Strayerisms - Anaphylaxis Rebuttal

00:00
10:07

Playback Speed

No me gusta!

The flash player was unable to start. If you have a flash blocker then try unblocking the flash content - it should be visible below.

Nurses Edition Commentary

Mizuho Spangler, DO, Lisa Chavez, RN, and Kathy Garvin, RN
00:00
02:19

Playback Speed

No me gusta!

The flash player was unable to start. If you have a flash blocker then try unblocking the flash content - it should be visible below.

Chris M., M.D. -

Listened with interest and appreciation of Dr Strayer's approach to anaphylaxis. While his epinephrine tips and generally low threshold to dose are great I wanted to comment on the use of the WAO guidelines. Like any guidelines the intent is to provide a framework. Time and again the literature shows that in cases of fatal anaphylaxis a tragically high percentage of patients die without being given epinephrine (steroids yes, antihistamines yes, the actual antidote, often not). This is true in the ED, inpatient and outpatient settings.
The guidelines are obtuse but the take home point is not: have a low threshold for considering anaphylaxis. GI symptoms in the right setting (that is with reasonable clinical/historical concern) are often the only indication of pending anaphylaxis. More and more data suggests that early epinephrine is BETTER epinephrine and waiting until obvious respiratory or circulatory compromise is too late and creates a more refractory physiology. The downside to a dose of IM epinephrine is miniscule.
Thanks!
cm

Reuben Strayer (@emupdates) -

Thanks for your comment Chris. Absolutely agree that the threshold to give epinephrine should be low, and when in doubt administer, and I say as much in the segment. But there are in my opinion downsides that are non-miniscule, including how a dose of epinephrine makes some patients feel (anxious, tremulous, nauseous) and the occasional but very dangerous epinephrine dosing error. So my position is that if the only symptoms in "anaphylaxis" are non-dangerous (diarrhea, hives) it's reasonable to withhold and observe. It's also reasonable, especially if symptoms are progressive (but not involving ABCs) to give, with the argument that in these cases there is a higher likelihood that ABC compromise will follow.

reub

Mike J., M.D. -

Thank you Reuben, I hesitate to leap into this fray, but I too suggest that epinephrine is not without a downside. Anecdotally, I have witnessed 3 cases of acute MI that I belive to have been precipitated by IM epi. In all 3, the pre epinephrine ECG was nonischemic and the post epinephrine ECG demonstrated STEMI. None were hypotensive. All met the B criteria, and all had hives.
It is my belief that the best management of Anaphylaxis is a competent ED physician, at the bedside, epinephrine in hand, obseving the patient for progression, while ALL of the other interventions take place.
For entertainment value, take a dive into the evidence base for epinephrine in anaphylaxis. NO Trials, just opinion.

Reuben Strayer (@emupdates) -

Thanks Mike.

Epinephrine for anaphylaxis is not evidence-based, but I don't think anyone doubts its efficacy in severe allergy (lack of evidence ≠ evidence of lack) and I think it's also clear that the most important problem we have with epinephrine utilization is not giving it when it's indicated.

There are potential harms, it should not be given indiscriminately, it should be given when it's indicated. Which is why I proposed a simplified (compared to many of the guidelines) mental model. Despite the potential harms, though, I would submit that when in doubt, give IM epi - that fails much better than the converse.

http://emupdates.com/2014/06/11/the-preferred-error/

reub

Owen S. -

Hi Reuben (and Mike),

Love this simplified, common sense type approach. Unfortunately, it can be hard to defend common sense against the dogma from fancy titles like "World Allergy Organization anaphylaxis guidelines", or even UpToDate... and I'm just talking about with my attending physician. I would imagine it would be an even harder defense to make in court, if a bad outcome were to occur. I don't suppose you know of any big guns on this ship, like an Annals article, a formal CPG, etc? Anything that I can use to argue the case that's more convincing than the reasoning of an EM intern, and an opinion I heard on EM:RAP...

Perhaps once I'm an attending, I can practice common sense more easily...

Thanks again!

Owen

Reuben Strayer (@emupdates) -

Hi Owen.

Functionally, I don't have much of a disagreement with the major guidelines, the most prominent (I think) is this one: [ https://goo.gl/vQvUmO ]. Their definition of anaphylaxis is not usable by an emergency clinician at the bedside, but in practice I'm not sure how much that matters, as long as the larger point is understood: have a low threshold to give epinephrine, do not withhold epinephrine where concern exists for a dangerous allergic reaction. An EM working group also released a document [ https://goo.gl/CvGP2U ] where they tried to refine the definition to make it more usable, but came up with something so vague as to also be useless: "Anaphylaxis is a serious reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death. It is usually dueto an allergic reaction but can also be non-allergic."

I don't care how anyone defines anaphylaxis, the point is to know when to give epinephrine. If you want to define anaphylaxis as the condition that requires epinephrine, then the definition becomes important, but again this just makes things more complicated. It is hard for me to imagine that in a patient who has compromise of airway, breathing, or circulation thought to be the result of an allergic reaction that the decision to give epi could be criticized by anyone. Conversely, if the patient is otherwise well but has non-ABC symptoms thought to be allergic, that patient, as long as she continues to only have non-ABC symptoms, is going to do well, so it's hard to imagine criticism coming from that end either, but if someone wants to give epi to a patient with rash and significant abdominal symptoms, that's perfectly reasonable.

My rant is only that the multi-part criteria definition is unlikely to be committed to memory and is not helpful, and that you shouldn't wait even a moment to give epi when ABC findings are present. I'm not advocating for withholding epi when concerning/rapidly progressive non-ABC symptoms are present. Emergency providers should know that dangerous allergic reactions can start with rash and abdominal symptoms, and progress.

But to answer your question directly, I am unaware of any CPG that states if ABC do E, with or without a jingle.

Owen S. -

Thanks for your response, Reuben. I think I have a better grasp of your intent now of what you were getting at on the show. For now, at this point in my career, I'm going to err on the side of early IM epi, with the knowledge that maybe sometimes in the patient with only mild skin + GI, it could be appropriate to watch closely, if in the right setting.

Thanks again,

Owen

To join the conversation, you need to subscribe.

Sign up today for full access to all episodes and to join the conversation.

To download files, you need to subscribe.

Sign up today for full access to all episodes.
Snake Bites and The Missed MI Full episode audio for MD edition 256:35 min - 298 MB - M4AEM:RAP 2016 May Aussie Edition Australian 42:06 min - 58 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2016 Mai Résumé en Francais Français 64:00 min - 88 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2016 Mayo Resumen Español Español 78:00 min - 107 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2016 May Canadian Edition Canadian 25:09 min - 35 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2016 May German Edition Deutsche 107:44 min - 148 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2016 May Board Review Answers 172 KB - PDFEM:RAP 2016 May Board Review Questions 159 KB - PDFEM:RAP 2016 May MP3 329 MB - ZIPEM:RAP 2016 May Written Summary 626 KB - PDF