Epinephrine Auto-Injector Versus Drawn Up Epinephrine for Anaphylaxis Management: A Scoping Review

Discrepancies in anaphylaxis protocols across emergency medical services in the United States: Opportunities for improvement

BACKGROUND

Across the United States, there are significant inconsistencies in the protocols used by emergency medical services (EMS) in the prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis. These discrepancies include variations in the definition of anaphylaxis and treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To identify gaps in the recognition of anaphylaxis and to provide areas for improvement in prehospital management through an analysis of state-wide anaphylaxis protocols.

METHODS

States with mandatory or model state-wide protocols were included (total of 30). Each allergic reaction and/or anaphylaxis protocol was reviewed-emphasis was placed on the definitions used to identify reactions and treatment algorithms.

RESULTS

Of the 30 states, only 50% (15) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis and only 40% (12) included neurologic manifestations. In addition, 47% (14) used a 2-organ system definition. For anaphylactic reactions, 100% (30) of the protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine. However, 90% (27) recommended albuterol, if respiratory symptoms were present, and 60% (18) recommended steroids. Epinephrine was the first-line recommendation for anaphylaxis in 97% (29) of the protocols. Overall, 25 states (83%) allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 (57%) provided autoinjectors.

CONCLUSION

Many EMS anaphylaxis protocols are incomplete and/or outdated. Many protocols do not consider gastrointestinal or neurologic manifestations. In addition, many contain outdated recommendations, including the use of steroids and first-generation antihistamines. Despite the convenience of epinephrine autoinjectors, many protocols do not permit or provide them. Given the frequency of EMS activation for allergic reactions, our communities would benefit from standardized protocols using current evidence-based guidelines for the management of anaphylaxis.

How Intuitive Is the Administration of Pediatric Emergency Medication Devices for Parents? Objective Observation and Subjective Self-Assessment

BACKGROUND

to assess the intuitiveness of parents' administration of pediatric emergency devices (inhalation, rectal, buccal, nasal, and auto-injector).

METHODS

We invited parents without prior experience to administer the five devices to dummy dolls. We observed whether the parents chose the correct administration route and subsequently performed the correct administration procedures without clinically relevant errors. We interviewed parents for their self-assessment of their own administration performance and willingness to administer devices in actual emergencies.

RESULTS

The correct administration route was best for the inhalation device (81/84, 96% of parents) and worst for the intranasal device (25/126, 20%). The correct administration procedures were best for the buccal device (63/98, 64%) and worst for the auto-injector device (0/93, 0%). Their own administration performance was rated to be best by parents for the inhalation device (59/84, 70%) and worst for the auto-injector device (17/93, 18%). The self-assessment of the correct administration overestimated the correct administration procedures for all the devices except the buccal one. Most parents were willing to administer the inhalation device in an emergency (67/94, 79%), while the fewest were willing to administration procedures the auto-injector device (28/93, 30%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intuitiveness concerning the correct administration route and the subsequent correct administration procedures have to be improved for all the devices examined. The parents mostly overestimated their performance. Willingness to use a device in an actual emergency depended on the device.

CSACI position statement: transition recommendations on existing epinephrine autoinjectors

Epinephrine is the first line treatment for anaphylaxis, an acute potentially life-threatening allergic reaction. It is typically administered intramuscularly in the anterolateral thigh at a dose of 0.01 mg/kg of 1:1000 (1 mg/ml) solution to a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg. Currently in Canada, epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) are available in three doses, 0.15 mg, 0.30 mg, and 0.50 mg. There are currently no published studies comparing 0.3 mg and 0.5 mg EAIs in the paediatric or adult populations to compare clinical effectiveness. However, as weight increases above 30 kg, the percentage of the recommended 0.01 mg/kg epinephrine dose from an existing 0.3 mg EAI decreases resulting in potential underdosing. As such, The Canadian Society of Allergy and Immunology (CSACI) recommends that for those who weigh ≥ 45 kg, physicians could consider prescribing the 0.50 mg EAI based on shared decision making with patients.

Simulation-based assessment of care for infant cardiogenic shock in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of infant deaths associated with birth defects. Neonates with undiagnosed CHD often present to general emergency departments (GEDs) for initial resuscitation that are less prepared than paediatric centres, resulting in disparities in the quality of care. Neonates with undiagnosed CHD represent a challenge; thus, it is necessary for GEDs to be prepared for this population.

