Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (61)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LEYNADIER, F.
Right arrow Articles by DRY, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LEYNADIER, F.
Right arrow Articles by DRY, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 1987, Vol. 59, No. 6 683-689
© 1987 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

other

PRICK TESTS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF ANAPHYLAXIS TO GENERAL ANAESTHETICS

F. LEYNADIER, M.D., M. SANSARRICQ, M.D., J. M. DIDIER, PH.D. and J. DRY, M.D.

Service de Médecine Interne et Centre d'Allergie, Hôpital Rothschild, 33, boulevard de Picpus, 75012 Paris, France

Pre-charged prick tests and intradermal skin tests (two dilutions) were tested simultaneously in 79 patients using seven drugs (suxamethonium, gallamine, alcuronium, pancuronium, vecuronium, fentanyl and thiopentone) commonly administered during general anaesthesia. Fifty-seven of the patients had suffered anaphyLaxis to anaesthetics: 50 had been tested previously (19.5± 13.5 months) by intradermal tests (group 1) and seven were tested for the first time (group 2). Six patients had suffered a side effect during anaesthesia which was unrelated to anaesthetic agents (group 3) and 16 were control subjects (group 4). Prick and intradermal skin tests were simultaneously positive in 98 instances out of 553 (17.7%) and negative in 440 out of 553 (79.6%)—a correlation of 538 out of 553 (97.3%; P < 0.001). In groups 1, 2 and 3 the correlation was 426 out of 441 (96.6% P < 0.001). In group 1, a correlation was observed between the diameters of the weals (r = 0.5; P< 0.001) obtained by prick and intradermal skin tests, and between the diameters of the flares (r = 0.5; P < 0.001).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. M. Mertes, M. C. Laxenaire, J. M. Malinovsky, E. Florvaag, and D. A. Moneret-Vautrin
Skin Sensitivity to Rocuronium and Vecuronium: Prick-Tests Are Not Intradermal Test
Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2005; 100(5): 1539 - 1539.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
G. Dhonneur
Skin Sensitivity to Rocuronium and Vecuronium: Prick-Tests Are Not Intradermal Test
Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2005; 100(5): 1539 - 1540.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. H. Levy
Anaphylactic Reactions to Neuromuscular Blocking Drugs: Are We Making the Correct Diagnosis?
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2004; 98(4): 881 - 882.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
G. Dhonneur, X. Combes, D. Chassard, and J. C. Merle
Skin Sensitivity to Rocuronium and Vecuronium: A Randomized Controlled Prick-Testing Study in Healthy Volunteers
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2004; 98(4): 986 - 989.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.