Evaluation of Prehospital Management in a Canadian Emergency Department Anaphylaxis Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Studies assessing the use of antihistamines and corticosteroids for the treatment of anaphylaxis have not supported a conclusive effect. OBJECTIVE: To assess prehospital management of anaphylaxis by measuring the effect of epinephrine use compared with antihistamines and corticosteroids on negative outcomes of anaphylaxis (intensive care unit/hospital ward admission, multiple doses of epinephrine in the emergency department [ED], and intravenous fluids given in the ED). METHODS: The Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry is a cohort study that enrolls anaphylaxis cases presenting to EDs in 5 Canadian provinces over a 6-year period. Participants were recruited prospectively and retrospectively and were excluded if the case did not meet the definition of anaphylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 3498 cases of anaphylaxis, of which 80.3% were children, presented to 9 EDs across Canada. Prehospital treatment with epinephrine was administered in 31% of cases, whereas antihistamines and corticosteroids were used in 46% and 2% of cases, respectively. Admission to the intensive care unit/hospital ward was associated with prehospital treatment with corticosteroids (adjusted odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55, 6.97) while adjusting for severity, treatment with epinephrine and antihistamines, asthma, sex, and age. Prehospital treatment with epinephrine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14, 0.38) and antihistamines (adjusted odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.85) decreased the likelihood of receiving multiple doses of epinephrine in the ED, while adjusting for severity, treatment with corticosteroids, asthma, sex, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt epinephrine treatment is crucial. Use of antihistamines in conjunction with epinephrine may reduce the risk of uncontrolled reactions (administration of 2 or more doses of epinephrine in the ED), although our findings do not support the use of corticosteroids.

Emergency Management of Anaphylaxis Due to an Unknown Trigger: An 8-Year Follow-Up Study in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis due to unknown trigger (AUT) is anaphylaxis not explained by a proved or presumptive cause or stimulus at the time of the reaction. Research describing the management and follow-up of AUT is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics and the management of adult and pediatric AUT cases across Canada. METHODS: Participants were identified between 2011 and 2018 in emergency departments at 8 centers across Canada as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. A standardized form documenting the reaction and management in children and adults was completed. Patients were contacted for follow-up to determine assessment by an allergist. RESULTS: A total of 295 AUT cases (7.5%) were recruited among 3,922 cases of anaphylaxis. In the prehospital setting, children (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.37) and those with a known food allergy (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28) were more likely to receive treatment with epinephrine. Children were also more likely to be assessed by an allergist after their reaction (aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.81) and were more likely to have an identified trigger for their reaction (aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70). Among patients contacted for follow-up, food was identified as the cause of reaction in 11 of 76 patients. A new food allergy was diagnosed in 4 patients (2 children and 2 adults). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight important differences between management and follow-up of adult and pediatric AUT cases. It is crucial to follow up all cases of AUT and establish appropriate treatment and management guidelines.

Short- and long-term management of cases of venom-induced anaphylaxis is suboptimal.

BACKGROUND: Venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA) accounts for severe reactions. However, little is known about the short- and long-term management of VIA patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the short- and long-term management of VIA. METHODS: Using a national anaphylaxis registry (C-CARE), we identified VIA cases presenting to emergency departments in Montreal and to emergency medical services (EMSs) in western Quebec over a 4-year period. Data were collected on clinical characteristics, triggers, and management. Consenting patients were contacted annually regarding long-term management. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with epinephrine use, allergist assessment, and administration of immunotherapy. RESULTS: Between June 2013 and May 2017, 115 VIA cases were identified. Epinephrine was administered to 63.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9%-72.1%) of all VIA cases by a health care professional. Treatment of reactions without epinephrine was more likely in reactions occurring at home and in nonsevere cases (no hypotension, hypoxia, or loss of consciousness). Among 48 patients who responded to a follow-up questionnaire, 95.8% (95% CI, 84.6%-99.3%) were prescribed epinephrine auto-injector, 68.8% (95% CI, 53.6%-80.9%) saw an allergist who confirmed the allergy in 63.6% of cases, and 81.0% of those with positive testing were administered immunotherapy. Among cases with follow-up, seeing an allergist was less likely in patients with known ischemic heart disease. CONCLUSION: Almost 30% of patients with suspected VIA did not see an allergist, only two thirds of those seeing an allergist had allergy confirmation, and almost one fifth of those with confirmed allergy did not receive immunotherapy. Educational programs are needed to bridge this knowledge-to-action gap.

