This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dünser, M. W. Articles by Wenzel, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dünser, M. W. Articles by Wenzel, V. Related Collections Cardiovascular Critical Care Resuscitation Pharmacology

---

EDITORIAL

Treatment of Anaphylactic Shock: Where Is the Evidence?

From the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Volker Wenzel, MD, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria. Address e-mail to volker.wenzel{at}uki.at.

In this issue of Anesth Analg, Dr. Schummer et al. present six patients with anaphylactic shock who experienced severe cardiovascular failure that was barely responsive to conventional fluid and catecholamine therapy, but promptly improved after arginine vasopressin (AVP) therapy.1 The case presentations are convincing and leave little doubt that the patients suffered from anaphylactic shock, and that they would have improved as rapidly with a therapy other than AVP.

As suggested by the authors, it is unlikely that evidence-based medicine-derived criteria are useful tools to determine an effective therapy for anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock. Because allergic symptoms can vary in their quality and extent and virtually all cases of anaphylactic shock occur unpredictably, it will be difficult to conduct prospective, randomized, controlled trials for this condition.

To summarize the clinical evidence for therapeutic interventions recommended by the European Resuscitation Council for the treatment of anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock,2 we have performed a concise literature review. Medline was searched for clinical studies using the search terms "anaphylaxis" and "anaphylactic shock" together with "antihistamine," "glucocorticoids/corticoids," "epinephrine," or "fluids." Where possible, the evidence was graded as suggested by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine3 (Table 1). Only studies with clinical study end points were classified; articles revealing exclusively in vitro or animal data were not graded.

Table 2 displays the results of our Medline search. Although several entries were found for single treatments, most were case reports, expert opinions, or reviews. Conclusively, the current evidence for the treatment of anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock can simply be deemed insufficient, as shown here:

1. Antihistamines—Level C. However, there is Level A evidence that the combination of H₁ and H₂ antihistamines is more effective in the resolution of allergic cutaneous syndromes than H₁ antagonists alone,
   
2. Epinephrine—Level C,
   
3. Corticoids—Level D, and
   
4. Fluids—Level D
   

Accordingly, a critical appraisal of the literature for the treatment of anaphylaxis with antihistamines performed by the Cochrane Study Group also could not identify a study that satisfied the inclusion criteria.4 When the study by Schummer et al. is added to the current literature, the evidence for the use of AVP in severe anaphylactic shock could be similarly graded as Level C. For the aforementioned reasons, evidence-based medicine seems to be an inappropriate scientific instrument for determining the best treatment for patients suffering from anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock.

Considering these points, the question raised by Schummer et al. should not be "Is AVP better than epinephrine?" but rather "Can AVP be beneficial for selected patients with severe anaphylaxis?" As shown by the authors in these six cases, we have to answer the latter question with "obviously, yes!" Critics may well argue that because no control group was present, it is possible that just as many would have survived if conventional therapy had simply been continued. This is true and cannot be excluded; however, it can be claimed that more and higher epinephrine dosages could have been administered in most cases. This may have not only improved cardiovascular function but also decreased histamine liberation. Nonetheless, the clinical scenarios presented pointed much more to an imminent cardiovascular collapse after prolonged unsuccessful standard shock therapy. Furthermore, all patients experienced excessive vasodilatation as the main pathophysiologic feature of shock. A vasopressor such as AVP can only be expected to be helpful if a critical degree of vasodilatation has occurred. Contrary to what the authors suggest, it would be wrong to inject AVP simply for the sake of maintaining arterial blood pressure, e.g., if myocardial dysfunction is the main component of hemodynamic dysfunction. Although this is rare and difficult to diagnose,5,6 the presence of chronic heart failure must always alert the attending physician that the patient may be threatened by a low cardiac output syndrome in acute stress situations such as severe anaphylaxis.

What could be the potential benefits of using additional AVP instead of excessively increasing catecholamine vasopressors? Because of its non-adrenergic properties, AVP can dramatically reduce high and potentially toxic catecholamine dosages in advanced vasodilatory shock states.7 This resulted in a significantly lower incidence of new-onset tachyarrhythmias during supplementary AVP infusion,8 and may also translate into a survival benefit in some patients with septic shock.9 Whether AVP has other specific advantages in the treatment of anaphylaxis, as has been shown for epinephrine,6,10 it needs to be evaluated in future animal and in vitro studies. Preliminary evidence suggests that AVP is even more effective in reversing histamine-induced vasodilation in vitro than epinephrine.11

