Kounis syndrome is the concurrence of acute coronary syndrome or coronary vasospasm with conditions associated with the release of inflammatory cytokines through mast cell activation in the setting of allergic or anaphylactic reactions. Many identified triggers have been identified in paediatric patients including exposures, drugs, and immunisations; however, to our knowledge this is the first case report of Kounis syndrome linked to immunotherapy. We present a case of a 9-year-old with seasonal allergies presenting with clinical symptoms of Kounis syndrome following her weekly subcutaneous injection of allergens. Clinicians need a high index of suspicion for Kounis syndrome in patients who develop systemic signs of anaphylaxis with clinical, laboratory, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic findings of acute coronary syndrome to help direct therapy and improve outcomes.

Wilderness medicine is plagued by myths and dogmatic teachings not supported by evidence. This article focuses particularly on those teachings and tools that would be most likely used in archaeological fieldwork. It lays out 10 of the most common and concerning myths taught in wilderness medicine and wilderness emergency medical services, both in terms of first aid and preparation of medical kits. The myths described are provide a structure for the main purpose of the article: to explain interventions and medical kit contents that are more evidence based and supported by modern understandings of wilderness medicine and fieldwork risk management. The list of top 10 myths includes (1) the use of medications other than epinephrine for anaphylaxis and (2) the availability and proper use of epinephrine auto-injectors, (3) the use of suction devices and tourniquets for snakebites, (4) the use of spinal immobilization for neck injuries, (5) the identification and treatment of heat illnesses, (6) the use of CPR in remote areas, (7) the appropriateness of dislocation reduction in remote areas, (8) the use and choice of tourniquets for arterial bleeding, (9) the initial definition and management of drowning patients, and (10) wound management myths.

Introduction: Cases of anaphylaxis in children are often not appropriately managed by caregivers. We aimed to develop and to test the effectiveness of an education tool to help pediatric patients and their families better understand anaphylaxis and its management and to improve current knowledge and treatment guidelines adherence. Methods: The GEAR (Guidelines and Educational programs based on an Anaphylaxis Registry) is an initiative that recruits children with food-induced anaphylaxis who have visited the ED at the Montreal Children's Hospital and at The Children's Clinic located in Montreal, Quebec. The patients and parents, together, were asked to complete six questions related to the triggers, recognition and management of anaphylaxis at the time of presentation to the allergy clinic. Participants were automatically shown a 5-minute animated video addressing the main knowledge gaps related to the causes and management of anaphylaxis. At the end of the video, participants were redirected to same 6 questions to respond again. To test long-term knowledge retention, the questionnaire will be presented again in one year's time. A paired t-test was used to compare the difference between the baseline score and the follow-up score based on percentage of correct answers of the questionnaire. Results: From June to November 2019, 95 pediatric patients with diagnosed food-induced anaphylaxis were recruited. The median patient age was 4.5 years (Interquartile Range (IQR): 1.6–7.4) and half were male (51.6%). The mean questionnaire baseline score was 0.77 (77.0%, standard deviation (sd): 0.16) and the mean questionnaire follow-up score was 0.83 (83.0%, sd: 0.17). There was a significant difference between the follow-up score and baseline score (difference: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.09). There were no associations of baseline questionnaire scores and change in scores with age and sex. Conclusion: Our video teaching method was successful in educating patients and their families to better understand anaphylaxis. The next step is to acquire long-term follow up scored to determine retention of knowledge.