AIM

To evaluate the process of resuscitative care provided to a neonate in cardiogenic shock due to CHD in the GEDs in a simulated setting and to describe the impact of teams and GED variables on the process of care.

METHODS

This is a prospective simulation-based assessment of the process of care provided to a neonate with coarctation of the aorta in cardiogenic shock. Simulation sessions were conducted at participating GEDs utilizing each GED's interdisciplinary team and resources. The primary outcome was adherence to best practice, as measured by a 15-item overall composite adherence score (CAS). In addition, we stratified the overall CAS into CHD-critical items and the general resuscitation items CAS. The secondary outcome was the impact of the team's and GED's characteristics on the scores.

FINDINGS

This study enrolled 32 teams from 12 GEDs. Among 161 participants, 103 (63.97%) were registered nurses, 33 (20.50%) were physicians, 17 (10.56%) were respiratory therapists, and 8 (4.97%) were other medical professionals. The overall median CAS was 84, with the CHD-critical items having a median CAS of 34.5. The most underperformed tasks are checking pulses on the upper and lower extremities (44%), obtaining blood pressure in the upper and lower extremities (25%), and administering prostaglandin E1 (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using in situ simulation in a set of GEDs, we revealed gaps in the resuscitation care of neonates with CHD in cardiogenic shock.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

These findings highlight the importance of targeted improvement programs for high-stakes illnesses in GED.

Got a Pen for Allergen Immunotherapy? Lessons from Near-Fatal Anaphylaxis with Pulmonary Edema

On our pediatric intensive care unit, we successfully treated a 10-year-old boy with severe pulmonary edema due to anaphylaxis after his last injection of a 3-year course of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). In view of the severity of the adverse event, we initiated a case analysis with all involved medical professionals. The evaluation revealed delayed administration of epinephrine due to dosing uncertainty and underestimation of severity. Consequently, all involved institutions established epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) in their emergency equipment. We suggest providing EAIs in every practice conducting AIT, as well as in pediatric emergency rooms and ambulances. We would like to remind readers of the risk of anaphylaxis, even on the last day of AIT.

Self-injectable epinephrine: doctors' attitude and patients' adherence in real-life

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epinephrine is the only life-saving treatment of anaphylaxis. Prescription and administration rates of self-injectable epinephrine are generally low. It is unclear whether this is because of availability, low prescription rates, fear of using epinephrine, or a combination of these issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review focuses on what self-injectable epinephrine devices (SIED), such as auto-injectors and prefilled syringes, are preferred by patients and healthcare professionals (HCP). Our findings suggest that a device's ease to use, proper and frequent training on its operability, and availability have an impact on preferences and adherence to treatment with SIEDs. After prescribing a patient with a SIED, clinicians should emphasize its use in anaphylaxis, educate patients/caregivers to identify anaphylaxis and on how to use the SIED, and encourage constant practicing with training devices.

SUMMARY

Epinephrine is the sole recommended anaphylaxis treatment and SIEDs are of critical usefulness in the community setting. Further studying of these devices is needed to optimize education for HCPs and patients and their accessibility to SIEDs.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evidence of adrenaline administered via auto-injector for anaphylactic reactions: A review of literature

Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that can lead to death if not treated quickly. Adrenaline (epinephrine) is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis and its prompt administration is vital to reduce mortality. Following a number of high-profile cases, serious concerns have been raised, both about the optimal dose of intramuscular adrenaline via an auto-injector and the correct needle length to ensure maximal penetration every time. To date, the public data are sparse on the pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of adrenaline administered via an auto-injector. The limited available literature showed a huge variation in the plasma concentrations of adrenaline administered through an auto-injector, as well as variations in the auto-injector needle length. Hence, delivering an effective dose during an anaphylaxis remains a challenge for both patients and healthcare professionals. Collaborative work between pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics experts, clinical triallists and licence holders is imperative to address this gap in evidence so that we can improve outcomes of anaphylaxis. In addition, we advise inclusion of expertise of human factors in usability studies given the necessity of carer or self-administration in the uniquely stressful nature of anaphylaxis.

Prevalence of Errors in Anaphylaxis in Kids (PEAK): A Multicenter Simulation-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Multi-institutional, international practice variation of pediatric anaphylaxis management by health care providers has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize variability in epinephrine administration for pediatric anaphylaxis across institutions, including frequency and types of medication errors.

