4 results
P095: Bridging knowledge gaps in anaphylaxis management through a video-based educational tool
- S. Gabrielli, J. Karim, B. Torabi, A. Byrne, S. De Schryver, V. Gadoury-Lévesque, R. Alizadehfar, C. McCusker, M. Vincent, J. Morris, J. Gerdts, M. Ben-Shoshan
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 22 / Issue S1 / May 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 May 2020, p. S99
- Print publication:
- May 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: Cases of anaphylaxis in children are often not appropriately managed by caregivers. We aimed to develop and to test the effectiveness of an education tool to help pediatric patients and their families better understand anaphylaxis and its management and to improve current knowledge and treatment guidelines adherence. Methods: The GEAR (Guidelines and Educational programs based on an Anaphylaxis Registry) is an initiative that recruits children with food-induced anaphylaxis who have visited the ED at the Montreal Children's Hospital and at The Children's Clinic located in Montreal, Quebec. The patients and parents, together, were asked to complete six questions related to the triggers, recognition and management of anaphylaxis at the time of presentation to the allergy clinic. Participants were automatically shown a 5-minute animated video addressing the main knowledge gaps related to the causes and management of anaphylaxis. At the end of the video, participants were redirected to same 6 questions to respond again. To test long-term knowledge retention, the questionnaire will be presented again in one year's time. A paired t-test was used to compare the difference between the baseline score and the follow-up score based on percentage of correct answers of the questionnaire. Results: From June to November 2019, 95 pediatric patients with diagnosed food-induced anaphylaxis were recruited. The median patient age was 4.5 years (Interquartile Range (IQR): 1.6–7.4) and half were male (51.6%). The mean questionnaire baseline score was 0.77 (77.0%, standard deviation (sd): 0.16) and the mean questionnaire follow-up score was 0.83 (83.0%, sd: 0.17). There was a significant difference between the follow-up score and baseline score (difference: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.09). There were no associations of baseline questionnaire scores and change in scores with age and sex. Conclusion: Our video teaching method was successful in educating patients and their families to better understand anaphylaxis. The next step is to acquire long-term follow up scored to determine retention of knowledge.
LO63: Evaluation of epinephrine secondary effects in a Canadian emergency department anaphylaxis adult cohort
- S. Gabrielli, M. Ben-Shoshan, A. Lachance, M. Rhéaume, L. Londei-Leduc, R. Goldman, E. Chan, J. Upton, E. Hochstadter, A. Bretholz, A. O'Keefe, D. Chu, J. Morris
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 22 / Issue S1 / May 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 May 2020, p. S30
- Print publication:
- May 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: There are few large-scale studies assessing the true risk of epinephrine use during anaphylaxis in adults. We aimed to assess the demographics, clinical characteristics, and secondary effects of epinephrine treatment and to determine factors associated with major and minor secondary effects associated with epinephrine use among adults with anaphylaxis. Methods: From May 2012 to February 2018, adults presenting to the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (HSCM) emergency department (ED) with anaphylaxis were recruited prospectively as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE). Missed cases were identified through a previously validated algorithm. Data were collected on demographics, clinical characteristics, and management of anaphylaxis using a structured chart review. Multivariate logistic regression models were compared to estimate factors associated with side effects of epinephrine administration. Results: Over a 6-year period, 402 adult patients presented to the ED at HSCM with anaphylaxis. The median age was 38 years (Interquartile Range [IQR]: 27, 52) and 40.4% were males. The main trigger for anaphylaxis was food (53.0%). A total of 286 patients (71.1%) received epinephrine treatment, of which 23.9% were treated in the pre-hospital setting, 47.0% received treatment in the ED, and 5.0% received epinephrine in both settings. Among patients treated with epinephrine, major secondary effects were rare (1.4% of patients), including new changes to electrocardiogram, arrhythmia, and neurological symptoms. Minor secondary effects due to epinephrine were reported in 50.0% of patients, mainly inappropriate sinus tachycardia (defined as a rate over 100 beats/minute in 30.1%). Major cardiovascular secondary effects were associated with regular use of beta-blockers (aOR 1.10 [95%CI, 1.02, 1.18]), regular use of ACE-inhibitors (aOR 1.16 [95%CI, 1.07, 1.27]), and receiving more than two doses of epinephrine (aOR 1.09 [95%CI, 1.00, 1.18]). The model was adjusted for age, history of ischemic heart disease, trigger of anaphylaxis, presence of asthma, sex, and reaction severity. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia was more likely in females (aOR 1.18 [95%CI, 1.04, 1.33]) and palpitations, tremors, and psychomotor agitation were more likely in females (aOR 1.09 [95%CI, 1.00, 1.19]) and among those receiving more than two doses of epinephrine (aOR 1.49 [95%CI, 1.14, 1.96]). The models were adjusted for age, regular use of medications, history of ischemic heart disease, triggers of anaphylaxis, presence of asthma, reaction severity, and IV administration of epinephrine. Conclusion: The low rate of occurrence of major secondary effects of epinephrine in the treatment of anaphylaxis in our study demonstrates the overall safety of epinephrine use.
