Outcome of repeat anaesthesia after investigation for perioperative anaphylaxis

A Skin Testing Strategy for Non-IgE-Mediated Reactions Associated With Vancomycin

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin infusion reaction (VIR), reportedly mediated through Mas-Related G Protein-Coupled Receptor-X2, is the primary vancomycin-induced immediate drug reaction. Clinically, distinguishing the underlying drug-induced immediate drug reaction mechanisms is crucial for future treatment strategies, including drug restriction, re-administration, and pretreatment considerations. However, the lack of validated diagnostic tests makes this challenging, often leading to unnecessary drug restriction.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intradermal tests (IDTs) and, separately, the basophil activation test (BAT) differentiate VIR from vancomycin-tolerant subjects.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of vancomycin-exposed adults with and without a history of VIR. Data on demographics, allergy-related comorbidities, history of vancomycin exposures, and VIR characteristics were collected. IDT with vancomycin was performed. IDT dose-response EC50, IDT-related local symptoms, and BAT results were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 11 VIR and 10 vancomycin-tolerant subjects were enrolled. The most reported VIR symptoms were pruritus (82%), flushing (82%), hives (46%), angioedema (27%), and dyspnea (19%). The IDT dose-response mean EC50 was 328 μg/mL (95% CI, 296-367) in the VIR versus 1166 μg/mL (95% CI, 1029-1379) in the tolerant group (P < .0001). All VIR subjects reported IDT-related local pruritus compared with 60% of tolerant subjects (P = .0185). The %CD63+ basophils were consistently less than 2%, without significant differences between groups (P < .54).

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in skin test methodologies could help identify other immediate drug reaction mechanisms beyond IgE. This skin test protocol holds the potential for identifying VIR, particularly in cases where patients have received multiple drugs while BAT is insufficient. Future studies will validate and delineate its predictive value, assessing the risk of VIR.

A US-Based Multicenter Retrospective Report of Perioperative Anaphylaxis, 2010-2021

BACKGROUND

US-based perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) studies are limited to single-center experiences. A recent report found that a serum acute tryptase (sAT) >9.8 ng/mL or mast cell activation (MCA) can predict POA causal agent identification. Urinary mast cell mediator metabolites (uMC) have not been studied in POA.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the epidemiologic data of POA, to determine if sAT or MCA can predict suspected causal agent identification, and to evaluate uMC utility in POA.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective multicenter review of POA cases that were subcategorized by suspected causal agent identification status. sAT, MCA (defined as sAT >2 + 1.2 × serum baseline tryptase), and uMC (N-methylhistamine [N-MH], 11β-prostaglandin-F2α [11β-PGF2α], leukotriene E4 [LTE4]) were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients (mean age 52 [standard deviation 17] years, 94% adult, 50% female, 90% White, and 2% Hispanic) with POA, 73% had an sAT available, 41% had MCA, 16% had uMC available, and 50% had an identifiable suspected cause. POA cases with an identifiable suspected cause had a positive MCA status (100% vs 78%; P = .01) compared with POA with an unidentifiable cause. An elevated median sAT did not predict causal agent identification. Positive uMC were not associated with suspected causal agent identification during POA. Patients with positive uMC had a higher median sAT (30 vs 6.45 ng/mL; P = .001) and MCA status (96% vs 12%; P = .001) compared with negative uMC patients. Patients with POA had an elevated acute/baseline uMC ratios: 11β-PGF2α ratio > 1.6, N-MH ratio >1.7, and LTE4 ratio >1.8.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of MCA in POA is associated with suspected causal agent identification. Positive uMC possibly correlate with a higher sAT level and MCA status but require further study. The authors suggest applying an acute/baseline uMC ratio (11β-PGF2α ratio >1.6, N-MH ratio >1.7, and LTE4 ratio >1.87) in patients with POA for MCA when a tryptase level is inconclusive during POA evaluations.

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.

