MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150281404 · doi:10.1111/cea.12520

Anaphylaxis and cardiovascular disease: therapeutic dilemmas

2015· review· en· W2150281404 on OpenAlexaff
Phil Lieberman, F. Estelle R. Simons

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical & Experimental Allergy · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaphylaxisKounis syndromeMedicineEpinephrinePalpitationsMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineAdverse effectAllergyAnesthesiaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) increases the risk of severe or fatal anaphylaxis, and some medications for CVD treatment can exacerbate anaphylaxis. The aim of this article is to review the effect of anaphylaxis on the heart, the potential impact of medications for CVD on anaphylaxis and anaphylaxis treatment, and the cardiovascular effects of epinephrine. The therapeutic dilemmas arising from these issues are also discussed and management strategies proposed. PubMed searches were performed for the years 1990-2014 inclusive, using terms such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, adrenaline, allergic myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-adrenergic blockers, epinephrine, and Kounis syndrome. Literature analysis indicated that: cardiac mast cells are key constituents of atherosclerotic plaques; mast cell mediators play an important role in acute coronary syndrome (ACS); patients with CVD are at increased risk of developing severe or fatal anaphylaxis; and medications for CVD treatment, including beta-adrenergic blockers and ACE inhibitors, potentially exacerbate anaphylaxis or make it more difficult to treat. Epinephrine increases myocardial contractility, decreases the duration of systole relative to diastole, and enhances coronary blood flow. Its transient adverse effects include pallor, tremor, anxiety, and palpitations. Serious adverse effects (including ventricular arrhythmias and hypertension) are rare, and are significantly more likely after intravenous injection than after intramuscular injection. Epinephrine is life-saving in anaphylaxis; second-line medications (including antihistamines and glucocorticoids) are not. In CVD patients (especially those with ACS), the decision to administer epinephrine for anaphylaxis can be difficult, and its benefits and potential harms need to be carefully considered. Concerns about potential adverse effects need to be weighed against concerns about possible death from untreated anaphylaxis, but there is no absolute contraindication to epinephrine injection in anaphylaxis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical & Experimental AllergySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207