MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1136/bcr-2024-264236

Медицинская библиотека · BMJ case reports · 2025

Anaphylaxis versus inducible laryngeal obstruction: a diagnostic dilemma.

Tidmarsh Bethany, Ludlow Siobhan, Fowler Stephen

СтатьяКлинический случайПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

Inducible laryngeal obstruction (ILO) is an under-recognised cause of refractory breathlessness. It presents with an acute onset of difficulty in breathing and is often mistaken for respiratory conditions such as asthma or, in some cases, anaphylaxis. People with ILO often report recurrent Accident & Emergency attendances and have long-term drug treatments initiated and escalated inappropriately. The cornerstone of ILO management is speech and language therapy, and it is essential that cases are identified promptly to ensure they are managed correctly. By doing this, patients can be supported with education and therapeutic strategies, thus reducing associated distress, unnecessary pharmacotherapy and overall healthcare utilisation. In this case study, we describe a patient who was diagnosed and successfully treated for ILO after initially being investigated for recurrent anaphylaxis. She had a significant symptom burden with multiple hospital admissions and relied on epinephrine to manage these episodes. Following specialist assessment and treatment, she was subsequently weaned off potentially dangerous medications that were not clinically indicated, while reporting a marked improvement in her quality of life (see Patient's perspective below).

Для цитирования: Tidmarsh Bethany, Ludlow Siobhan, Fowler Stephen. Anaphylaxis versus inducible laryngeal obstruction: a diagnostic dilemma.. BMJ case reports. 2025. DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2024-264236.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.