Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41869140›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Hypertensive Anaphylaxis in the Emergency Department: A Case Series.

Pramod Debnath, Aakash Verma, K Anup Kumar

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pramod DebnathEmergency Medicine, Command Hospital Air Force, Bangalore, IND.
Aakash VermaEmergency Medicine, Command Hospital Air Force, Bangalore, IND.
K Anup KumarEmergency Medicine, Command Hospital Air Force, Bangalore, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anaphylaxis is a rapid-onset, life-threatening allergic reaction that classically presents with hypotension and distributive shock. Hypertension is generally considered atypical in this context and may delay recognition of anaphylaxis in the emergency department. However, case reports and small studies have described paradoxical "hypertensive anaphylaxis," with reported prevalence rates of up to 12.9%. Awareness of this variant is essential to avoid withholding timely epinephrine therapy. We describe four adults who presented to the emergency department with systemic allergic reactions characterized by urticaria, angioedema, dyspnea, and gastrointestinal involvement. All four patients were initially normotensive but subsequently developed paradoxical hypertension, with blood pressures ranging from 140/90 mmHg to 168/102 mmHg at the time of anaphylaxis. Triggers included intravenous fluids, medications, and an insect bite. Each patient received intramuscular epinephrine (0.5 mg), intravenous fluids, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and inhaled bronchodilators where appropriate. Two patients required repeat epinephrine dosing for persistent symptoms. Despite presenting with elevated blood pressure, all patients tolerated epinephrine without any complications related to the catecholamine surge, such as arrhythmia, myocardial ischemia, or intracranial events. All recovered fully and were discharged after a short period of hospital observation. This case series reinforces that hypertension does not preclude the diagnosis of anaphylaxis and should not deter clinicians from administering first-line epinephrine. The pathophysiology of hypertensive anaphylaxis is not fully understood but may involve compensatory sympathetic activation, endogenous catecholamine release, or anxiety-mediated responses. Recognition of this variant is critical for emergency physicians, as reliance on hypotension as a diagnostic criterion can delay life-saving treatment. In conclusion, hypertensive anaphylaxis represents an under-recognized clinical presentation. Our four cases add to the growing body of literature confirming that intramuscular epinephrine is safe and effective, even in the setting of elevated blood pressure. Emergency clinicians should base the diagnosis of anaphylaxis on systemic features rather than hemodynamic profile, ensuring that adrenaline administration is not delayed by paradoxical hypertension.

Indexed as

allergic reactionemergency medicine and traumafluid resuscitationhypertensive anaphylaxislife threatening anaphylaxis

Identifiers

PMID41869140
PMCPMC13003186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.