美国急诊医疗服务中过敏反应协议的差异-改进的机会

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
Carly A Gunderson, Sandra M Lopez, Karishma Lukose, Nicole Akar-Ghibril
{"title":"美国急诊医疗服务中过敏反应协议的差异-改进的机会","authors":"Carly A Gunderson, Sandra M Lopez, Karishma Lukose, Nicole Akar-Ghibril","doi":"10.1016/j.anai.2025.03.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Across the United States, there are significant inconsistencies in the protocols used by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in the prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis. These discrepancies include variations in the definition of anaphylaxis as well as treatment recommendations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study performed an analysis of statewide anaphylaxis protocols to identify gaps in the recognition of anaphylaxis and to provide areas for improvement in prehospital management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>States with mandatory or model state-wide protocols were included (total of 30). Each allergic reaction and/or anaphylaxis protocol was reviewed - emphasis was placed on the definitions used to identify reactions and treatment algorithms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 30 states, only 50% (15) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, and only 40% (12) included neurologic manifestations. 47% (14) used a two-organ system definition. For anaphylactic reactions, 100% (30) of protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine. 90% (27) recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, and 60% (18) recommended steroids. Epinephrine was the first line recommendation for anaphylaxis in 97% (29) of protocols. 25 states (83%) allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 (57%) provided autoinjectors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many EMS anaphylaxis protocols are incomplete and/or outdated. Many protocols do not consider gastrointestinal or neurologic manifestations. Additionally, many contain outdated recommendations, including the use of steroids and first-generation antihistamines. Despite the convenience of epinephrine autoinjectors, many protocols do not permit or provide them. Given the frequency of EMS activation for allergic reactions, our communities would benefit from standardized protocols using current evidence-based guidelines for the management of anaphylaxis.</p>","PeriodicalId":50773,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discrepancies in Anaphylaxis Protocols Across Emergency Medical Services in the United States - Opportunities for Improvement.\",\"authors\":\"Carly A Gunderson, Sandra M Lopez, Karishma Lukose, Nicole Akar-Ghibril\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.anai.2025.03.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Across the United States, there are significant inconsistencies in the protocols used by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in the prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis. These discrepancies include variations in the definition of anaphylaxis as well as treatment recommendations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study performed an analysis of statewide anaphylaxis protocols to identify gaps in the recognition of anaphylaxis and to provide areas for improvement in prehospital management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>States with mandatory or model state-wide protocols were included (total of 30). Each allergic reaction and/or anaphylaxis protocol was reviewed - emphasis was placed on the definitions used to identify reactions and treatment algorithms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 30 states, only 50% (15) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, and only 40% (12) included neurologic manifestations. 47% (14) used a two-organ system definition. For anaphylactic reactions, 100% (30) of protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine. 90% (27) recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, and 60% (18) recommended steroids. Epinephrine was the first line recommendation for anaphylaxis in 97% (29) of protocols. 25 states (83%) allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 (57%) provided autoinjectors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many EMS anaphylaxis protocols are incomplete and/or outdated. Many protocols do not consider gastrointestinal or neurologic manifestations. Additionally, many contain outdated recommendations, including the use of steroids and first-generation antihistamines. Despite the convenience of epinephrine autoinjectors, many protocols do not permit or provide them. Given the frequency of EMS activation for allergic reactions, our communities would benefit from standardized protocols using current evidence-based guidelines for the management of anaphylaxis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2025.03.021\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2025.03.021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在整个美国,急诊医疗服务(EMS)在过敏反应院前治疗中使用的方案存在显著的不一致性。这些差异包括过敏反应定义的差异以及治疗建议。目的:本研究对全州范围内的过敏反应方案进行了分析,以确定在过敏反应识别方面的差距,并为院前管理提供改进的领域。方法:纳入具有强制性或示范性全州协议的州(共30个)。回顾了每种过敏反应和/或过敏反应方案-重点放在用于识别反应和治疗算法的定义上。结果:在30个状态中,只有50%(15)在过敏反应的定义中包括胃肠道症状,只有40%(12)包括神经系统表现。47%(14人)使用双器官系统定义。对于过敏反应,100%(30)的方案推荐苯海拉明和肾上腺素。如果出现呼吸道症状,90%(27人)建议使用沙丁胺醇,60%(18人)建议使用类固醇。在97%(29)的方案中,肾上腺素是过敏反应的一线推荐用药。25个州(83%)允许肾上腺素自动注射器,17个州(57%)提供肾上腺素自动注射器。结论:许多EMS过敏反应方案是不完整和/或过时的。许多方案没有考虑胃肠道或神经系统的表现。此外,许多药物含有过时的建议,包括使用类固醇和第一代抗组胺药。尽管肾上腺素自动注射器很方便,但许多协议不允许或不提供它们。鉴于EMS因过敏反应而激活的频率,我们的社区将受益于使用当前循证指南管理过敏反应的标准化方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discrepancies in Anaphylaxis Protocols Across Emergency Medical Services in the United States - Opportunities for Improvement.

Background: Across the United States, there are significant inconsistencies in the protocols used by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in the prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis. These discrepancies include variations in the definition of anaphylaxis as well as treatment recommendations.

Objective: This study performed an analysis of statewide anaphylaxis protocols to identify gaps in the recognition of anaphylaxis and to provide areas for improvement in prehospital management.

Methods: States with mandatory or model state-wide protocols were included (total of 30). Each allergic reaction and/or anaphylaxis protocol was reviewed - emphasis was placed on the definitions used to identify reactions and treatment algorithms.

Results: Of the 30 states, only 50% (15) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, and only 40% (12) included neurologic manifestations. 47% (14) used a two-organ system definition. For anaphylactic reactions, 100% (30) of protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine. 90% (27) recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, and 60% (18) recommended steroids. Epinephrine was the first line recommendation for anaphylaxis in 97% (29) of protocols. 25 states (83%) allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 (57%) provided autoinjectors.

Conclusion: Many EMS anaphylaxis protocols are incomplete and/or outdated. Many protocols do not consider gastrointestinal or neurologic manifestations. Additionally, many contain outdated recommendations, including the use of steroids and first-generation antihistamines. Despite the convenience of epinephrine autoinjectors, many protocols do not permit or provide them. Given the frequency of EMS activation for allergic reactions, our communities would benefit from standardized protocols using current evidence-based guidelines for the management of anaphylaxis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
6.80%
发文量
437
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology is a scholarly medical journal published monthly by the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The purpose of Annals is to serve as an objective evidence-based forum for the allergy/immunology specialist to keep up to date on current clinical science (both research and practice-based) in the fields of allergy, asthma, and immunology. The emphasis of the journal will be to provide clinical and research information that is readily applicable to both the clinician and the researcher. Each issue of the Annals shall also provide opportunities to participate in accredited continuing medical education activities to enhance overall clinical proficiency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信