ArticleCureus2026
Successful Resuscitation of Anaphylactic Shock With Central Nervous System Dysfunction in a Patient on Multiple Antihypertensive Therapies: A Case Report and Literature Review.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anaphylaxis in patients taking antihypertensive medications is a life-threatening condition. Early recognition and intervention are crucial to reducing mortality, especially when severe organ dysfunction, such as a central nervous system (CNS) disorder, is present. A 69-year-old male patient with hypertension, who was being treated with amlodipine and carvedilol, was admitted following anaphylactic shock. During contrast-enhanced computed tomography for abdominal pain, he developed sudden hypotension, coma, and a generalized rash. Despite intubation and administration of epinephrine and intravenous glucagon, his hypotension persisted, even after initiating continuous noradrenaline infusion. Following repeated bolus infusions of glucagon, his hemodynamics and consciousness improved. He was extubated after 48 hours and discharged on the fifth day. This case highlights clinical challenges in managing anaphylactic shock in patients using antihypertensive drugs, particularly when presenting with life-threatening CNS precursors. Theoretically, epinephrine increases blood pressure via α1- and β1-receptor stimulation; however, concurrent use of β-blockers can impair these responses. In this patient's etiology, glucagon was essential to bypass the β-adrenergic receptors. For patients on α-blockers, vasopressin may serve as a second-line treatment for noradrenaline-resistant shock by acting on vasopressin receptors. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered if pharmacological management fails. Furthermore, although this patient was resuscitated with the current protocol, literature suggests that intravenous epinephrine may be necessary if intramuscular administration is ineffective in severe cases. In conclusion, we successfully managed a complex case of anaphylactic shock with CNS dysfunction. Given the lack of robust evidence for managing such refractory cases, further accumulation of case reports or observational studies is warranted.
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.