ABSTRACT
Fundamentos. Anafilaxia es una reacción alérgica seria y que puede causar la muerte. Existen pocos datos sobre la incidencia y las características de anafilaxia en Argentina. Objetivos. Estimar la incidencia de anafilaxia en un sistema de salud prepago de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Describir el conocimiento de los pacientes con diagnóstico de anafilaxia sobre medidas de prevención y tratamiento. Marco de referencia. Hospital Italiano de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Diseño. Cohorte retrospectiva Población. Padrón del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires con diagnóstico de anafilaxia desde enero de 2006 a abril de 2014. Método. Se revisaron las historias clínicas electrónicas de 211 pacientes. La evaluación comprendió tanto el ámbito ambulatorio como internación y central de emergencias. Se realizó una encuesta telefónica para conocer el comportamiento y conocimiento de los pacientes que presentaron un episodio de anafilaxia. Se utilizó el software estadístico SPSS 19.0. Resultados. La densidad de incidencia calculada por cada 100.000 personasaño fue de 9,03 (IC95%: 7,53-10,84) para todas las causas de anafilaxia. Las causas más comunes reportadas fueron medicamentos 49,5% y alimentos 19,79%. El 63,4% no recibió prescripción de adrenalina autoinyectable, sólo el 30,9% tienen un plan de acción ante un nuevo evento. Conclusión. La anafilaxia es un problema de salud importante y común. Este estudio demuestra posibles deficiencias en la atención de los episodios de anafilaxia, no sólo en el tratamiento de episodios pasados, sino también por la falta de preparación adecuada para futuros episodios. (AU)
Background. Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that can cause death. There are few data of the incidence and characteristics of anaphylaxis in the population of Argentina. Objectives. estimate the incidence of anaphylaxis in medical care program of Buenos Aires city. Describe the knowledge of patients with diagnosis of anaphylaxis about prevention and treatment. Setting. Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Design. Retrospective cohort. Population. Census of the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis in electronic health records from January 2006 to April 2014. Method. Electronic medical records of 211 patients were reviewed, the evaluation included both inpatient and outpatient setting and emergency center. A telephone survey was conducted to understand the behavior and knowledge of the patients who had an episode of anaphylaxis. SPSS 19.0 statistical software was used. Results. The density of incidence calculated per 100,000 person-years was 9.03 (95% CI: 7.53-10.84) for all causes of anaphylaxis. The most commonly reported causes were drugs 49.5% and food 19.79%. The 63.4% of patients had never received the prescription of self-injectable epinephrine; only 30.9% have a plan of action before a new event. Conclusion. Anaphylaxis is an important and common health problem. This study demonstrates the potential gaps in care episodes of anaphylaxis, not only in the treatment of past episodes, also by the lack of adequate preparation for future episodes(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Health Maintenance Organizations , Incidence , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Therapeutics , EpidemiologyABSTRACT
@#BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations. METHODS: This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs. RESULTS: Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9%reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide "real-world" data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and fol ow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended.