[麻醉方案的发展对围麻醉期类过敏反应发生率的影响]。

Allergie et immunologie Pub Date : 2002-10-01
J Amedeo, G Occelli, C Pradier, D Grimaud
{"title":"[麻醉方案的发展对围麻醉期类过敏反应发生率的影响]。","authors":"J Amedeo,&nbsp;G Occelli,&nbsp;C Pradier,&nbsp;D Grimaud","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>What impact does the use of new drugs and latex gloves it have on the frequency and the severity of peri-anaesthetic anaphylactoid reactions? Does the evolution of in vitro techniques does represent a progress in the imputability of the substances at the origin of the shock?</p><p><strong>The methods: </strong>They include the letter from the anaesthetic doctor, the questioning by the allergologist, skin tests (Pricks, IDR) with the anaesthetic substances and the latex according to the GERAP protocol and the biologic tests (Human Basophilic Degranulation test (TDBH), Radio ImmunoAssay (RIA), leukotrienes E4 assay (LTC4), Flow Cytometry (CMF)).</p><p><strong>The results: </strong>386 patients were explored (289 women and 88 men, mean age 41.5 years). The muscle relaxants are the first cause of anaphylaxis 77%. Muscle relaxants cross allergy is found in 55.1%. The Latex, tested since 1989 with Allerbio and Stallergenes extracts, is responsible for 25 shocks with one death and 15 with grade III or IV. Preventive antibiotherapy, since consensus meeting of 1992, seems responsible of 17 accidents. 116 TDBH, 216 RIA, 17LTC4 and 47CMF. TDBH are made concordant with skin tests in 48.2% against, 71.2% for the RIA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The experience of 17 years of allergo-anaesthetic consultation confirms the first row for the muscles relaxants for the target of anaphylactic shock, but the imputability of Vecuronium and Rocuronium increases to the detriment of the Suxamethonium. The Latex is in the second row, but the target questioning, the systematic use of Prick tests and \"latex free\" surgery room limit its increase which should change down. The antibiotherapy occupies the third row and might increase. 54 accidents have remained unexplained.</p>","PeriodicalId":76988,"journal":{"name":"Allergie et immunologie","volume":"34 8","pages":"277-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Impact of the development of anesthesia protocols on the incidence of peri-anesthetic anaphylactoid reactions].\",\"authors\":\"J Amedeo,&nbsp;G Occelli,&nbsp;C Pradier,&nbsp;D Grimaud\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>What impact does the use of new drugs and latex gloves it have on the frequency and the severity of peri-anaesthetic anaphylactoid reactions? Does the evolution of in vitro techniques does represent a progress in the imputability of the substances at the origin of the shock?</p><p><strong>The methods: </strong>They include the letter from the anaesthetic doctor, the questioning by the allergologist, skin tests (Pricks, IDR) with the anaesthetic substances and the latex according to the GERAP protocol and the biologic tests (Human Basophilic Degranulation test (TDBH), Radio ImmunoAssay (RIA), leukotrienes E4 assay (LTC4), Flow Cytometry (CMF)).</p><p><strong>The results: </strong>386 patients were explored (289 women and 88 men, mean age 41.5 years). The muscle relaxants are the first cause of anaphylaxis 77%. Muscle relaxants cross allergy is found in 55.1%. The Latex, tested since 1989 with Allerbio and Stallergenes extracts, is responsible for 25 shocks with one death and 15 with grade III or IV. Preventive antibiotherapy, since consensus meeting of 1992, seems responsible of 17 accidents. 116 TDBH, 216 RIA, 17LTC4 and 47CMF. TDBH are made concordant with skin tests in 48.2% against, 71.2% for the RIA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The experience of 17 years of allergo-anaesthetic consultation confirms the first row for the muscles relaxants for the target of anaphylactic shock, but the imputability of Vecuronium and Rocuronium increases to the detriment of the Suxamethonium. The Latex is in the second row, but the target questioning, the systematic use of Prick tests and \\\"latex free\\\" surgery room limit its increase which should change down. The antibiotherapy occupies the third row and might increase. 54 accidents have remained unexplained.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergie et immunologie\",\"volume\":\"34 8\",\"pages\":\"277-80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergie et immunologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergie et immunologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:新药和乳胶手套的使用对麻醉周围类过敏反应的发生频率和严重程度有什么影响?体外技术的发展是否代表了休克起源物质可归责性的进步?方法:包括麻醉医生的信函、过敏科医生的询问、根据GERAP方案使用麻醉物质和乳胶进行皮肤试验(Pricks, IDR)和生物试验(人嗜碱性脱颗粒试验(TDBH)、放射免疫测定(RIA)、白三烯E4测定(LTC4)、流式细胞术(CMF))。结果:共纳入386例患者(女性289例,男性88例,平均年龄41.5岁)。肌肉松弛剂是77%过敏反应的首要原因。55.1%的人对肌肉松弛剂交叉过敏。自1989年以来,使用Allerbio和Stallergenes提取物进行测试的Latex造成了25例电击,其中1例死亡,15例为III级或IV级。自1992年共识会议以来,预防性抗生素治疗似乎造成了17起事故。116 TDBH, 216 RIA, 17LTC4和47CMF。TDBH与皮肤试验的一致性为48.2%,与RIA的一致性为71.2%。结论:17年的变应性麻醉药会诊经验证实,肌肉松弛剂是过敏性休克的首选目标,但维库溴铵和罗库溴铵的归责性增加,不利于苏克塞溴铵。乳胶排在第二排,但目标询问,针刺试验的系统使用和“无乳胶”手术室限制了它的增加,应该改变。抗生素治疗排在第三排,可能会增加。目前仍有54起事故无法解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Impact of the development of anesthesia protocols on the incidence of peri-anesthetic anaphylactoid reactions].

Introduction: What impact does the use of new drugs and latex gloves it have on the frequency and the severity of peri-anaesthetic anaphylactoid reactions? Does the evolution of in vitro techniques does represent a progress in the imputability of the substances at the origin of the shock?

The methods: They include the letter from the anaesthetic doctor, the questioning by the allergologist, skin tests (Pricks, IDR) with the anaesthetic substances and the latex according to the GERAP protocol and the biologic tests (Human Basophilic Degranulation test (TDBH), Radio ImmunoAssay (RIA), leukotrienes E4 assay (LTC4), Flow Cytometry (CMF)).

The results: 386 patients were explored (289 women and 88 men, mean age 41.5 years). The muscle relaxants are the first cause of anaphylaxis 77%. Muscle relaxants cross allergy is found in 55.1%. The Latex, tested since 1989 with Allerbio and Stallergenes extracts, is responsible for 25 shocks with one death and 15 with grade III or IV. Preventive antibiotherapy, since consensus meeting of 1992, seems responsible of 17 accidents. 116 TDBH, 216 RIA, 17LTC4 and 47CMF. TDBH are made concordant with skin tests in 48.2% against, 71.2% for the RIA.

Conclusion: The experience of 17 years of allergo-anaesthetic consultation confirms the first row for the muscles relaxants for the target of anaphylactic shock, but the imputability of Vecuronium and Rocuronium increases to the detriment of the Suxamethonium. The Latex is in the second row, but the target questioning, the systematic use of Prick tests and "latex free" surgery room limit its increase which should change down. The antibiotherapy occupies the third row and might increase. 54 accidents have remained unexplained.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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