Although AVP should be used at the discretion of each attending physician assessing the clinical situation, the choice of the AVP dosage must be based on the experience of other authors. Basically, both bolus injections and continuous AVP infusions have been used. Bolus injections usually result in immediate hemodynamic changes and seem to be clearly indicated in severe cases of cardiovascular instability, which cannot be controlled by other measures. An injection of about 4 IU for a 70 kg adult (0.06 IU/kg), as suggested by Schummer et al., is a good recommendation. Alternatively, 10 IU of AVP diluted in 10 mL of normal saline may be titrated to clinical responses. Nonetheless, it needs to be considered that adverse reactions, particularly coronary vasoconstriction and decreases of cardiac output, have been reported after bolus injections of AVP at variable dosages.12 Therefore, a continuous infusion of AVP as a supplementary vasopressor drug is a safer option, but also requires that the patient’s circulation can be controlled with fluid resuscitation and catecholamine therapy. In this case, recommendations based on AVP infusion in patients with advanced vasodilatory shock should be adopted. Although the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend an AVP dosage of 0.03-0.04 IU/min,13 a recent study suggested that 0.067 IU/min (4 IU/h) is more effective in stabilizing hemodynamic function in severe shock states than 0.033 IU/min (2 IU/h).14

In conclusion, the case series by Schummer et al. shows that the use of AVP may be effective and potentially lifesaving in selected patients with severe anaphylaxis. When treating anaphylactic shock, physicians need to keep in mind that the clinical evidence for recommended therapies is as limited as the data favoring AVP. Thus, they should base their decisions on both the clinical situation and comprehensive knowledge of the pharmacologic background of their interventions.

	Footnotes

 
Accepted for publication March 4, 2008.

No author has a conflict of interest regarding drugs or methods discussed in this article.

	REFERENCES

Top REFERENCES

 

1. Schummer C, Wirsing M, Schummer W. The pivotal role of vasopressin in refractory anaphylactic shock. Anesth Analg 2008;107:620–4[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Soar J, Deakin CD, Nolan JP, Abbas G, Alfonzo A, Handley AJ, Lockey D, Perkins GD, Thies K. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2005—Section 7. Cardiac arrest in special circumstances. Resuscitation 2005;67(suppl 1):S135–70[Web of Science][Medline]
3. Centre for evidence-based medicine: levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp. Accessed April 25, 2008.
4. Sheikh A, Ten Broek V, Brown SG, Simons FE. H1-antihistamines for the treatment of anaphylaxis: cochrane systematic review. Allergy 2007;62:830–7[Web of Science][Medline]
5. Brown SG. The pathophysiology of shock in anaphylaxis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2007;27:165–75[Web of Science][Medline]
6. Pumphrey R. Anaphylactic shock. In: Paradis NA, Halperin HR, Kern KB, Wenzel V, Chamberlain DA, eds. Cardiac arrest—the science and practice of resuscitation medicine. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007:1103–17
7. Luckner G, Dünser MW, Jochberger S, Mayr VD, Wenzel V, Ulmer H, Schmid S, Knotzer H, Pajk W, Hasibeder WR, Mayr AJ, Friesenecker B. Arginine vasopressin in 316 patients with advanced vasodilatory shock. Crit Care Med 2005;33:2659–66[Web of Science][Medline]
8. Dünser MW, Mayr AJ, Hanno U, Knotzer H, Sumann G, Pajk W, Friesenecker B, Hasibeder WR. Arginine vasopressin in advanced vasodilatory shock: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Circulation 2003;107:2313–19[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Russell JA, Cooper DJ, Walley KR. Vasopressin and septic shock trial (VASST): baseline characteristics and organ dysfunction in vasopressor dependent patients with septic shock. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;167:A548
10. McLean-Tooke APC, Bethune CA, Fay AC, Spickett GP. Adrenaline in the treatment of anaphylaxis: what is the evidence? BMJ 2003;327:1332–5[Free Full Text]
11. Tsuda A, Tanaka KA, Huraux C, Szlam F, Sato N, Yamaguchi K, Levy JH. The in vitro reversal of histamine-induced vasodilation in the human internal mammary artery. Anesth Analg 2001;93:1453–9[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Shelly MP, Greatorex R, Calne RY, Park GR. The physiological effects of vasopressin when used to control intra-abdominal bleeding. Intensive Care Med 1988;14:526–31[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, Calandra T, Dhainaut JF, Gerlach H, Harvey M, Marini JJ, Marshall J, Ranieri M, Ramsay G, Sevransky J, Thompson T, Townsend S, Vender JS, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL; for the International Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sespsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med 2008;36:296–327[Web of Science][Medline]
14. Luckner G, Mayr VD, Jochberger S, Wenzel V, Ulmer H, Hasibeder WR, Dünser MW. Comparison of two dose regimens of arginine vasopressin in advanced vasodilatory shock. Crit Care Med 2007;35:2280–5[Web of Science][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Baumann, D. Studnicska, G. Audibert, A. Bondar, Y. Fuhrer, J.-P. Carteaux, and P. M. Mertes Refractory Anaphylactic Cardiac Arrest After Succinylcholine Administration Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2009; 109(1): 137 - 140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dünser, M. W. Articles by Wenzel, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dünser, M. W. Articles by Wenzel, V. Related Collections Cardiovascular Critical Care Resuscitation Pharmacology