Cardiac arrest caused by anaphylaxis refractory to prompt management: A case series and review of the literature

A potentially lifesaving error: unintentional high-dose adrenaline administration in anaphylaxis-induced cardiac arrest; a case report

BACKGROUND

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a crucial skill for emergency medical services. As high-risk-low-frequency events pose an immense mental load to providers, concepts of crew resource management, non-technical skills and the science of human errors are intended to prepare healthcare providers for high-pressure situations. However, medical errors occur, and organizations and institutions face the challenge of providing a blame-free error culture to achieve continuous improvement by avoiding similar errors in the future. In this case, we report a critical medical error during an anaphylaxis-associated cardiac arrest, its handling and the unexpected yet favourable outcome for the patient.

CASE PRESENTATION

During an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to chemotherapy-induced anaphylaxis, a patient received a 10-fold dose of epinephrine due to shortcomings in communication and standardization via a central venous port catheter. The patient converted from a non-shockable rhythm into a pulseless ventricular tachycardia and subsequently into ventricular fibrillation. The patient was cardioverted and defibrillated and had a return of spontaneous circulation with profound hypotension only 6 min after the administration of 10 mg epinephrine. The patient survived without any residues or neurological impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

This case demonstrates the potential deleterious effects of shortcomings in communication and deviation from standard protocols, especially in emergencies. Here, precise instructions, closed-loop communication and unambiguous labelling of syringes would probably have avoided the epinephrine overdose central to this case. Interestingly, this serious error may have saved the patient's life, as it led to the development of a shockable rhythm. Furthermore, as the patient was still in profound hypotension after administering 10 mg of epinephrine, this high dose might have counteracted the severe vasoplegic state in anaphylaxis-associated cardiac arrest. Lastly, as the patient was receiving care for advanced malignancy, the likelihood of termination of resuscitation in the initial non-shockable cardiac arrest was significant and possibly averted by the medication error.

Comparison of the Effects of Lidocaine and Amiodarone on Patients With Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to compare the impact of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcomes following cardiac arrest. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as cohort and cross-sectional trials was undertaken, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Potential relevant studies were searched in databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from the beginning of databases to February 15, 2024. Outcomes assessed in this study were survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital admission or 24 hours, favorable neurological outcomes, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). A total of seven studies (five observational and two RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 19,081 patients with cardiac arrest. Pooled analysis showed no difference between amiodarone and lidocaine in terms of survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio (OR): 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75 to 1.04), ROSC (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.05, p-value: 0.25), favorable neurological outcomes (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.17, p-value: 0.38), and survival to 24 hours (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.21, p-value: 0.31). While lidocaine demonstrated a slight survival advantage, the differences were statistically insignificant. Similarly, no significant variations were observed in ROSC incidence, neurological outcomes, or survival at 24 hours. These findings align with current guidelines but underscore the necessity for further rigorous RCTs to provide conclusive recommendations.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Refractory cardiac arrest caused by type I Kounis syndrome treated with adrenaline and nicorandil: A case report

RATIONALE

Kounis syndrome is a rare but life-threatening anaphylactic reaction that can lead to acute coronary syndrome and cardiac arrest, and requires prompt diagnosis. Adrenaline, which is used to treat anaphylaxis, may cause coronary vasoconstriction and worsen ischemia, whereas coronary vasodilators may dilate systemic vessels and exacerbate hypotension. Delayed diagnosis of Kounis syndrome and inadequate therapeutic intervention may thus lead to a poor outcome.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 59-year-old man was treated for sepsis due to a liver abscess. Following administration of daptomycin, the patient developed severe anaphylactic shock leading to refractory cardiac arrest. Because conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation was ineffective, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation was considered as an alternative approach.

DIAGNOSES

On bedside monitoring during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, unexpected ST-segment elevation was found on lead II electrocardiogram. Accordingly, the patient was clinically diagnosed with Kounis syndrome.

INTERVENTIONS

Nicorandil (6 mg/h), a coronary vasodilator with minimal blood pressure effects, was administered along with high doses of vasopressors, including adrenaline 0.2 µg/kg/min.

OUTCOMES

After the initiation of nicorandil administration, the patient achieved return of spontaneous circulation and did not require extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Based on the elevated serum tryptase level, normal creatine kinase-MB range, and lack of stenosis on coronary angiography, the patient was definitively diagnosed with type I (coronary vasospasm) Kounis syndrome. He was subsequently transferred to the referring hospital without neurological sequelae.

LESSONS

If anaphylaxis leads to refractory shock and cardiac arrest, ischemic changes on the electrocardiogram should be investigated to identify underlying Kounis syndrome. In addition to adrenaline, coronary dilators are the definitive treatment. Nicorandil may be a useful treatment option because of its minimal effect on blood pressure.

Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no evidence that antiarrhythmic drugs can improve long-term survival or survival with favorable neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest patients. We did this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy of various antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest patients.

METHODS

We searched studies from inception until Nov 11, 2022 through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, and Wanfang database. All studies comparing different antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest were included in this meta-analysis. Outcomes were survival to hospital discharge in cardiac arrest, survival to hospital admission/24 h and favorable neurological outcome. This network meta-analysis was performed by R software.

RESULTS

Finally, a total of 9 studies (10,980 patients) were finally included in this network meta-analysis. Amiodarone (odd ratio [OR] 2.28, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 1.61-3.27) and lidocaine (OR 1.53, 95% CrI 1.05-2.25) was superior than placebo in terms of the survival to hospital admission/24 h with statistically significant. Amiodarone (OR 2.19, 95% CrI 1.54-3.14) and lidocaine (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.09-2.32) was superior than placebo in terms of the survival to hospital discharge with statistically significant. Amiodarone (OR 2.43, 95% CrI 1.61-3.68) and lidocaine (OR 1.62, 95% CrI 1.04-2.53) was superior than placebo in terms of the favorable neurological outcome with statistically significant. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) shows that amiodarone ranked first (SUCRA, 99.6%), lidocaine ranked second (SUCRA, 49.6%), placebo ranked the last (SUCRA, 0.86%). Inverted funnel plot is essentially symmetrical, it is possible that this study has a small sample effect or a small publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone had the best effect on both survival to hospital admission, discharge and more favorable neurological outcome. Thus, amiodarone should be listed as first line drug for cardiac arrest. However, the quality of available evidence limits the formation of powerful conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or safety of amiodarone or lidocaine used to treat cardiac arrest. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials are required for further research in future.