ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2020
Clinical characteristics and management of iodine contrast media-related anaphylactic shock during cardiac catheterization.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Case of Carotid Sinus Reflex Caused by Manual Aspiration Thrombectomy Using a Balloon Guide Catheter.Cureus · 2024Article
- Evaluating Hydroxyapatite, Gold Nanoparticles, and Graphene-Copper as Bimodal Agents for X-ray and Computed Tomography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Retrospective Study to Compare the Effects of Methylprednisolone and Dexamethasone in 35 Patients with Anaphylactic Shock Due to Iodinated Contrast Media During Cardiac Catheterization.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and impact of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation on the prognosis of patients with anaphylactic shock (AS) during cardiac catheterization.
methodsWe analyzed the medical records of 34 patients who had AS caused by iodine contrast media (ICM) between January 2009 and December 2019. Clinical features and treatments were analyzed, and patients were categorized into survival and dead groups. In addition, the patients were further divided into IABP and non-IABP (NIABP) groups to assess the impact on AS according to whether a IABP was used or not.
resultsOf the 417,938 patients in whom ICM was used, 34 with AS were monitored. The prevalence of AS was 0.008%. Among the 34 patients, 6 (0.001%) died from fatal anaphylactic reactions accompanying shock, 26 (76.5%) had hypotension as the first presentation of AS in the survival and dead groups (78.6% and 66.7%, respectively), and 5 (14.7%) had unconsciousness at the initial onset of AS. The subgroup analysis revealed a higher mortality in the IABP group than in the NIABP (4/9, 44.4% vs. 2/25, 8%;
conclusionsThe present study suggests a low prevalence of ICM-related AS. Hypotension was more frequent in AS related to ICM, and unconsciousness at the initial onset of AS implied a poor prognosis. The use of an IABP did not improve the outcome of the patients with AS. IABP implantation should not be used as a routine treatment for patients with AS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.