Abstract
Background: Antivenom is a gold-standard treatment for snakebite envenoming. However, adverse reactions to snake antivenom are common in many parts.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the allergic reactions following intravenous administration of antivenom sera.
Methods: This was retrospective study conducted on snakebites patients referred to the Rahimi Hospital in Khorramabad. The files of these patients were accessed for demographic data, snakebite-related data, treatment provided, clinical presentation and allergic reaction status as a result of antivenom treatment.
Results: 141 cases were investigated, including 73.8% male and 26.2% female patients. The mean age of the patients was 38.1±17.1 years. Age group 30-39 years accounted for the highest number of snakebite cases (24.1%). A majority of victims (89.4%) were from rural areas. Most of the patients (51.8%) were bitten in the spring and highest number of snakebite were reported in May (39.1%). The most common site of snakebite was lower extremities (50.4%) and upper extremities (44.7%). Among clinical feature of snakebite, pain was the most prevalent in 135 cases (95.7%) followed by swelling (83.7%). The mean antivenom vials used were 6.5±3.7 vials. Allergic reactions occurred in 6 patients (4.26%); reactions were mild in 5 patients and severe in 1 patient. The commonest presentation was maculopapular rash (1.4%) and the least common were headache (0.71%), nausea (0.71%), fever (0.71) and hypotension (0.71%).
Conclusion: Snakebite is one of the significant life-threatening environmental events. Immediate antivenom treatment can reduce mortality however, patients should be carefully monitored for adverse allergic reactions
Keywords: Snakebites, antivenom, allergic reaction, venomous, mortality, life-threatening.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5527/wjn.v6.i3.150] [PMID: 28540205]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/atr.6445] [PMID: 24396746]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2016.12.004]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.11.293] [PMID: 30452924]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.03.004] [PMID: 29534892]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2008.05.022] [PMID: 18621073]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01721.x] [PMID: 18429716]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20171102]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-2700.115343] [PMID: 23960378]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-5229.128702] [PMID: 24701062]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jyp.2013.02.003] [PMID: 24396245]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v47i2.3451] [PMID: 12140877]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2006.11.026] [PMID: 17210167]