RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Adrenaline autoinjectors (AAInj) facilitates early administration of adrenaline and remains the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. However, only a minority of anaphylaxis survivors in Hong Kong are prescribed AAInj and formal guidance do not exist. International anaphylaxis guidelines have been largely based on Western studies, which may not be as relevant for non-Western populations. OBJECTIVE: To formulate a set of consensus statements on the prescription of AAInj in Hong Kong. METHODS: Consensus statements were formulated by the Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium by the Delphi method. Agreement was defined as greater than or equal to 80% consensus. Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate differences between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. RESULTS: A total of 7 statements met criteria for consensus with good overall agreement between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. AAInj should be used as first-line treatment and prescribed for all patients at risk of anaphylaxis. This should be prescribed prior to discharge from the Accident and Emergency Department together with an immediate referral to an allergy center. The decision for prescribing AAInj should be based on the severity of previous reactions; including objective signs of respiratory involvement, objective signs of cardiovascular involvement and multiorgan involvement (regardless of severity). Patient demographics and comorbidities, specifically history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, should also be considered. Patients deemed eligible for AAInj should be offered avoidance advice and prescribed one AAInj while awaiting review by allergists. AAInj technique should be demonstrated by a healthcare professional or instruction video, and a return demonstration by the patient is required. The patient should also be counseled that the decision on the continued need of AAInj prescription in the long-term should be reviewed by an allergist. CONCLUSION: Consensus statements support the prescription of AAInj by front-line physicians with subsequent allergist review when treating patients at risk of anaphylaxis in Hong Kong.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether in the local lay Hong Kong population, video self-instruction about cardiopulmonary resuscitation has comparable results to traditional classroom instructions. DESIGN: Prospective randomised single-blind controlled trial. SETTING: A first-aid training organisation in Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: Cantonese applicants for cardiopulmonary resuscitation courses aged between 18 and 70 years were recruited into the study. They were randomised into two groups. Those selected for self-learning were given a kit (consisting of a mini-manikin, a video compact disc, and an instruction manual) and sent home. The other group underwent usual classroom training. Both groups were examined together; the examiners remained blinded to the background training of the subjects. Those who passed were asked to come back for re-examination after 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The examination passing rates initially and after 1 year. RESULTS: During a 1-year period between 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008, 256 subjects were recruited into this study, 124 for self-learning and 132 for classroom training. The age range was 18 to 62 (mean, 39; standard deviation, 10) years. There was no significant difference in passing rate between the two groups at the initial examination or at the re-examination after 1 year. Notably, 28 (23%) of the participants of the self-learning group taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation to relatives and friends. CONCLUSION: Video self-learning resulted in cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance as good as traditional classroom training.
