Scholarlink

Background <p>Our previous 2007 study reported a 19.4% rate of biphasic anaphylaxis in Kingston, Ontario. Since then, few updates have been published regarding the etiology and risk factors&#xa0;of biphasic anaphylaxis. This study aimed to describe the incidence of and predictors of biphasic anaphylaxis in a single centre through a retrospective evaluation of patients with diagnosed anaphylaxis.</p> Methods <p>From November 2015 to August 2017, all patients who presented to the emergency department at two hospital sites in Kingston given a diagnosis of “allergic reaction,” “anaphylaxis,” “drug allergy,” or “insect sting allergy,” were evaluated. Patients were contacted sometime after ED discharge to obtain consent and confirm symptoms and timing of the reaction. A trained allergist determined if criteria for anaphylaxis were met and categorized the reactions as being uniphasic, biphasic, or non-anaphylactic biphasic. A full medical review of the event ensued, and each type of anaphylactic event was statistically compared.</p> Results <p>Of 138 anaphylactic events identified, 15.94% were biphasic reactions, 79.0% were uniphasic, and 5.07% were classified alternatively as a non-anaphylactic biphasic reaction. The average time of a second reaction was 19.0&#xa0;h in patients experiencing biphasic reactivity. For biphasic anaphylaxis, the symptom profiles of second reactions were significantly less severe (p = 0.0002) compared with the initial reaction but significantly more severe than non-anaphylactic biphasic events (p &lt; 0.0001).No differences of management were identified between events.</p> Conclusion <p>The incidence of biphasic reactions in this cohort was 15.94% and the average second-phase onset was 19.0&#xa0;h. In biphasic reactivity, it appears that the symptom profile second reaction is less severe compared to the first reaction.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Biphasic anaphylaxis in a Canadian tertiary care centre: an evaluation of incidence and risk factors from electronic health records and telephone interviews

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月8日

查看全文
  • Anne K. Ellis,
  • Lubnaa Hossenbaccus,
  • Sophia Linton,
  • Hannah Botting,
  • Eman Badawod,
  • Alyssa Burrows,
  • Sarah Garvey

摘要

Background

Our previous 2007 study reported a 19.4% rate of biphasic anaphylaxis in Kingston, Ontario. Since then, few updates have been published regarding the etiology and risk factors of biphasic anaphylaxis. This study aimed to describe the incidence of and predictors of biphasic anaphylaxis in a single centre through a retrospective evaluation of patients with diagnosed anaphylaxis.

Methods

From November 2015 to August 2017, all patients who presented to the emergency department at two hospital sites in Kingston given a diagnosis of “allergic reaction,” “anaphylaxis,” “drug allergy,” or “insect sting allergy,” were evaluated. Patients were contacted sometime after ED discharge to obtain consent and confirm symptoms and timing of the reaction. A trained allergist determined if criteria for anaphylaxis were met and categorized the reactions as being uniphasic, biphasic, or non-anaphylactic biphasic. A full medical review of the event ensued, and each type of anaphylactic event was statistically compared.

Results

Of 138 anaphylactic events identified, 15.94% were biphasic reactions, 79.0% were uniphasic, and 5.07% were classified alternatively as a non-anaphylactic biphasic reaction. The average time of a second reaction was 19.0 h in patients experiencing biphasic reactivity. For biphasic anaphylaxis, the symptom profiles of second reactions were significantly less severe (p = 0.0002) compared with the initial reaction but significantly more severe than non-anaphylactic biphasic events (p < 0.0001).No differences of management were identified between events.

Conclusion

The incidence of biphasic reactions in this cohort was 15.94% and the average second-phase onset was 19.0 h. In biphasic reactivity, it appears that the symptom profile second reaction is less severe compared to the first reaction.