Introduction: There are few large-scale studies assessing the true risk of epinephrine use during anaphylaxis in adults. We aimed to assess the demographics, clinical characteristics, and secondary effects of epinephrine treatment and to determine factors associated with major and minor secondary effects associated with epinephrine use among adults with anaphylaxis. Methods: From May 2012 to February 2018, adults presenting to the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (HSCM) emergency department (ED) with anaphylaxis were recruited prospectively as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE). Missed cases were identified through a previously validated algorithm. Data were collected on demographics, clinical characteristics, and management of anaphylaxis using a structured chart review. Multivariate logistic regression models were compared to estimate factors associated with side effects of epinephrine administration. Results: Over a 6-year period, 402 adult patients presented to the ED at HSCM with anaphylaxis. The median age was 38 years (Interquartile Range [IQR]: 27, 52) and 40.4% were males. The main trigger for anaphylaxis was food (53.0%). A total of 286 patients (71.1%) received epinephrine treatment, of which 23.9% were treated in the pre-hospital setting, 47.0% received treatment in the ED, and 5.0% received epinephrine in both settings. Among patients treated with epinephrine, major secondary effects were rare (1.4% of patients), including new changes to electrocardiogram, arrhythmia, and neurological symptoms. Minor secondary effects due to epinephrine were reported in 50.0% of patients, mainly inappropriate sinus tachycardia (defined as a rate over 100 beats/minute in 30.1%). Major cardiovascular secondary effects were associated with regular use of beta-blockers (aOR 1.10 [95%CI, 1.02, 1.18]), regular use of ACE-inhibitors (aOR 1.16 [95%CI, 1.07, 1.27]), and receiving more than two doses of epinephrine (aOR 1.09 [95%CI, 1.00, 1.18]). The model was adjusted for age, history of ischemic heart disease, trigger of anaphylaxis, presence of asthma, sex, and reaction severity. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia was more likely in females (aOR 1.18 [95%CI, 1.04, 1.33]) and palpitations, tremors, and psychomotor agitation were more likely in females (aOR 1.09 [95%CI, 1.00, 1.19]) and among those receiving more than two doses of epinephrine (aOR 1.49 [95%CI, 1.14, 1.96]). The models were adjusted for age, regular use of medications, history of ischemic heart disease, triggers of anaphylaxis, presence of asthma, reaction severity, and IV administration of epinephrine. Conclusion: The low rate of occurrence of major secondary effects of epinephrine in the treatment of anaphylaxis in our study demonstrates the overall safety of epinephrine use.

Introduction: Biphasic anaphylactic reactions are a concern in emergency medicine. Risk factors associated with this type of reaction remain ill-defined. The aim of this study was to investigate elements associated with biphasic anaphylactic reactions and to determine the impact of anaphylaxis treatments on biphasic reactions. Methods: From the multicenter Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry prospective cohort, we selected adults (≥18 years) with a visit to the emergency department (ED) of Sacré-Cœur Hospital, an urban tertiary-care hospital. Then, a structured chart review was done to collect additional information on types and timing of treatments for the initial anaphylactic reaction, presence and treatment of biphasic reactions during the initial ED visit or upon patients’ return. Biphasic reactions were defined by the recurrence of any anaphylaxis symptoms within 72 hours of a resolved anaphylaxis episode. Potential factors associated with biphasic reactions were studied using Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Patients with anaphylaxis were enrolled between April 2014 and February 2018. From the cohort, 401 adult patients were identified. We found 37 patients who developed a biphasic reaction. Amongst them, 33 received treatments and 9 required more than one dose of intramuscular epinephrine. None of the biphasic reaction patients required intravenous epinephrine, other vasopressors, ICU admission, or endotracheal intubation. Biphasic reactions appeared in a median time of 13.3h after the initial reaction ranging from 1.1h to 69.6h (IQR 30.2). There was no difference in age or gender of patients who developed a biphasic reaction compared those who did not. Pertinent past medical history, daily medications, mean of arrival to the ED, allergen type, ingestion route, or initial symptoms during the anaphylaxis episode were not significantly different in the two groups. Treatment with corticosteroids was similar in the two groups (9.0% vs. 8.1% p = 0.82). Treatment, dose and route of administration of epinephrine was not different in the two groups but longer delays before treatment with the first dose of epinephrine was more frequent in biphasic reaction patients (median delay of 64 minutes, p = 0.015). Conclusion: No patient characteristic, allergen, route of ingestion, symptom, nor treatment with corticosteroids has shown to be significantly different in patients with and without biphasic reactions. Delayed treatment with epinephrine is significantly associated with biphasic reactions.