Disparities in rate, triggers, and management in pediatric and adult cases of suspected drug-induced anaphylaxis in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Data is sparse on drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) and there have not been studies assessing the differences in clinical characteristics and management of DIA between adults and children. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the percentage, diagnosis, and management of DIA among all anaphylaxis visits in three pediatric and one adult emergency departments (ED) across Canada. METHODS: Children presenting to the Montreal Children's Hospital (MCH), British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH), and Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences Center and adults presenting to Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur with anaphylaxis were recruited as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. A standardized data form documenting the reaction and management was completed and patients were followed annually to determine assessment by allergist and use of confirmatory tests. RESULTS: From June 2012 to May 2016, 51 children were recruited from the pediatric centers and 64 adults from the adult center with drug-induced anaphyalxis. More than half the cases were prospectively recruited. The percentage of DIA among all cases of anaphylaxis was similar in all three pediatric centers but higher in the adult center in Montreal. Most reactions in children were triggered by non-antibiotic drugs, and in adults, by antibiotics. The majority of adults and a third of children did not see an allergist after the initial reaction. In those that did see an allergist, diagnosis was established by either a skin test or an oral challenge in less than 20% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal disparities in rate, culprit, and management of DIA in children versus adults. Further, most cases of suspected drug allergy are not appropriately diagnosed. Guidelines to improve assessment and diagnosis of DIA are required.

Frequent users of the pediatric emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Its etiology is multifactorial, and frequent ED use (defined as more or equal to five visits per year) is a major contributor to high patient volumes. Our primary objective is to characterize the frequent user population. Our secondary objective is to examine risk factors for frequent emergency use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of pediatric emergency department (PED) visits at the Montreal Children's Hospital using the Système Informatique Urgence (SIURGE), electronic medical record database. We analysed the relation between patient's characteristics and the number of PED visits over a 1-year period following the index visit. RESULTS: Patients totalling 52,088 accounted for 94,155 visits. Of those, 2,474 (4.7%) patients had five and more recurrent visits and accounted for 16.6% (15,612 visits) of the total PED visits. Lower level of acuity at index visit (odds ratio [OR] 0.85) was associated with a lower number of recurrent visits. Lower socioeconomic status (social deprivation index OR 1.09, material deprivation index OR 1.08) was associated with a higher number of recurrent visits. Asthma (OR 1.57); infectious ear, nose, and sinus disorders (OR 1.33); and other respiratory disorders (OR 1.56) were independently associated with a higher incidence of a recurrent visit within the year following the first visit. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first Canadian study to assess risk factors of frequent pediatric emergency use. The identified risk factors and diagnoses highlight the need for future evidence-based, targeted innovative research evaluating strategies to minimize ED crowding, to improve health outcomes and to improve patient satisfaction.

Anaphylaxis across two Canadian pediatric centers: evaluating management disparities.

