Hajirawala Monica, Hardeman Amber, Hein Nina, Carlson John C
Department of Allergy and Immunology, University of South Florida Health, Tampa, FL.
Department of Allergy and Immunology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA.
Ochsner J. 2024 Winter;24(4):273-278. doi: 10.31486/toj.24.0085.
Allergists perform a range of procedures with inherent risks of anaphylaxis. This study developed risk assessments for various procedures performed at our specialized referral center based on the frequency of epinephrine use during these procedures. During a 5.5-year period, 5 allergists referred patients to a monthly high-risk procedure clinic (total of 66 clinic days). We conducted a retrospective medical records review from 2016 to 2021 to assess the types of procedures performed, instances of procedure termination, and use of epinephrine. A total of 596 procedures were performed: 305 food challenges, 103 aeroallergen immunotherapy rush inductions, 75 drug challenges, 66 ultrarush inductions of venom immunotherapy, 12 drug desensitizations, 14 vaccine challenges (11 COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019], 2 influenza, 1 Tdap [tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis]), and 21 miscellaneous nonvaccine challenges. Most procedures (n=551, 92.4%) were completed; 45 procedures (7.6%) were aborted early because of patient, parent, or physician requests. Reasons included the child not wanting to eat the food, the patient developing a headache, and other factors. Fifty-one of the 596 procedures (8.6%) required epinephrine administration: 32/305 (10.5%) for food challenges, 12/103 (11.7%) for aeroallergen immunotherapy rush inductions, 2/75 (2.7%) for drug challenges, 2/66 (3.0%) for ultrarush inductions of venom immunotherapy, 3/12 (25.0%) for drug desensitizations, and 0/35 (0%) for other challenges. Two patients required emergency department transfers, with no instances resulting in hospitalization or patient mortality. These data identify risks associated with diverse procedures conducted in allergy clinics. While 8.6% of cases required epinephrine, the majority of reactions were manageable within the clinic setting. These findings underscore the allergist's role in performing procedures with potential anaphylactic outcomes and managing anaphylaxis when it occurs in the clinic setting. Additionally, the procedure clinic model is an effective educational tool that provides fellows-in-training with exposure to the identification and management of acute anaphylaxis.
过敏症专科医生会进行一系列存在过敏反应固有风险的操作。本研究基于在我们的专业转诊中心进行的各种操作过程中肾上腺素的使用频率,制定了针对这些操作的风险评估。在5.5年的时间里,5名过敏症专科医生将患者转诊至每月一次的高风险操作门诊(共计66个门诊日)。我们对2016年至2021年的病历进行了回顾性审查,以评估所进行的操作类型、操作终止情况以及肾上腺素的使用情况。总共进行了596次操作:305次食物激发试验、103次气传变应原免疫疗法快速诱导、75次药物激发试验、66次毒液免疫疗法超快速诱导、12次药物脱敏、14次疫苗激发试验(11次针对新型冠状病毒肺炎[2019冠状病毒病]、2次针对流感、1次针对破伤风、白喉和百日咳联合疫苗)以及21次其他非疫苗激发试验。大多数操作(n = 551,92.4%)完成;45次操作(7.6%)因患者、家长或医生的要求而提前中止。原因包括儿童不想进食食物、患者出现头痛以及其他因素。596次操作中有51次(8.6%)需要使用肾上腺素:食物激发试验中32/305次(10.5%)、气传变应原免疫疗法快速诱导中12/103次(11.7%)、药物激发试验中2/75次(2.7%)、毒液免疫疗法超快速诱导中2/66次(3.0%)、药物脱敏中3/12次(25.0%)以及其他激发试验中0/35次(0%)。两名患者需要转至急诊科,没有出现住院或患者死亡的情况。这些数据确定了与过敏门诊所进行的各种操作相关的风险。虽然8.6%的病例需要使用肾上腺素,但大多数反应在门诊环境中是可控的。这些发现强调了过敏症专科医生在进行具有潜在过敏反应后果的操作以及在门诊环境中发生过敏反应时进行处理方面的作用。此外,操作门诊模式是一种有效的教育工具,能让培训学员接触到急性过敏反应的识别和处理。