S Mehr1, W K Liew, D Tey, M L K Tang. 1. Department of Allergy and Immunology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the main reasons for hospital admission once a child has been stabilized following anaphylaxis is to monitor for a biphasic reaction. However, only a small percentage of anaphylactic episodes involve biphasic reactions that would benefit from admission. Identification of predictive factors for a biphasic reaction would assist in determining who may benefit from prolonged observation. OBJECTIVE: To determine predictive factors for biphasic reactions in children presenting with anaphylaxis. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of children presenting with anaphylaxis to a major paediatric emergency department over a 5-year period. RESULTS: There were 95 uniphasic (87%), 12 (11%) biphasic and two protracted reactions (2%). One child with a protracted reaction died. For the management of the primary anaphylactic reaction, children developing biphasic reactions were more likely to have received >1 dose of adrenaline (58% vs. 22%, P=0.01) and/or a fluid bolus (42% vs. 8%, P=0.01) than those experiencing uniphasic reactions. The absence of either factor was strongly predictive of the absence of a biphasic reaction (negative predictive value 99%), but the presence of either factor was poorly predictive of a biphasic reaction (positive predictive value of 32%). All biphasic reactors, in which the second phase was anaphylactic, received either >1 dose of adrenaline and/or a fluid bolus. CONCLUSIONS: Children who received >1 dose of adrenaline and/or a fluid bolus for treatment of their primary anaphylactic reaction were at increased risk of developing a biphasic reaction.
BACKGROUND: One of the main reasons for hospital admission once a child has been stabilized following anaphylaxis is to monitor for a biphasic reaction. However, only a small percentage of anaphylactic episodes involve biphasic reactions that would benefit from admission. Identification of predictive factors for a biphasic reaction would assist in determining who may benefit from prolonged observation. OBJECTIVE: To determine predictive factors for biphasic reactions in children presenting with anaphylaxis. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of children presenting with anaphylaxis to a major paediatric emergency department over a 5-year period. RESULTS: There were 95 uniphasic (87%), 12 (11%) biphasic and two protracted reactions (2%). One child with a protracted reaction died. For the management of the primary anaphylactic reaction, children developing biphasic reactions were more likely to have received >1 dose of adrenaline (58% vs. 22%, P=0.01) and/or a fluid bolus (42% vs. 8%, P=0.01) than those experiencing uniphasic reactions. The absence of either factor was strongly predictive of the absence of a biphasic reaction (negative predictive value 99%), but the presence of either factor was poorly predictive of a biphasic reaction (positive predictive value of 32%). All biphasic reactors, in which the second phase was anaphylactic, received either >1 dose of adrenaline and/or a fluid bolus. CONCLUSIONS:Children who received >1 dose of adrenaline and/or a fluid bolus for treatment of their primary anaphylactic reaction were at increased risk of developing a biphasic reaction.
Authors: H W Chu; C M Lloyd; W Karmaus; P Maestrelli; P Mason; G Salcedo; J Thaikoottathil; A J Wardlaw Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.018
Authors: Aleena Banerji; Susan A Rudders; Blanka Corel; Alisha P Garth; Sunday Clark; Carlos A Camargo Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: F Estelle R Simons; Ledit R F Ardusso; M Beatrice Bilò; Yehia M El-Gamal; Dennis K Ledford; Johannes Ring; Mario Sanchez-Borges; Gian Enrico Senna; Aziz Sheikh; Bernard Y Thong Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 4.084
Authors: Dirceu Sole; Juan Carlos Ivancevich; Mario Sanchez Borges; Magna Adaci Coelho; Nelson A Rosario; Ledit Ramón Francisco Ardusso; Luis Antônio Guerra Bernd Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Timothy E Dribin; Kenneth A Michelson; Michael C Monuteaux; Anne M Stack; Karen S Farbman; Lynda C Schneider; Mark I Neuman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 3.240