Suppr超能文献

心血管疾病敏感患者的乙酰水杨酸激发试验或脱敏治疗。

Acetylsalicylic acid challenge or desensitization in sensitive patients with cardiovascular disease.

作者信息

Cortellini Gabriele, Raiteri Alberto, Galli Mattia, Lotrionte Marzia, Piscaglia Fabio, Romano Antonino

机构信息

Allergy Unit, Azienda Sanitaria Della Romagna, Rimini, Italy.

Division of Internal Medicine, Hepatobiliary and Immunoallergic Diseases, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

出版信息

J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2023 May;55(4):762-769. doi: 10.1007/s11239-023-02782-1. Epub 2023 Feb 9.

Abstract

The use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is problematic in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to it or with cross-reactive types of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose ASA challenge (LDAC) and desensitization to allow ASA therapy at an antiplatelet dose in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or multiple related risk factors and histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 chemically unrelated NSAIDs. We studied prospectively all patients with such histories and ≥ 3 risk factors for ASCVD (group I), chronic coronary syndrome (CCS, group II), and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with indication for ASA desensitization (group III). Patients from groups I and II underwent LDACs (cumulative dose of 110 mg), while those from group III were desensitized (cumulative dose of 100.1 mg). We evaluated 103 patients: 62 from group I, 24 from group II, and 17 from group III. Eighty-two of the 86 patients from the first two groups underwent LDACs and 2 reacted. Subsequently, 22 (27.5%) of the 80 patients with negative LDACs were administered dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA after successful percutaneous coronary interventions, thus sparing desensitizations. The remaining 4 patients with CCS and all 17 patients from group III were successfully desensitized. In this pragmatic study, LDAC proved to be a safe and reliable diagnostic tool for identifying patients with histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 different NSAIDs who can tolerate ASA at antiplatelet doses. Routine LDAC is advisable in all patients at high risk for ASCVD or with CCS who report HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 NSAIDs. ASA desensitization remains a safe and effective option in patients with ACS. Study flow-chart. ASCVD atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CCS chronic coronary syndrome; ACS acute coronary syndrome; ASA acetylsalicylic acid; DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy; PCI percutaneous coronary intervention; NSAIDs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NERD NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease; NECD NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease; NIUAA NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIUAA single NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIDHR single NSAID-induced delayed hypersensitivity reaction.

摘要

对于有乙酰水杨酸(ASA)过敏反应史或有交叉反应类型的非甾体抗炎药(NSAID)过敏的患者,使用ASA存在问题。我们试图评估低剂量ASA激发试验(LDAC)和脱敏治疗的效果,以便在患有动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病(ASCVD)或多种相关危险因素且有ASA过敏史或对≥2种化学结构不相关的NSAID过敏的患者中,给予抗血小板剂量的ASA治疗。我们对所有有此类病史且有≥3个ASCVD危险因素的患者(I组)、慢性冠状动脉综合征(CCS,II组)以及有ASA脱敏指征的急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者(III组)进行了前瞻性研究。I组和II组的患者接受LDAC(累积剂量110mg),而III组的患者进行脱敏治疗(累积剂量100.1mg)。我们评估了103例患者:I组62例,II组24例,III组17例。前两组的86例患者中有82例接受了LDAC,其中2例有反应。随后,80例LDAC结果为阴性的患者中有22例(27.5%)在成功进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后接受了ASA双联抗血小板治疗,从而避免了脱敏治疗。其余4例CCS患者和III组的所有17例患者均成功脱敏。在这项实用性研究中,LDAC被证明是一种安全可靠的诊断工具,可用于识别有ASA或≥2种不同NSAID过敏史但能耐受抗血小板剂量ASA的患者。对于所有有ASCVD高风险或有CCS且报告有ASA或≥2种NSAID过敏的患者,建议进行常规LDAC。对于ACS患者,ASA脱敏仍然是一种安全有效的选择。研究流程图。ASCVD:动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病;CCS:慢性冠状动脉综合征;ACS:急性冠状动脉综合征;ASA:乙酰水杨酸;DAPT:双联抗血小板治疗;PCI:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗;NSAIDs:非甾体抗炎药;NERD:NSAID加重的呼吸道疾病;NECD:NSAID加重的皮肤疾病;NIUAA:NSAID诱导的荨麻疹-血管性水肿或过敏反应;SNIUAA:单一NSAID诱导 的荨麻疹-血管性水肿或过敏反应;SNIDHR:单一NSAID诱导的迟发型过敏反应

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验