Neuromuscular blocking agent re-exposure in a retrospective cohort with neuromuscular blocking agent-associated anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are one of the most common causes of perioperative anaphylaxis. Although skin test positivity may help identify reactive NMBAs, it is unclear whether skin test negativity can guarantee the safety of systemically administered NMBAs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the real-world safety of alternative NMBAs screened using skin tests in patients with suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis were recruited among patients at Seoul National University Hospital from June 2009 to May 2021, and their characteristics and outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 cases (0.017%) of suspected anaphylaxis occurred in 282,707 patients who received NMBAs. Cardiovascular manifestations were observed in 95.7%, whereas cutaneous findings were observed in 59.6%. Whereas 83% had a history of undergoing general anesthesia, 17% had no history of NMBA use. In skin tests, the overall positivity to any NMBA was 94.6% (81.1% to culprit NMBAs) and the cross-reactivity was 75.7%, which is related to the chemical structural similarity among NMBAs; the cross-reactivity and chemical structure similarity of rocuronium were 85.3% and 0.814, respectively, with vecuronium; this is in contrast to 50% and 0.015 with cisatracurium and 12.5% and 0.208 with succinylcholine. There were 15 patients who underwent subsequent surgery with a skin test-negative NMBA; whereas 80.0% (12/15) safely completed surgery, 20.0% (3/15) experienced hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Similarities in chemical structure may contribute to the cross-reactivity of NMBAs in skin tests. Despite the high negative predictability of skin tests for suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis, the potential risk of recurrent anaphylaxis has not been eliminated.

Perioperative management of mastocytosis

PURPOSE

Patients with mastocytosis have an increased risk of anaphylaxis during surgical procedures with general anesthesia. Therefore, we reviewed the anesthesia course of a large cohort of patients with mastocytosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed adult and pediatric patients with mastocytosis who underwent surgical procedures with general anesthesia at Mayo Clinic from January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2021. We also included any procedures with general anesthesia that occurred during the 3-year period preceding mastocytosis diagnosis and designated the patients who underwent these procedures as having an unknown diagnosis at the time of their surgical procedure. We analyzed whether patients received chronic antimediator treatment for mastocytosis and/or prophylactic medications before the procedures. We also determined whether medications indicative of mastocytosis-related adverse events were intraoperatively administered.

RESULTS

We identified 113 patients who underwent 219 procedures during the study period; 25 procedures were performed before mastocytosis diagnosis. Of 194 procedures in patients with known mastocytosis, patients received chronic antimediator therapy and/or perioperative prophylactic medications for 178 (91.8%) procedures. Among these procedures, 10 were potentially complicated by mast cell activation, which was inferred from administration of inhaled albuterol (n = 3) or intravenous diphenhydramine (n = 8). In addition, there was only one case of intraoperative anaphylaxis which occurred in a patient who underwent anesthesia before mastocytosis diagnosis and therefore did not receive prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative anaphylaxis can be the first presenting sign of mastocytosis. Patients with mastocytosis who received chronic antimediator therapy and/or preoperative prophylactic medications had an uneventful surgical course.

A quarter of a century fundamental and translational research in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis at the Antwerp university hospital, a Belgian Centre of Excellence of the World Allergy Organization

Perioperative hypersensitivity constitutes an important health issue, with potential dramatic consequences of diagnostic mistakes. However, safe and correct diagnosis is not always straightforward, mainly because of the application of incorrect nomenclature, absence of easy accessible in-vitro/ex-vivo tests and uncertainties associated with the non-irritating skin test concentrations. In this editorial we summarize the time line, seminal findings, and major realizations of 25 years of research on the mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of perioperative hypersensitivity.

What do we know about perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and what can we do to improve perioperative safety?

