The British journal of radiology · 2025
Severe anaphylactic reaction to contrast agent: teams are well prepared but should simulate the situations regularly.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pape Karl-Christian, Meissnitzer Matthias, Strüby Zoe, Sartoretti Thomas, Harder Dorothee, Matoori Simon, Froehlich Johannes M, Schindera Sebastian, Laures Simin, Hälg Christophe, Hergan Klaus, Hecht Stefan, Konrad Christoph, Hausmann Oliver, Elfgen Jochen, Najafi Arash, Bech-Hohenberger Rasmus, Koh Dow Mu, Gutzeit Andreas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Anaphylactic reactions are dramatic and life-threatening. According to international guidelines, the immediate intramuscular administration of adrenaline is the most important first step for acute management. The aim of this study is to determine whether doctors can recognize and treat severe anaphylactic reactions to contrast agents adequately.
METHODS: In this study, 95 doctors were interviewed between January and June 2023 in European clinics that are not affiliated with the authors. Ninety-five doctors from radiology, internal medicine, and anaesthesia departments were randomly selected for interviews. A video was prepared simulating a male patient developing a severe anaphylactic reaction during CT after intravenous administration of an iodinated contrast medium. After the video, 95 doctors were interviewed (59 radiologists, 19 internists, and 17 anaesthesiologists). The doctors were asked 3 questions: (1) What is the diagnosis? (2) What is the therapy of choice? (3) Can you demonstrate the correct way to operate the adrenaline autoinjector?
RESULTS: All 95 doctors made the correct diagnosis (100%). Sixty-three of 95 physicians (66%) were uncertain regarding the appropriate first-line therapy. This was observed across all three medical specialties (internal medicine, anaesthesiology, and radiology) (P = .64). Sixty-five physicians (68%) had difficulties triggering the autoinjection system successfully.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute anaphylaxis is life-threatening, but there is uncertainty among professional groups about initiating acute management. Refresher training should be considered to ensure timely and appropriate treatment of the condition when it occurs.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study highlighted significant gaps in physicians' real-world readiness to manage acute anaphylaxis, despite all doctors correctly diagnosing the condition.
METHODS: In this study, 95 doctors were interviewed between January and June 2023 in European clinics that are not affiliated with the authors. Ninety-five doctors from radiology, internal medicine, and anaesthesia departments were randomly selected for interviews. A video was prepared simulating a male patient developing a severe anaphylactic reaction during CT after intravenous administration of an iodinated contrast medium. After the video, 95 doctors were interviewed (59 radiologists, 19 internists, and 17 anaesthesiologists). The doctors were asked 3 questions: (1) What is the diagnosis? (2) What is the therapy of choice? (3) Can you demonstrate the correct way to operate the adrenaline autoinjector?
RESULTS: All 95 doctors made the correct diagnosis (100%). Sixty-three of 95 physicians (66%) were uncertain regarding the appropriate first-line therapy. This was observed across all three medical specialties (internal medicine, anaesthesiology, and radiology) (P = .64). Sixty-five physicians (68%) had difficulties triggering the autoinjection system successfully.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute anaphylaxis is life-threatening, but there is uncertainty among professional groups about initiating acute management. Refresher training should be considered to ensure timely and appropriate treatment of the condition when it occurs.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study highlighted significant gaps in physicians' real-world readiness to manage acute anaphylaxis, despite all doctors correctly diagnosing the condition.