Chlorhexidine-related refractory anaphylactic shock: a case successfully resuscitated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - 12/10/16
: ProfessorAbstract |
Importance |
We report a patient with a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction to a chlorhexidine-coated central venous catheter, confirmed with a high serum level of chlorhexidine-specific IgE. To our knowledge, this is the first case successfully resuscitated using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Great caution is required when using chlorhexidine and chlorhexidine-impregnated catheters, given that its widespread use has the potential to sensitize certain patients and may result in life-threatening anaphylaxis on subsequent exposure.
Observations |
A case report of a single patient with life-threatening anaphylactic shock to chlorhexidine, who was successfully resuscitated using ECMO.
Conclusions |
We have designed a flowchart for the diagnosis and management of severe anaphylaxis. This case report highlights the potential for chlorhexidine to be a source for the development of refractory anaphylactic shock. We suggest that ECMO may save the lives of patients with severe bronchospasm and refractory anaphylactic shock secondary to chlorhexidine.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Highlights |
• | This is the first report of successful treatment of life-threatening anaphylaxis secondary to chlorhexidine using veno-arterial-ECMO. |
• | Chlorhexidine is commonly used, and sensitization to it may occur more often than recognized. |
• | We present a flowchart for the diagnosis and management of severe anaphylaxis. |
• | ECMO was lifesaving in a patient who developed severe bronchospasm and refractory anaphylactic shock secondary to chlorhexidine. |
Keywords : Anaphylaxis, Central venous catheters, Chlorhexidine, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Plan
| ☆ | Authors' statement: These contents have not been published elsewhere, and the manuscript is not being submitted elsewhere. The manuscript has been read and approved by all coauthors. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. |
Vol 34
P. 654-657 - novembre 2016 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
