T U Krohne1, J-P Allam2, N Novak2, F G Holz3. 1. Universitäts-Augenklinik Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland. krohne@uni-bonn.de. 2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland. 3. Universitäts-Augenklinik Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative disinfection with povidone-iodine results in a significant reduction of the risk for postoperative endophthalmitis and secondary irreversible vision loss in intraocular surgeries and intravitreal injections. Nevertheless, this important measure is often omitted if so-called "iodine allergy" is suspected. We analyze the physiological and allergological basis for the construct of "iodine allergy". METHODS: This article is based on a selective literature review using the search term "allergy" in combination with "iodine", "povidone", "indocyanine green", or "seafood". RESULTS: Iodine is a chemical element and an essential component of the human body. Scientific proof for the existence of an antibody-mediated allergic reaction (type I reaction) and in particular an immunoglobulin (Ig) E‑mediated anaphylaxis against iodine is lacking. Chemical irritations and contact allergies (type IV reaction) induced by iodine-containing disinfectants are not antibody-mediated and do not cause anaphylaxis (type I reaction). The uncommon antibody-mediated allergies against iodine-containing disinfectants, fluorescent dyes, radiocontrast media, or seafood are not directed against the contained iodine itself but against other components of the respective formulation. Thus, allergic cross-reactivities between these different substance groups are not to be expected. CONCLUSION: So-called "iodine allergy" is a medical myth lacking a scientific basis and should not result in increased patient risks due to omitted preoperative disinfection.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative disinfection with povidone-iodine results in a significant reduction of the risk for postoperative endophthalmitis and secondary irreversible vision loss in intraocular surgeries and intravitreal injections. Nevertheless, this important measure is often omitted if so-called "iodineallergy" is suspected. We analyze the physiological and allergological basis for the construct of "iodineallergy". METHODS: This article is based on a selective literature review using the search term "allergy" in combination with "iodine", "povidone", "indocyanine green", or "seafood". RESULTS:Iodine is a chemical element and an essential component of the human body. Scientific proof for the existence of an antibody-mediated allergic reaction (type I reaction) and in particular an immunoglobulin (Ig) E‑mediated anaphylaxis against iodine is lacking. Chemical irritations and contact allergies (type IV reaction) induced by iodine-containing disinfectants are not antibody-mediated and do not cause anaphylaxis (type I reaction). The uncommon antibody-mediated allergies against iodine-containing disinfectants, fluorescent dyes, radiocontrast media, or seafood are not directed against the contained iodine itself but against other components of the respective formulation. Thus, allergic cross-reactivities between these different substance groups are not to be expected. CONCLUSION: So-called "iodineallergy" is a medical myth lacking a scientific basis and should not result in increased patient risks due to omitted preoperative disinfection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anaphylaxis; Disinfection; Indocyanine green; Povidone-iodine; Radiocontrast media
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Alessandro Buda; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Anda P Radan; Chantal A L Stämpfli; Tilman T Rau; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 4.553