Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2022
Emergency department childhood anaphylaxis presentations in regional/remote Australia.
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.
Weber Heinrich C, Bassett Gaylene L, Hollingsworth Laura K, Gan Vincent Ws, Rose Samantha, Lim Jacqueline, Prior Sarah J
Аннотация
AIM: Explore the prevalence of childhood anaphylaxis and clinical presentation of anaphylaxis in children across two regional emergency departments over a 7-year period.
METHODS: Retrospective audit of all children (0-18 years) presenting to emergency from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2016 with anaphylaxis, defined by Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy definitions and doctor diagnosis.
RESULTS: Seven hundred and twenty-four patients were identified with allergic diagnosis, 60% were diagnosed with non-anaphylaxis allergic reactions or unspecified urticaria and 40% with anaphylaxis (n = 286). Annual prevalence of anaphylaxis remained stable over the study period (M = 30.9/10 000 cases, range: 20.8-48.3/10 000). Gender distribution was equal, median age was 9.48 years (interquartile range = 4-15). Most (71%) arrived by private transport. 23% had a prior history of anaphylaxis. Food triggers (44%) were the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Insect bites/stings triggers occurred in 21%. Patients were promptly assessed (average wait time = 13 min), 16% received prior adrenaline injections. Adrenaline was administered in 26% and 20% were admitted to hospital. On discharge, 29% had a follow-up plan, 9% received an allergy clinic referral, 6% anaphylaxis action plan, 26% adrenaline autoinjector prescriptions and allergy testing performed in 6%.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a relatively low prevalence of overall childhood anaphylaxis in a regional area. The two most common causes of anaphylaxis in this population (food and bites/stings) recorded increased prevalence providing an opportunity for further study. Significant gaps in evidence-based care of anaphylaxis were noted, demonstrating the need for improved recognition and treatment guideline implementation in regional areas.
METHODS: Retrospective audit of all children (0-18 years) presenting to emergency from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2016 with anaphylaxis, defined by Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy definitions and doctor diagnosis.
RESULTS: Seven hundred and twenty-four patients were identified with allergic diagnosis, 60% were diagnosed with non-anaphylaxis allergic reactions or unspecified urticaria and 40% with anaphylaxis (n = 286). Annual prevalence of anaphylaxis remained stable over the study period (M = 30.9/10 000 cases, range: 20.8-48.3/10 000). Gender distribution was equal, median age was 9.48 years (interquartile range = 4-15). Most (71%) arrived by private transport. 23% had a prior history of anaphylaxis. Food triggers (44%) were the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Insect bites/stings triggers occurred in 21%. Patients were promptly assessed (average wait time = 13 min), 16% received prior adrenaline injections. Adrenaline was administered in 26% and 20% were admitted to hospital. On discharge, 29% had a follow-up plan, 9% received an allergy clinic referral, 6% anaphylaxis action plan, 26% adrenaline autoinjector prescriptions and allergy testing performed in 6%.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a relatively low prevalence of overall childhood anaphylaxis in a regional area. The two most common causes of anaphylaxis in this population (food and bites/stings) recorded increased prevalence providing an opportunity for further study. Significant gaps in evidence-based care of anaphylaxis were noted, demonstrating the need for improved recognition and treatment guideline implementation in regional areas.