BACKGROUND: There are no data on the percentage of visits due to anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED), triggers, and management of anaphylaxis across different provinces in Canada. OBJECTIVE: To compare the percentage of anaphylaxis cases among all ED visits, as well as the triggers and management of anaphylaxis between two Canadian pediatric EDs (PEDs). METHODS: As part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE), children presenting to the British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH) and Montreal Children's Hospital (MCH) EDs with anaphylaxis were recruited. Characteristics, triggers, and management of anaphylaxis were documented using a standardized data entry form. Differences in demographics, triggers, and management were determined by comparing the difference of proportions and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Between June 2014 and June 2016, there were 346 visits due to anaphylaxis among 93,730 PED visits at the BCCH ED and 631 anaphylaxis visits among 164,669 pediatric visits at the MCH ED. In both centers, the majority of cases were triggered by food (BCCH 91.3% [88.7, 94.0], MCH 82.4% [79.7, 85.3]), of which peanuts were the most common culprit (24.7% [20.9, 29.9] and 19.0% [15.8, 22.7], respectively). Pre-hospital administration of epinephrine (BCCH 27.7% [23.2, 32.8], MCH 33.1% [29.5, 37.0]) and antihistamines (BCCH 50.6% [45.2, 56.0], MCH 47.1% [43.1, 51.0]) was similar. In-hospital management differed in terms of increased epinephrine, antihistamine, and steroid use at the BCCH (59.2% [53.9, 64.4], 59.8% [54.4, 65.0], and 60.1% [54.7, 65.3], respectively) compared to the MCH (42.2% [38.3, 46.2], 36.2% [32.5, 40.1], and 11.9% [9.5, 14.8], respectively). Despite differences in management, percentage of cases admitted to the intensive care unit was similar between the two centers. CONCLUSION: Compared to previous European and North American reports, there is a high percentage of anaphylaxis cases in two PEDs across Canada with substantial differences in hospital management practices. It is crucial to develop training programs that aim to increase epinephrine use in anaphylaxis.

The Risk of Recurrent Anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the recurrence rate of anaphylaxis in children medically attended in an emergency department (ED), we performed a prospective cohort study to evaluate prehospital and ED management of children with recurrent anaphylaxis and to assess factors associated with recurrent anaphylaxis. STUDY DESIGN: As part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry, parents of children with anaphylaxis identified prospectively in 3 EDs and through an emergency medical response service were contacted annually after presentation and queried on subsequent reactions. Cox regression analysis determined factors associated with recurrence. RESULTS: Among 292 children who were registered as having had medical attended anaphylaxis, 68.5% completed annual follow-up questionnaires. Forty-seven patients experienced 65 episodes of anaphylaxis during 369 patient-years of follow-up. Food was the trigger in 84.6% of cases, and epinephrine was used in 66.2%. In 50.8%, epinephrine was used outside the health care facility, and 81.7% were brought to a health care facility for treatment. Asthma, reaction triggered by food, and use of epinephrine during the index episode increased the odds of recurrent reaction. Patients whose initial reaction was triggered by peanut were less likely to have a recurrent reaction. CONCLUSIONS: We report a yearly anaphylaxis recurrence rate of 17.6% in children. There is substantial underuse of epinephrine in cases of anaphylaxis. Educational programs that promote effective avoidance strategies and prompt use of epinephrine are required.

Tryptase levels in children presenting with anaphylaxis: Temporal trends and associated factors.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of anaphylaxis currently relies on suggestive clinical history after exposure to a potential triggering factor because no reliable diagnostic marker is available to confirm the diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate tryptase levels in children with anaphylaxis and to examine predictors of elevated tryptase level (defined as ≥11.4 µg/L during reaction and for those with a baseline level, defined as a reaction level of at least 2 ng/mL + 1.2 × [postreaction tryptase level]). METHODS: Children presenting with anaphylaxis to the Montreal Children's Hospital were recruited over a 4-year period. Symptoms, triggers, and management of anaphylaxis were documented. Levels during the reaction and approximately 9 months after the reaction were compared on the basis of paired means using the t distribution. Multivariate linear and logistic regressions were used to evaluate the association between tryptase levels and risk factors. RESULTS: Over a 4-year period, 203 children had serum tryptase levels measured. Among these, 39 children (19.2%; 95% CI, 14.1%-25.4%) had elevated levels. Only severe reactions were associated with reaction levels of 11.4 µg/L or more (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.2-19.0). Milk-induced anaphylaxis and severe reactions were more likely associated with increased tryptase levels (beta-adjusted, 4.0; 95% CI, 0.95-7.0, and 7.5; 95% CI, 4.8-10.3, respectively). Reaction levels exceeding the threshold level of 2 ng/mL + 1.2 × (postreaction tryptase level) detected most of the anaphylactic reactions, particularly if baseline levels were taken within 2 months of the reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Tryptase levels are particularly useful for the diagnosis of severe and/or milk-induced anaphylaxis. Assessing the difference between reaction and postreaction tryptase levels may improve diagnostic sensitivity.

