4.6 Article

Isolated angioedema due to face mask and other cases of isolated angioedema

期刊

POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/postmj/qgad057

关键词

angioedema; mast cells; bradykinin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study contributes to the causes and treatment approaches of isolated angioedema by investigating the causes of 80 cases, including some rare or unknown causes in the literature.
What is already known on this topic There are three types of isolated angioedema: bradykinin-mediated, histaminergic-mediated, and idiopathic angioedema. Treatment depends entirely on the cause. What this study adds Studies on the causes of histamine-mediated and idiopathic isolated angioedema in the literature are much less common than those on bradykinin-mediated angioedema. If the cause is identified, angioedema does not develop when the patient stays away from the triggering agent. This study presents identified causes of angioedema, including causes of angioedema that are rare or unknown in the literature. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy This study will contribute to the causes and treatment approach of isolated angioedema. Isolated angioedema can be divided into two groups as mast cell-mediated angioedema and bradykinin-mediated angioedema according to the known mechanisms of occurrence. However, angioedema can also occur with mechanisms whose cause is unknown. Treatment varies according to the mechanism of angioedema formation. In this prospective study, we present the causes of 80 isolated angioedema cases admitted to our clinic during the pandemic period. We would like to emphasize the causes that we found in our cases but which are rare in the literature. For example: angioedema due to allergy to nickel in the mask used during the pandemic period, T cell-mediated angioedema, alpha adrenergic receptor blocker use, and patients diagnosed with collagen tissue disease presenting with angioedema as the first clinical finding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据