MP55: Characteristics associated with biphasic reactions in an adult population
- A. Lachance, M. Ben-shoshan, A. Cournoyer, R. Daoust, S. La Vieille, V. Huard, J. Lessard, J. Paquet, M. Marquis, S. Gabrielli, G. Shand, J. Morris
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 21 / Issue S1 / May 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 May 2019, p. S62
- Print publication:
- May 2019
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: Biphasic anaphylactic reactions are a concern in emergency medicine. Risk factors associated with this type of reaction remain ill-defined. The aim of this study was to investigate elements associated with biphasic anaphylactic reactions and to determine the impact of anaphylaxis treatments on biphasic reactions. Methods: From the multicenter Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry prospective cohort, we selected adults (≥18 years) with a visit to the emergency department (ED) of Sacré-Cœur Hospital, an urban tertiary-care hospital. Then, a structured chart review was done to collect additional information on types and timing of treatments for the initial anaphylactic reaction, presence and treatment of biphasic reactions during the initial ED visit or upon patients’ return. Biphasic reactions were defined by the recurrence of any anaphylaxis symptoms within 72 hours of a resolved anaphylaxis episode. Potential factors associated with biphasic reactions were studied using Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Patients with anaphylaxis were enrolled between April 2014 and February 2018. From the cohort, 401 adult patients were identified. We found 37 patients who developed a biphasic reaction. Amongst them, 33 received treatments and 9 required more than one dose of intramuscular epinephrine. None of the biphasic reaction patients required intravenous epinephrine, other vasopressors, ICU admission, or endotracheal intubation. Biphasic reactions appeared in a median time of 13.3h after the initial reaction ranging from 1.1h to 69.6h (IQR 30.2). There was no difference in age or gender of patients who developed a biphasic reaction compared those who did not. Pertinent past medical history, daily medications, mean of arrival to the ED, allergen type, ingestion route, or initial symptoms during the anaphylaxis episode were not significantly different in the two groups. Treatment with corticosteroids was similar in the two groups (9.0% vs. 8.1% p = 0.82). Treatment, dose and route of administration of epinephrine was not different in the two groups but longer delays before treatment with the first dose of epinephrine was more frequent in biphasic reaction patients (median delay of 64 minutes, p = 0.015). Conclusion: No patient characteristic, allergen, route of ingestion, symptom, nor treatment with corticosteroids has shown to be significantly different in patients with and without biphasic reactions. Delayed treatment with epinephrine is significantly associated with biphasic reactions.
P091: Anaphylaxis: epidemiology and treatment in a Canadian emergency department
- J. Morris, A. Marcotte, S. La Vieille, R. Alizadehfar, E. Perkins, A. Clarke, M. Ben-Shoshan
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 18 / Issue S1 / May 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 June 2016, pp. S108-S109
- Print publication:
- May 2016
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: As part of the multicenter C-CARE (Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry) project, this study aimed to describe the characteristics of anaphylactic reactions and assess if emergency physicians follow treatment guidelines. Methods: A cohort study was conducted in the emergency department of Sacré-Cœur Hospital, a university-affiliated, urban tertiary care hospital. For each anaphylaxis case recruited by the treating physician, a standardised questionnaire was completed. The information for missed cases was collected retrospectively through chart review. Results: Between May 2012 and May 2015, 280 cases (205 prospective and 75 retrospective) of anaphylaxis were identified from a total of 182,408 ED visits. The median age was 36.21 years (IQR 27.8), 61.8% were female, and 12.5% of all patients were children (<18 years old). The majority of reactions were triggered by food [54.3% (95%CI:48.5-60.1%)], followed by medications [18.2% (95%CI:13.7-22.7%)] and venom [5.7% (95%CI:3.0-8.4%)]. Among all cases, 66.8% (95%CI:61.3-72.3%) received epinephrine; 26.1% (95%CI:21.0-31.2%) received it prior to their arrival and 46.8% (95%CI:41.0-52.6%) in-hospital. As for other in-hospital treatments, 85.4% of patients (95%CI:81.3-89.5%) received corticosteroids, 81.1% (95%CI:76.5-85.7%) received H1 antihistamines, and 41.1% (95%CI:35.3-46.9%) received H2 antihistamines. Out of all patients who had anaphylaxis, 86.4% (95%CI:82.4-90.4%) were prescribed an epinephrine auto-injector in-hospital or had already had one prescribed. Conclusion: Our results reveal that food is a major trigger of anaphylaxis and that despite current guidelines, there is under use of epinephrine and preferential use of corticosteroids and antihistamines.