Allergy Center of West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Anesthesiology. 2023 Apr 1;138(4):364-371. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004495.
Chlorhexidine generally has a good safety profile. However, allergic reactions are reported with increasing frequency. In China, it is rarely reported, and its characteristics are unknown. The purpose of this study was to summarize the experience of a Chinese allergy center with chlorhexidine allergy.
The authors retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent chlorhexidine allergy testing in the Allergy Center of West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China), in the period February 2018 to May 2022 (n = 43 patients) and included the patients diagnosed with chlorhexidine allergy for analysis.
Ten patients who were diagnosed by skin prick and serum-specific immunoglobulin E tests were included. They experienced a total of 30 allergic reactions to chlorhexidine (mean ± SD, 3.0 ± 1.3). Five patients experienced six allergic reactions (6 of 30, 20%) during general or local anesthesia, and they may have been exposed to chlorhexidine via different routes. Only one allergic reaction (1 of 30, 3%) was recorded with exposure via a mouthwash. The other 23 allergic reactions (23 of 30, 77%) were caused via a skin disinfectant; the route of exposure was IV cannulation in 22 allergic reactions (22 of 23, 96%) and broken skin in one allergic reaction (1 of 23, 4%). The symptoms included a quick onset and great severity. Two patients (2 of 10, 20%) had been accidentally re-exposed to chlorhexidine after diagnosis.
This study conducted in China showed that the majority of reactions to chlorhexidine were attributed to skin disinfectants, and IV cannulation was the most common exposure route; in general, however, chlorhexidine allergy was easily overlooked. The potential allergenicity of chlorhexidine used for skin preparation before IV cannulation or should be considered in patients who develop allergic reactions perioperatively.
洗必泰通常具有良好的安全性。然而,过敏反应的报道频率越来越高。在中国,这种情况很少见,其特征尚不清楚。本研究的目的是总结四川大学华西医院过敏中心对洗必泰过敏的经验。
作者回顾性分析了 2018 年 2 月至 2022 年 5 月期间在四川大学华西医院过敏中心进行洗必泰过敏检测的所有患者(n=43 例),并对确诊为洗必泰过敏的患者进行了分析。
10 例患者经皮试和血清特异性免疫球蛋白 E 检测确诊。他们总共经历了 30 次洗必泰过敏反应(平均±标准差,3.0±1.3)。5 例患者在全身或局部麻醉期间经历了 6 次过敏反应(30 次中的 6 次,20%),他们可能通过不同途径接触了洗必泰。仅 1 次过敏反应(30 次中的 1 次,3%)与漱口水接触有关。其他 23 次过敏反应(30 次中的 23 次,77%)是由皮肤消毒剂引起的;22 次过敏反应(23 次中的 22 次,96%)的暴露途径是静脉穿刺,1 次过敏反应(23 次中的 1 次,4%)是皮肤破损。症状包括发病迅速且严重。2 例患者(10 例中的 2 例,20%)在诊断后意外再次接触洗必泰。
本研究表明,在中国,大多数洗必泰过敏反应归因于皮肤消毒剂,静脉穿刺是最常见的暴露途径;然而,总的来说,洗必泰过敏很容易被忽视。在围手术期发生过敏反应的患者中,应考虑用于静脉穿刺前皮肤准备的洗必泰的潜在致敏性。