Contact allergies in haemodialysis patients: a prospective study of 75 patients

Gaudy‐Marqueste, C.; Jouhet, Christelle; Castelain, M.; Brunet, Philippe; Berland, Yvon; Grob, Jean-Jacques; Richard, M.‐A.

doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01833.x

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Repeated exposure to EMLA might result with more skin rash. Lidocaine and prilocaine was considered as the primary allergen 16,17. Delayed sensitization was observed in 37% of patients with positive skin tests and 13.1% of patients which had previously used lidocaine-prilocaine cream 16.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vapocoolant Spray vs Lidocaine/Prilocaine Cream for Reducing the Pain of Venipuncture in Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study

Çelik

Özbek²,

Yılmaz³

et al. 2011

Int. J. Med. Sci.

105

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Patients undergoing hemodialysis are repeatedly exposed to stress and pain from approximately 300 punctures per year to their arteriovenous fistula. This study was designed to measure pain associated with venepuncture during AVF cannulation and to compare the effectiveness of ethyl chloride vapocoolant spray, topical eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) cream and placebo in controlling pain caused by venepuncture of arteriovenous fistula patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis.Methods: This randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study, included 41 patients undergoing conventional hemodialysis three times a week. First intervention was conducted as baseline pain assessment (control). In the three consecutive dialysis sessions, every patient randomly received 1) ethyl chloride vapocoolant spray, 2) EMLA, or 3) placebo cream before venepuncture. Pain perception was recorded by patients immediately after cannulation on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). p<0.05 was considered as significant.Results: VAS scores presented a marked inter-individual variation during venepuncture. EMLA application resulted in significantly lower total pain scores compared to control and all other interventions (p<0.05). No patient experienced severe pain with EMLA or vapocoolant. The patients reported less moderate and severe pain with EMLA, and vapocoolant spray compared to control and placebo interventions. Moderate and severe pain scores were similar between EMLA and vapocoolant spray (p>0.05).Conclusion: Venipuncture for AVF cannulation causes mild to moderate pain in hemodialysis patients. Although local application of EMLA is more effective than in preventing venepuncture pain, ethyl chloride vapocoolant is as effective as EMLA for preventing mild to moderate puncture pain in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vapocoolant Spray vs Lidocaine/Prilocaine Cream for Reducing the Pain of Venipuncture in Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study

Çelik

Özbek²,

Yılmaz³

et al. 2011

Int. J. Med. Sci.

105

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is difficult to determine the exact causal agent for the observed anaphylactic reactions. Cutaneous tests and the demonstration of serum‐specific IgE to PSu membrane fragments and/or to PVP would be a more specific approach to establish the true reactivity of the patient to either component 17,18 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cutaneous tests and the demonstration of serum-specific IgE to PSu membrane fragments and/or to PVP would be a more specific approach to establish the true reactivity of the patient to either component. 17,18 The reactions that occur at the beginning of hemodialysis usually are more severe and patients with a previous history of immediate reaction and severe hypersensitivity have a higher risk of anaphylaxis in the future. The time of exposure, route of exposure, and amount of antigen administered are individual risks of repeated episodes of anaphylaxis, so that exposure to high doses of antigen via a route that produces rapid absorption (e.g., intravenous) will increase the risk of repeated anaphylactic episodes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anaphylactic reaction induced by a polysulfone/polyvinylpyrrolidone membrane in the 10th session of hemodialysis with the same dialyzer

Marques

Pinheiro

Carmo

et al. 2011

Hemodialysis International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The majority of severe hypersensitivity reactions in hemodialysis patients have occurred due to sensitization to ethylene oxide or to nonbiocompatible membrane dialyzers. The use of polysulfone dialyzers rarely causes hypersensitivity reactions. In the present study, we describe a case of severe life-threatening reactions induced by polysulfone dialyzers (from different manufacturers subjected to a variety of sterilization methods), which occurred after 9 sessions of hemodialysis with the same prescription, exemplifying the complexity of such reactions.

show abstract

“…2,3,5 Contact dermatitis is encountered as a result of delayed type of hypersensitivity (type 4, T cell mediated) reaction. 5,6 Some groups have higher latex sensitivity rates than that of the general population. These high-risk groups are made up of healthcare personnel, children with spina bifida and urogenital abnormalities, individuals working in latex containing product manufacturing, and subjects with recurrent surgical intervention history.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latex-related allergy in hemodialysis patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Incidence of allergic reactions is increased in hemodialysis (HD) patients. However, the prevalence of latex allergy is not exactly known in HD patients. The aim of this present study is to determine the prevalence of latex allergy in HD patients. Methods: A total of 205 adult HD patients were included in the study. Questionnaires were completed during patient interviews, and their consents were provided. Latex prick test and latex specific IgE test (HY-TEC, K82) were performed. Mean age of the patients was 52 AE 14 (25-79) years, and 61% was male. Mean dialysis duration was 38 months, and 21% of them were diabetics. Only five patients had allergic complaints in their histories, and none of them had severe anaphylaxis history. Latex prick test was positive in two patients. Latex specific IgE test was positive in five patients. Overall latex sensitivity was defined as 3.4%. Conclusion: No increased prevalence in latex allergy was determined in HD patients. Latex allergy incidence may be increased in atopic HD patients. Therefore, the use of latex products should be avoided as much as possible especially in atopic HD patients.

show abstract

Contact allergies in haemodialysis patients: a prospective study of 75 patients

Cited by 24 publications

References 20 publications

Vapocoolant Spray vs Lidocaine/Prilocaine Cream for Reducing the Pain of Venipuncture in Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study

Vapocoolant Spray vs Lidocaine/Prilocaine Cream for Reducing the Pain of Venipuncture in Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study

Anaphylactic reaction induced by a polysulfone/polyvinylpyrrolidone membrane in the 10th session of hemodialysis with the same dialyzer

Latex-related allergy in hemodialysis patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About