METHODS

A prospective, observational, study using a standardized in situ simulated anaphylaxis scenario was performed across 28 health care institutions in 6 countries. The on-duty health care team was called for a child (patient simulator) in anaphylaxis. Real medications and supplies were obtained from their actual locations. Demographic data about team members, institutional protocols for anaphylaxis, timing of epinephrine delivery, medication errors, and systems safety issues discovered during the simulation were collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven in situ simulations were performed. Anaphylaxis guidelines existed in 41% (15 of 37) of institutions. Teams used a cognitive aid for medication dosing 41% (15 of 37) of the time and 32% (12 of 37) for preparation. Epinephrine autoinjectors were not available in 54% (20 of 37) of institutions and were used in only 14% (5 of 37) of simulations. Median time to epinephrine administration was 95 seconds (interquartile range, 77-252) for epinephrine autoinjector and 263 seconds (interquartile range, 146-407.5) for manually prepared epinephrine (P = .12). At least 1 medication error occurred in 68% (25 of 37) of simulations. Nursing experience with epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis was associated with fewer preparation (P = .04) and administration (P = .01) errors. Latent safety threats were reported by 30% (11 of 37) of institutions, and more than half of these (6 of 11) involved a cognitive aid.

CONCLUSIONS

A multicenter, international study of simulated pediatric anaphylaxis reveals (1) variation in management between institutions in the use of protocols, cognitive aids, and medication formularies, (2) frequent errors involving epinephrine, and (3) latent safety threats related to cognitive aids among multiple sites.

Non-Auto-Injector Epinephrine Administration by Basic Life Support Providers: A Literature Review and Consensus Process

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition with a known effective prehospital intervention: parenteral epinephrine. The National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) advocates for emergency medical services (EMS) providers to be allowed to carry and administer epinephrine. Some states constrain epinephrine administration by basic life support (BLS) providers to administration using epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs), but the cost and supply of EAIs limits the ability of some EMS agencies to provide epinephrine for anaphylaxis. This literature review and consensus report describes the extant literature and the practical and policy issues related to non-EAI administration of epinephrine for anaphylaxis, and serves as a supplementary resource document for the revised NAEMSP position statement on the use of epinephrine in the out-of-hospital treatment of anaphylaxis, complementing (but not replacing) prior resource documents. The report concludes that there is some evidence that intramuscular injection of epinephrine drawn up from a vial or ampule by appropriately trained EMS providers-without limitation to specific certification levels-is safe, facilitates timely treatment of patients, and reduces costs.

Utilization of high-fidelity simulation for medical student and resident education of allergic-immunologic emergencies

BACKGROUND

The advantages of clinical simulation used in medical education include the acquisition of clinical skills in a controlled setting, promoting a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, and a high degree of learner satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify knowledge gaps among Internal Medicine residents and students in the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor-induced angioedema through their participation in a simulation course.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study involving clinical simulations with a high-fidelity, patient-simulator. The cases (antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema) were standardized and algorithmic. Participants completed a pre- and post- simulation knowledge assessment and course evaluation. A follow-up knowledge survey was sent out 6 to 12 months after the course completion.

RESULTS

Twelve groups comprising 45 medical students and residents completed the anaphylaxis course. All groups diagnosed anaphylaxis after more than 2-organ-system involvement had manifested, and half of the groups made the diagnosis after the patient-simulator was in anaphylactic shock. Half gave an incorrect dose of epinephrine, and most of the participants were inexperienced in epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) administration. Eight groups comprising 27 participants completed the ACE-inhibitor-angioedema course. Six of the groups correctly diagnosed the patient-simulator, but multiple incorrect treatments were given, and only 1 group successfully intubated the patient-simulator. Knowledge improved immediately after the simulation, and knowledge specific to EAI treatment seemed to be retained long-term. All participants agreed that the simulation was practical to their education.

CONCLUSION

Clinical simulation improves knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema. We advocate that clinical simulation be incorporated at institutions with appropriate capabilities.

Quality Improvement and Safety in Pediatric Emergency Medicine

Pediatric emergency medicine quality work continues to focus on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's 6 domains of quality, with a need for specific emphasis on equity and patient centeredness. Adopting the principles of high-reliability organizations, pediatric emergency departments should become increasing transparent with benchmarking and collaboration across institutions in order to develop an infrastructure for quality and safety to improve the care of pediatric patients in the emergency department.