{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023415977961432508, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.990384615384615, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ANAPHYLAXIS TO AN URETHRAL LUBRICANT: CHLORHEXIDINE AS THE “HIDDEN” ALLERGEN

Abstract We report on a severe allergic reaction during urethral catheterisation, initially erroneously attributed to natural rubber latex (NRL). However, the negative investigations for latex, the uneventful further applications of NRL, the positive skin test and basophil activation test for chlorhexidine strongly support diagnosis of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis. This case illustrates that it is not widely appreciated that “innocent” products such as urethral lubricants may elicit serious life-threatening reactions. Careful inspection of the medical records is once again re-emphasised to be mandatory in order to avert subsequent anaphylaxis.