诊科的真实世界数据。
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2018;28(4):246-252. doi: 10.18176/jiaci.0243. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
2
Physician adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines among different age groups in emergency departments: 20-Year observational study.不同年龄组急诊医师对过敏反应指南的依从性:20 年观察性研究。
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2024 Apr;132(4):519-524.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2023.12.026. Epub 2023 Dec 25.
3
Prospective Validation of the NIAID/FAAN Criteria for Emergency Department Diagnosis of Anaphylaxis.前瞻性验证 NIAID/FAAN 用于急诊科诊断过敏反应的标准。
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016 Nov-Dec;4(6):1220-1226. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.06.003. Epub 2016 Jul 9.
4
Evaluation of Anaphylaxis Management in a Pediatric Emergency Department.儿科急诊科过敏反应管理的评估
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2016 Aug;32(8):508-13. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000000864.
5
Anaphylaxis management in the pediatric emergency department: opportunities for improvement.儿科急诊科的过敏反应管理:改进的机会
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010 Feb;26(2):71-6. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181ce2e1c.
6
Anaphylaxis in an emergency department: a retrospective 10-year study in a tertiary hospital.急诊科过敏反应:一家三级医院的回顾性 10 年研究。
Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jan;52(1):23-34. doi: 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.98. Epub 2019 Jul 9.
7
Improving anaphylaxis management in a pediatric emergency department.改善儿科急诊的过敏反应管理。
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011 Nov;22(7):708-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2011.01181.x. Epub 2011 Jun 15.
8
Recurrent reactions to food among children at paediatric emergency departments: epidemiology of allergic disease.儿科急诊科儿童食物复发性反应:过敏性疾病的流行病学
Clin Exp Allergy. 2014 Jan;44(1):113-20. doi: 10.1111/cea.12203.
9
Adrenaline in anaphylaxis treatment and self-administration: experience from an inner city emergency department.过敏性休克治疗中的肾上腺素和自我给药:来自市中心急诊部门的经验。
Allergy. 2017 Mar;72(3):492-497. doi: 10.1111/all.13060. Epub 2016 Nov 17.
10
Changes in Emergency Department Concordance with Guidelines for the Management of Food-Induced Anaphylaxis: 1999-2001 versus 2013-2015.急诊室与食物诱导性过敏管理指南的一致性变化:1999-2001 年与 2013-2015 年。
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Sep-Oct;7(7):2262-2269. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.04.004. Epub 2019 Apr 8.

引用本文的文献

1
Improving Care at Emergency Department Discharge for Pediatric Patients with Anaphylaxis Using a Quality Improvement Framework.使用质量改进框架改善急诊科对过敏性反应儿科患者出院时的护理。
Pediatr Qual Saf. 2022 Sep 8;7(5):e589. doi: 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000589. eCollection 2022 Sep-Oct.
2
Who Needs Epinephrine? Anaphylaxis, Autoinjectors, and Parachutes.谁需要肾上腺素?过敏反应、自动注射器和降落伞。
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2023 Apr;11(4):1036-1046. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.02.002. Epub 2023 Feb 14.
3
Is the clinical manifestation of anaphylaxis in children influenced by the trigger of reaction?
儿童过敏反应的临床表现是否受反应触发因素的影响?
Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2021 Oct;38(5):788-797. doi: 10.5114/ada.2020.95650. Epub 2020 Jun 26.
4
Use of multiple epinephrine doses in anaphylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.在过敏反应中使用多种肾上腺素剂量:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021 Nov;148(5):1307-1315. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.03.042. Epub 2021 Apr 20.