Canadian allergists' and nonallergists' perception of epinephrine use and vaccination of persons with egg allergy.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest knowledge gaps about epinephrine use and vaccination of persons with egg allergy. OBJECTIVE: We compared the perception of Canadian allergists and nonallergists on issues related to epinephrine use and vaccination of persons with egg allergy. METHODS: Canadian allergists, pediatricians, general practitioners/family physicians and emergency room physicians were recruited through medical associations and surveyed on these issues. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify determinants of specific responses. RESULTS: One-hundred fourteen allergists and 613 nonallergists participated. For most issues with accepted best practices, allergists were more likely to adhere to recommendations. Allergists versus nonallergists were more likely to recommend intramuscular epinephrine for anaphylaxis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.8; 95% CI, 1.43-10.11). Older physicians (OR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), Canadian-Paediatric-Surveillance-Program participants (OR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.96), family physicians (OR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.96), and general practitioners (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.52) were less likely to recommend intramuscular use. However, in severe anaphylaxis, >25% of both groups would not give epinephrine for patients presenting with breathing difficulties or hypotension. Use of epinephrine for severe anaphylaxis was less likely in older physicians (OR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99), female physicians (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.89), and those practicing in Ontario (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.86), Manitoba (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.90), or Nova-Scotia (OR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.78). Allergists (OR = 6.22; 95% CI, 3.60-10.72) and physicians treating mainly children (OR = 3.41; 95% CI, 1.87-6.25), or practicing in Quebec (OR = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12-2.55) were more likely to recommend measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in a community facility. CONCLUSION: Knowledge gaps about mode and indications for epinephrine administration and vaccination policies need to be addressed in future education programs to ensure prompt epinephrine use and to avoid unnecessary restriction of vaccines.

Reinforcing outpatient medical student learning using brief computer tutorials: the Patient-Teacher-Tutorial sequence.

BACKGROUND: At present, what students read after an outpatient encounter is largely left up to them. Our objective was to evaluate the education efficacy of a clinical education model in which the student moves through a sequence that includes immediately reinforcing their learning using a specifically designed computer tutorial. METHODS: Prior to a 14-day Pediatric Emergency rotation, medical students completed pre-tests for two common pediatric topics: Oral Rehydration Solutions (ORS) and Fever Without Source (FWS). After encountering a patient with either FWS or a patient needing ORS, the student logged into a computer that randomly assigned them to either a) completing a relevant computer tutorial (e.g. FWS patient + FWS tutorial = "in sequence") or b) completing the non-relevant tutorial (e.g. FWS patient + ORS tutorial = "out of sequence"). At the end of their rotation, they were tested again on both topics. Our main outcome was post-test scores on a given tutorial topic, contrasted by whether done in- or out-of-sequence. RESULTS: Ninety-two students completed the study protocol with 41 in the 'in sequence' group. Pre-test scores did not differ significantly. Overall, doing a computer tutorial in sequence resulted in significantly greater post-test scores (z-score 1.1 (SD 0.70) in sequence vs. 0.52 (1.1) out-of-sequence; 95% CI for difference +0.16, +0.93). Students spent longer on the tutorials when they were done in sequence (12.1 min (SD 7.3) vs. 10.5 (6.5)) though the difference was not statistically significant (95% CI diff: -1.2 min, +4.5). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient learning frameworks could be structured to take best advantage of the heightened learning potential created by patient encounters. We propose the Patient-Teacher-Tutorial sequence as a framework for organizing learning in outpatient clinical settings.