Introduction: Improving public access and training for epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) can reduce time to initial treatment in anaphylaxis. Effective use of EAIs by the public requires bystanders to respond in a timely and proficient manner. We wished to examine optimal methods for effective training and skill retention for public use of EAIs. Methods: In this prospective, stratified randomized study, 154 participants at 15 sites receiving installation of public EAIs were randomized to one of three experimental education interventions: A) didactic poster (POS) teaching; B) poster with video teaching (VID), and C) Poster, video, and simulation training (SIM). Participants were tested by participation in a standardized simulated anaphylaxis scenario at 0-months, immediately following training, and again at follow-up at 3 months. Participants responses were videoed and assessed by blinded raters. Patient recorded experience measures (PREMs) assessed participant-patient interaction for every scenario. Data that was non-normally distributed was analyzed using non-parametric testing (Kruskall-Wallis-Rank Sum-Test). Results: Initial analysis showed differences between group baseline characteristics for age and first aid training; with a multivariable analysis providing the effect size of these differences. PREM data and video assessment data were not normally distributed. Analysis of PREM data revealed significantly higher scores in the SIM group at 0-months (median=6.5, IQR=5; p=0.05) and 3-months (median=5, IQR=3; p<0.01), compared to those groups that did not receive SIM. Video assessment performance scores show trends in higher skills and knowledge retention for SIM participants at 3-months; full data analysis will be performed at a later date. Final video assessment analysis will involve a weighted scoring system, using a consensus process, and an inter-rater agreement analysis. Conclusion: Simulation training improves interaction, essential skills, and retention of knowledge in simulated anaphylaxis response with public EAIs compared to non-simulation-based training.

Introduction: Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition that paramedics are equipped to treat effectively in the field. Current literature suggests improvements in paramedic recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis could be made. The aim of this study was to compare the proportion of cases of anaphylaxis appropriately treated with epinephrine by paramedics before and after a targeted educational intervention. Methods: This was a retrospective medical records review of patients with anaphylaxis managed by primary or advanced care paramedics in five Emergency Medical Service areas in Ontario, before and after an educational module was introduced. This module included education on anaphylaxis diagnosis, recognition, treatment priorities, and feedback on the recognition and management from the before period. All paramedic call records (PCRs) coded as local allergic reaction or anaphylaxis during 12-month periods before and after the intervention were reviewed by trained data abstractors to determine if patients met an international definition of anaphylaxis. The details of interventions performed by the paramedics were used to determine primary and secondary outcomes. Results: Of the 600 PCRs reviewed, 99/120 PCRs in the before and 300/480 in the after period were included. Of the charts included, 63/99 (63.6%) in the before and 136/300 (45.3%) in the after period met criteria for anaphylaxis (p=0.002). Of the cases meeting anaphylaxis criteria, 41/63 (65.1%) in the before and 88/136 (64.7%) in the after period were correctly identified as anaphylaxis (p=0.96). Epinephrine was administered in 37/63 (58.7%) of anaphylaxis cases in the before period and 76/136 (55.9%) in the after period (p=0.70). Anaphylactic patients with only two-system involvement received epinephrine in 20/40 (50.0%) cases in the before period and 45/93 (48.4%) in the after period (p=0.86). Conclusion: There are gaps in paramedic recognition and management of anaphylaxis, particularly in cases of two-system involvement. These gaps persisted after the implementation of an educational intervention. Other quality interventions and periodic refreshers may be necessary to improve prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis. Limitations include an increase in overall cases and decrease in rate of true anaphylaxis in the after period, which may relate to better case identification after electronic PCR implementation and changes in paramedic recognition.

