1.Safety of epinephrine for anaphylaxis in the emergency setting
Wood P JOSEPH ; Traub J STEPHEN ; Lipinski CHRISTOPHER
World Journal of Emergency Medicine 2013;4(4):245-251
BACKGROUND: While epinephrine is the recommended first-line therapy for the reversal of anaphylaxis symptoms, inappropriate use persists because of misunderstandings about proper dosing and administration or misconceptions about its safety. The objective of this review was to evaluate the safety of epinephrine for patients with anaphylaxis, including other emergent conditions, treated in emergency care settings. METHODS: A MEDLINE search using PubMed was conducted to identify articles that discuss the dosing, administration, and safety of epinephrine in the emergency setting for anaphylaxis and other conditions. RESULTS: Epinephrine is safe for anaphylaxis when given at the correct dose by intramuscular injection. The majority of dosing errors and cardiovascular adverse reactions occur when epinephrine is given intravenously or incorrectly dosed. CONCLUSION: Epinephrine by intramuscular injection is a safe therapy for anaphylaxis but training may still be necessary in emergency care settings to minimize drug dosing and administration errors and to allay concerns about its safety.
2.Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice
Russell Scott W. ; Farrar Rosen JUDITH ; Nowak RICHARD ; Hays P. DANIEL ; Schmitz NATALIE ; Wood JOSEPH ; Miller JUDI
World Journal of Emergency Medicine 2013;4(2):98-106
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.