Treatment of pediatric status migrainosus: can we prevent the "bounce back"?

The impact of treatment given upon discharge on the "bounce back" rate was ascertained in children presenting at the emergency department for treatment of status migrainosus. All children ages 8 to 17 years old presenting to an emergency department in 2008 who were treated for status migrainosus and discharged home were included. Of the total of 187 patients, 21 patients (11.2%) bounced back. Treatment given was not associated with the bounce back rate. The only factors reaching significance were the presence of a migraine equivalent in 28.6% of patients who bounced back as compared with only 6.7% in patients without recurrence (P = .006); brain imaging study in the emergency department (52.4% vs. 16.9%, P = .001); and an arranged physician follow-up (66.6% vs. 36.3%, P = .01). The results appear to suggest that no current treatment given to children presenting to the emergency department with status migrainosus seems to alter the immediate recurrence rate.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing long-term cosmetic outcomes of traumatic pediatric lacerations repaired with absorbable plain gut versus nonabsorbable nylon sutures.

OBJECTIVES: To show that the use of absorbable sutures in pediatric traumatic lacerations affords good long-term cosmesis and no increase in complications (infection, dehiscence rates, and need for surgical scar revision) when compared with wounds sutured with nonabsorbable sutures. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in a pediatric emergency department. Patients 1-18 years of age who presented to the emergency department with lacerations < 12 hours old were recruited between January 1999 and December 2001. Exclusion criteria were the following: wounds that could be approximated by tissue adhesives, animal/human bites, gross contamination, puncture/crush wounds, wounds crossing joints, lacerations of tendon/nerve/cartilage, collagen vascular disease, immunodeficiency, diabetes mellitus, bleeding disorder, and scalp lacerations. Patients were randomized into one of two groups: those receiving absorbable plain gut sutures (group A) and those receiving nonabsorbable nylon sutures (group NA). Board-eligible/certified pediatric emergency physicians or clinical fellows performed laceration repair in a standardized approach. All wounds were reevaluated within ten days by a single research nurse who assessed the wounds using a previously validated wound evaluation score (WES) composed of six items (presence of step-off, contour irregularities, margin separation, edge inversion, extensive distortion, and overall cosmetic appearance). A score of 6/6 was considered optimal. The study nurse also noted the presence of infection and dehiscence. The patients were then seen by a single blinded plastic surgeon at four or five months who evaluated the wound using a previously validated visual analog scale of cosmesis (VAS). In addition, the surgeon repeated the WES and assessed the need for surgical scar revision. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients were eligible, and 52 patients declined to participate. Of the 95 patients enrolled, 50 were randomized to group A and 45 to group NA. The two groups had similar ages, gender distributions, rates of use of sedation or steri-strips, wound lengths and widths, mechanisms of injury, and wound locations. At the short-term follow-up, no difference was found in the proportion of optimal WES scores between group A (63% of patients) and group NA (49% of patients) (relative risk = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.45 to 1.17). No difference was found in the rates of infection and dehiscence between the two groups. Sixty-three of the 95 patients presented for long-term follow-up. The groups remained similar with respect to patient and wound characteristics as well as wound location. The average VAS score at four months was 79 (95% CI = 73 to 85) for group A and 66 (95% CI = 55 to 76) for group NA. In addition, no differences were found in the proportion of optimal WES between group A (36% of patients) and group NA (28% of patients) at four months (relative risk = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.26). Surgical scar revision was recommended for only three patients, of whom two were in group A. No patients chose to have their scars revised. No differences were found between group A and group NA for the rates of dehiscence (2% vs. 11%; p = 0.07) and infection (0 vs. 2; p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The use of plain catgut absorbable sutures in the repair of traumatic lacerations in children appears to be an acceptable alternative to nonabsorbable sutures because the long-term cosmetic outcome seems to be at least as good. In this study, plain gut suture material seemed to provide slightly better cosmesis. In addition, no difference was found in the rate of dehiscence or infection between the groups.