ArticleHNO2024
[Prehospital care of anaphylactic reactions by the air rescue and ground-based emergency services Dresden : An analysis of treatment and outcome].
Article in HNO, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnaphylaxis can lead to a life-threatening situation. Therefore, rapid diagnosis and emergency treatment is indicated. Immediate treatment with intramuscular adrenaline (or intravascularly with sufficient medical expertise) in anaphylaxis with cardiovascular and/or respiratory symptoms is recommended by various guidelines. Previous studies have shown that anaphylaxis is often not treated according to guidelines and that adrenaline in particular is rarely administered.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to investigate the data on emergency treatment and outcomes of patients with anaphylaxis by the air rescue and ground-based emergency services Dresden. Moreover, the results of the air- and ground-based services were compared. The focus was on administration of adrenaline and outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from the ground-based emergency service Dresden (from 2012 to 2016) and the air rescue service Dresden (from 2008 to 2015) related to anaphylactic reactions were analyzed retrospectively. The severity of the anaphylaxis, the emergency medication administered, further monitoring, and outcomes were analyzed.
resultsData from 152 adults/29 children were analyzed for air rescue and 1131 adults/223 children for the ground-based emergency service. Adults with grade II-IV anaphylaxis received adrenaline in 19% (air rescue) and 7% (ground rescue) of cases. Children with grade II-IV anaphylaxis received adrenaline in 7% (air rescue) and 8% (ground rescue) of cases. Immediate drug therapy led to an improvement in general condition in 96-98% (air rescue) and 72-77% (ground-based emergency service) of cases. A significant correlation was found between the administration of adrenaline and the improvement in outcome in the ground-based emergency cohort.
conclusionGuideline-compliant first-line therapy with adrenaline was not performed in the majority of the cases analyzed in this study. The significant effect of adrenaline on outcome demonstrated in this study emphases the need to improve the emergency treatment of anaphylactic reactions.
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.