首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>World Journal of Cardiology >Shellfish allergy and relation to iodinated contrast media: United Kingdom survey
【2h】

Shellfish allergy and relation to iodinated contrast media: United Kingdom survey

机译:贝类过敏及其与碘造影剂的关系:英国调查

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

AIM: To assess current practice of United Kingdom cardiologists with respect to patients with reported shellfish/iodine allergy, and in particular the use of iodinated contrast for elective coronary angiography. Moreover we have reviewed the current evidence-base and guidelines available in this area.METHODS: A questionnaire survey was send to 500 senior United Kingdom cardiologists (almost 50% cardiologists registered with British Cardiovascular Society) using email and first 100 responses used to analyze practise. We involved cardiologists performing coronary angiograms routinely both at secondary and tertiary centres. Three specific questions relating to allergy were asked: (1) History of shellfish/iodine allergy in pre-angiography assessment; (2) Treatments offered for shellfish/iodine allergy individuals; and (3) Any specific treatment protocol for shellfish/iodine allergy cases. We aimed to establish routine practice in United Kingdom for patients undergoing elective coronary angiography. We also performed comprehensive PubMed search for the available evidence of relationship between shellfish/iodine allergy and contrast media.RESULTS: A total of 100 responses were received, representing 20% of all United Kingdom cardiologists. Ninety-three replies were received from consultant cardiologists, 4 from non-consultant grades and 3 from cardiology specialist nurses. Amongst the respondents, 66% routinely asked about a previous history of shellfish/iodine allergy. Fifty-six percent would pre-treat these patients with steroids and anti-histamines. The other 44% do nothing, or do nonspecific testing based on their personal experience as following: (1) Skin test with 1 mL of subcutaneous contrast before intravenous contrast; (2) Test dose 2 mL contrast before coronary injection; (3) Close observation for shellfish allergy patients; and (4) Minimal evidence that the steroid and anti-histamine regime is effective but it makes us feel better.CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that allergy to shellfish alters the risk of reaction to intravenous contrast more than any other allergy and asking about such allergies in pre-angiogram assessment will not provide any additional information except propagating the myth.
机译:目的:评估英国心脏病专家对已报道贝类/碘过敏的患者的当前做法,尤其是使用碘化造影剂进行选择性冠状动脉造影。此外,我们还回顾了该领域的现有证据基础和指南。方法:使用电子邮件将问卷调查表发送给500位英国高级心脏病专家(近50%在英国心血管协会注册的心脏病专家),并使用前100名答复进行分析。 。我们邀请心脏病专家在二级和三级中心常规进行冠状动脉造影。提出了与过敏有关的三个具体问题:(1)血管造影前评估中贝类/碘过敏的病史; (2)对贝类/碘过敏者提供的治疗; (3)贝类/碘过敏病例的任何特定治疗方案。我们旨在在英国为接受选择性冠状动脉造影的患者建立常规治疗方法。我们还进行了全面的PubMed搜索,以寻找贝类/碘过敏与造影剂之间关系的可用证据。结果:总共收到100份响应,占英国所有心脏病专家的20%。顾问心脏病学家收到了93份答复,非顾问职等收到4份答复,心脏病专家护士提供了3份答复。在受访者中,有66%经常询问贝类/碘过敏的既往史。 56%的患者将使用类固醇和抗组胺药对这些患者进行预处理。其余44%则不做任何事情,或根据自己的经验做非特异性测试,如下:(1)在进行静脉对比之前,先用1 mL皮下对比进行皮肤测试; (2)冠状动脉注射前测试剂量2 mL造影剂; (3)对贝类过敏患者进行严密观察; (4)最低限度的证据表明类固醇和抗组胺药是有效的,但会使我们感觉更好。结论:没有证据表明,对贝类过敏的患者对静脉造影的反应改变的风险比对其他过敏反应的影响更大。除传播神话外,血管造影前评估中的过敏不会提供任何其他信息。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号