Introduction: H1-antihistamines are often used to treat allergic reactions, however, the influence of H1-antihistamines on progression to anaphylaxis remains unclear. Among patients initially presenting with allergic reactions, we investigated whether H1-antihistamines were associated with a lower proportion of patients progressing to anaphylaxis during observation. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at two urban EDs from 2007 to 2012. We included adult patients with allergy and excluded those who met criteria of anaphylaxis at first evaluation by medical professionals and/or received antihistamines before the evaluation. Primary outcomes of interest were the number of patients who developed anaphylaxis during observation at ED and/or transportation by EMS. Secondary outcomes were the number of biphasic reactions and severe anaphylaxis (defined as sBP<90; SpO2<92%; and/or confusion, collapse, loss of conscious, or incontinence). Logistic regression was performed comparing primary and secondary outcomes between H1-antihistamine treated and non-treated groups with propensity score adjustment of the baseline covariates. Number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated by adjusted absolute risk reduction of H1-antihistamine compared to non H1-antihistamine use on primary outcome. Results: This study included 1717 patients with allergic reactions, of whom 1228 were treated with H1-antihistamines. In the H1-antihistamine group 1.0% and 0.2% developed anaphylaxis and severe anaphylaxis, respectively; in the non-H1-antihistamine group 2.6% and 0.6% developed anaphylaxis and severe anaphylaxis, respectively. There were no biphasic reactions (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 0.17%). Administration of H1-antihistamines was associated with a lower incidence of subsequent anaphylaxis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.53; NNT to benefit 49.1, 95% CI 41.6 to 83.3). There were no significant associations between H1-histamines administration and secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Among ED patient with allergic reactions, H1-antihistamine administration was associated with a lower likelihood of progression to anaphylaxis. These findings suggest that H1-antihistamines should be administered early in the care of patients with allergic reactions.

Introduction: As part of the multicenter C-CARE (Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry) project, this study aimed to describe the characteristics of anaphylactic reactions and assess if emergency physicians follow treatment guidelines. Methods: A cohort study was conducted in the emergency department of Sacré-Cœur Hospital, a university-affiliated, urban tertiary care hospital. For each anaphylaxis case recruited by the treating physician, a standardised questionnaire was completed. The information for missed cases was collected retrospectively through chart review. Results: Between May 2012 and May 2015, 280 cases (205 prospective and 75 retrospective) of anaphylaxis were identified from a total of 182,408 ED visits. The median age was 36.21 years (IQR 27.8), 61.8% were female, and 12.5% of all patients were children (<18 years old). The majority of reactions were triggered by food [54.3% (95%CI:48.5-60.1%)], followed by medications [18.2% (95%CI:13.7-22.7%)] and venom [5.7% (95%CI:3.0-8.4%)]. Among all cases, 66.8% (95%CI:61.3-72.3%) received epinephrine; 26.1% (95%CI:21.0-31.2%) received it prior to their arrival and 46.8% (95%CI:41.0-52.6%) in-hospital. As for other in-hospital treatments, 85.4% of patients (95%CI:81.3-89.5%) received corticosteroids, 81.1% (95%CI:76.5-85.7%) received H1 antihistamines, and 41.1% (95%CI:35.3-46.9%) received H2 antihistamines. Out of all patients who had anaphylaxis, 86.4% (95%CI:82.4-90.4%) were prescribed an epinephrine auto-injector in-hospital or had already had one prescribed. Conclusion: Our results reveal that food is a major trigger of anaphylaxis and that despite current guidelines, there is under use of epinephrine and preferential use of corticosteroids and antihistamines.

Introduction: Emergency medical services (EMS) have the opportunity to treat allergic reactions anaphylactic reactions rapidly. However, the rate of recognition and treatment is unknown. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at two urban emergency departments from 2007 to 2012 including adult patients with allergy and anaphylaxis, both of which were predefined by explicit criteria. The patients of interest were those attended by EMS and transported to hospital. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who met anaphylaxis criteria in the prehospital setting, but who did not have epinephrine administered. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients who did not meet anaphylaxis criteria, yet had epinephrine administered. Results: Of 2819 overall patients, 491 (17.4%) arrived by EMS. The median age was 38 (IQR 27 to 49) and 60.9% were female. For the 151 (30.8%) patients with anaphylaxis, 55 received ephinephrine, (36.4%, 95% CI 27.4 to 47.4%). For the 340 (69.2%) patients without anaphylaxis, 28 received ephinephrine (8.2%, 95% CI 5.5 to 11.9%). Conclusion: For patients with anaphylaxis and allergic reactions who are managed by EMS, there may be a mismatch between illness severity and treatment.

Acute heart failure related to anaphylactic shock is often reversible and necessitates aggressive support to ensure full recovery. We report the case of a 15-year-old boy who developed severe ventricular dysfunction and haemodynamic instability after administration of amiodarone and required temporary mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device. He had full recovery of cardiac function and returned to baseline neurologic status. This is the first report of successful left ventricular assist device use for recovery from cardiovascular collapse due to anaphylaxis.