Irritant contact dermatitis: effect of age

Irritant Contact Dermatitis — a Review

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Contact Dermatitis: Classifications and Management

Contact dermatitis (CD) is a common inflammatory skin disease caused by exposure to contact allergens and irritants. It is also the most common reason of occupational dermatitis and contributes greatly to hand dermatitis and facial dermatitis. Besides the two major forms of contact dermatitis: allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis, other subtypes of CD have been recognized including immediate skin reactions, photoinduced contact dermatitis, systemic contact dermatitis, and non-eczematous contact dermatitis. CD is a great imitator which can mimic many kinds of skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, lichen planus, and angioedema. For the diagnosis of CD, a complete medical history, including occupational history, is very important. It can give a clue of CD and provide a list of suspected substances. Besides the well-known diagnostic test, patch testing, there are many other diagnostic tests can be used to help diagnosis of CD and identify the causative allergens, including photopatch test, skin tests for detecting of immediate contact reactions, serum allergen-specific IgE test, and qualitative and quantitative testing of allergen in the suspected materials patients exposed to and challenge test. Before the treatment, the suspected irritants or allergens should be avoided completely. This includes both the removal of the patient from the environment that contains those substances and the promotion of the metabolism and expulsion of the allergens that have been absorbed by the body. In addition, it is also important to restore the skin barrier and reduce skin inflammation through multiple treatments, such as emollients, topical corticosteroids, and antihistamines, as well as systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressants. Early and appropriate treatments are important to prevent further deterioration and persistence of the skin condition.

Pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2: Patch testing series, procedure, and unique scenarios

Patch testing is the criterion standard for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis. Causative allergens differ between children and adults, necessitating the development of pediatric-specific patch test series. The Pediatric Baseline Series was developed in 2018 through expert consensus and includes relevant pediatric allergens that dermatologists can use in practice. Obstacles in patch testing, such as the need for multiple office visits, length of patch application, and avoidance of sweat and water on the testing area, are particularly challenging for the pediatric population, and several strategies are proposed. Aside from formal patch testing, alternatives like the repeat open application test and empiric allergen avoidance can be helpful in children. The key to management of allergic contact dermatitis is allergen avoidance, with emphasis on the need to properly identify causative allergens. Continued data collection through registries allows for a better understanding of the diagnosis and management of pediatric allergic contact dermatitis.

Prevalence of medical adhesive-related skin injury at peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site in oncology patients

Introduction:

The aim of our study was to identify the prevalence and risk factors of medical adhesive-related skin injuries (MARSI) at peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) insertion site in oncology patients.

Methods:

A cross-sectional observational study lasting two weeks was carried out in four inpatient departments. Skin assessment data and photographs of skin were collected during PICC maintenance. Other related information came from medical records. The skin injuries were classified by dermatologists and PICC specialized nurses. MARSI prevalence was calculated and the associated factors were analyzed statistically.

Results:

All 419 patients were included. The prevalence of total MARSI at PICC insertion site was 125, (29.83%), including mechanical skin injury (73, 17.42%), contact dermatitis (CD) (39, 9.31%), moisture-associated skin damage (11, 2.63%), folliculitis (2, 0.48%). Multivariate analysis identified two independent risk factors for MARSI including age ≥50 y (p = 0.031, odds ratio [OR] = 4.521, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.389, 20.620]) and hematologic malignancies (p = 0.000, OR = 2.514, 95% CI [1.590,3.97]. Oxaliplatin and arsenic trioxide infusion through PICC, history of skin allergies was associated with CD, with p = 0.020, OR = 3.492, 95% CI (1.220, 9.990); p = 0.003, OR = 4.565, 95% CI (1.661,12.547); p = 0.000, OR = 12.333, 95% CI (3.669, 41.454), respectively.

Conclusions:

MARSI at PICC insertion site is a frequent event among oncology patients. Epidemiological data and independent risk factors are presented in our study, which provide a basis for future study in this area.

The Role of Textiles in Dermatitis: An Update

Dermatitis has important implications for individuals who are affected. It can significantly impair function and quality of life. Dermatitis is multi-factorial and often includes elements of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, and irritant contact dermatitis in a co-existent manner. Textiles are in contact with the human skin for extended periods of time and as a result, they are an important part of the cutaneous environment. Thus, it is not surprising that textiles play a major role in both the etiology and the treatment of various types of dermatitis. This review discusses the role of textiles in dermatitis with an emphasis on interesting and recent advances, trends, perspectives, gaps, and conflicts in the field. In addition, we mention other disease processes to be aware of as they can often mimic textile pattern dermatitis. Lastly, we provide a diagnostic approach for patients presenting with textile pattern dermatitis.

Examining the Role of Securement and Dressing Products to Prevent Central Venous Access Device Failure: A Narrative Review

Objective: To describe the underpinning principles involved in central venous access device (CVAD) securement and dressing products to prevent CVAD failure and complications through a synthesis of research studies.

Background: Functional, dependable CVADs are a necessary part of patient care. Dressing and securement products are used to prevent CVAD failure and complications, but there is a large variety of products available for clinicians to access, with variable effectiveness.

Methods: A narrative review of studies describing the mechanisms for CVAD securement and dressing products to prevent failure and complication was undertaken. After a systematic search, 20 clinical and laboratory studies were included in the review.

Discussion: The major mechanisms by which CVAD dressing and securement products prevent failure are providing a barrier to microbial contamination and motion reduction. CVAD securement and dressing products provide these functions using coating, adhesion, antimicrobial properties, absorbency, and moisture vapor transmission without causing irritation to skin and maintaining visibility of the insertion site. The complexity of patients requiring CVAD securement and dressing means that universal recommendations across CVAD populations and broad generalization of studies from single populations (eg, intensive care) or devices (eg, peripherally inserted central catheters) are ill advised.

Conclusions: CVAD securement and dressing products provide important, multifaceted functions to prevent CVAD failure and complication.

Chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated central-line dressings and necrosis in complicated skin disorder patients

Although chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) disks have been shown to help reduce the incidence of central line-associated blood stream infections, their use can result in local skin necrosis. The effects of CHG disks on patients with complex skin pathology have not been studied. We report 6 cases of dermal necrosis associated with Biopatch (Ethicon Inc, Somerville, NJ) CHG disks in adults with complex skin pathology including those with Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis syndrome, graft-versus-host disease, burns, and anasarca. All patients had a CHG disk placed at a central venous catheter insertion site. Age range was from 21 to 84 years. Discovery of the reaction ranged from 4 to 14 days after disk placement. Resultant skin erosions required 2 to 10 weeks to reepithelialize. Complicated skin disorder patients represent a rare subset of the critically ill who appear prone to CHG disk necrosis. Continuous contact of CHG under occlusive dressings is speculated to predispose Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis syndrome, graft-versus-host disease, and burn patients to local chemical injury secondary to loss of the epithelial tissue barrier, decreased cohesion of the epidermal-dermal junction, and increased tissue permeability. In these patients, the risk of placing the CHG disk may present more risk than using alternative antimicrobial dressings.