Hypersensitivity reactions are an important aspect of perioperative care and are a crucial interdisciplinary issue in anaesthesiological practice, as well as allergological and laboratory diagnostics. This phenomenon was observed as early as the 1980s and 1990s in Western European countries, and knowledge on this subject has grown significantly over time. Although hypersensitivity reactions are not frequent events (the incidence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions ranges from 1:386 to 1:13 000 procedures, with higher frequency - 1 per 6500 general anaesthesias with neuromuscular blocking agents administrations), their courses are unfortunately serious and life-threatening. It should also be noted that there is no information regarding the occurrence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in many countries. Hence, global assessment of the problem is underestimated. The primary source of actual knowledge comes from epidemiological studies, which indicate an increasing frequency of hypersensitivity reaction occurrence and changes in aetiological factors. The first report from France (1984 to 1989) described two main causes - neuromuscular blocking agents and hypnotic agents. The following years confirmed an increase in perioperative hypersensitivity reactions associated with latex and antibiotics. The most recent data from the National Audit Project 6 indicated increased participation of antibiotics, chlorhexidine, and contrast agents. The results of epidemiological analyses are the basis of medical management guidelines and practice modification. Thanks to the activity of many organisations monitoring the intensity and nature of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions, guidelines for diagnostics and management have been developed. This article presents the results of numerous studies, including the first and the most recent, from various geographical regions. The clinical significance, pathogenesis mechanisms are also discussed. This publication also presents important directions for further scientific and epidemiological research on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions.Key messagesThe incidence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions ranges from 1:386 to 1:13 000 procedures, with higher frequency - 1 per 6500 general anaesthesias with neuromuscular blocking agents administrations.Reactions may occur during the first episode of anaesthesia, most frequently in the induction of general anaesthesia, and much less frequently during postoperative follow-up.The first reports of perioperative hypersensitivity reaction come from the 1990s, and knowledge on this subject has grown significantly over time.In many countries, multidisciplinary teams and organisations have been established to identify, monitor the occurrence of this phenomenon, and have set the directions of medical activities and have changed the rules and recommendations.There is no information about the occurrence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in many countries, and global assessment of the problem is underestimated. Additionally, there is a great need to develop a system to monitor their occurrence in other countries.The long-term epidemiologic studies have demonstrated variability in pharmacologic triggers. However, the main pharmacological substances (antibiotics, muscle relaxants, disinfectans, contrast agents) are related to aspects of patient safety during anaesthesia.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening and under-recognized event most commonly caused by antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, dyes, latex, and disinfectants. This review provides updates in the epidemiology and pathogenesis of perioperative anaphylaxis, discusses culprit agents, and highlights the tenets of management including a comprehensive allergy evaluation.

Investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an update on how best to manage the investigation of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions based on recent literature and key publications.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past two years, several very important initiatives have been taken in the field of perioperative hypersensitivity. The 6th national audit project in the United Kingdom has provided new knowledge through a series of studies, including a nationwide prospective study, and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has commissioned a position paper with updated recommendations for investigations. Lastly, a large international working group comprising experts in anesthesiology, allergology, and immunology, the International Suspected Perioperative Allergic Reactions group, has published a series of articles providing updates and new insights into several different key areas of perioperative hypersensitivity.

SUMMARY

The investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions is highly complex and aims to identify the correct culprit to ensure future avoidance but also to disprove allergy to other suspected culprits, making them available for subsequent anesthesia. To achieve this, close collaboration between anesthesiologists and allergists is called upon to ensure the best possible outcome for the patient.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are heterogeneous in their pathomechanisms, clinical presentation, severity, and outcomes. Novel DHR mechanisms, phenotypes, and endotypes have been described. The key to prevention from further exposure to the culprit drugs involves correct identification of the putative drug through a combination of in vitro and/or in vivo tests, accurate drug allergy labeling and reporting, and electronic decision support systems within electronic medical records to prevent future accidental prescribing. Prescreening and premedication, the focus of this review, may be a useful adjunct to preventive measures in certain situations. After an index immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction, prescreening may be useful in perioperative anaphylaxis, and iodinated (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media (GCM) where the culprit and potential alternative agents are skin tested. In certain nonimmediate DHR, pharmacogenomic prescreening may be used before prescribing high-risk drugs (eg, carbamazepine and allopurinol) where specific human-leukocyte antigen genotypes are associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Premedication with antihistamine and systemic corticosteroids is another therapeutic strategy to prevent infusion reactions for certain biologicals and chemotherapeutic agents, in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, ICM and GCM DHR, and clonal mast cell disorders. Rapid drug desensitization may also be used to induce temporary tolerance in situations where there are limited alternative drugs.

The nature and reported incidence of suspected perioperative allergic reactions: A cross-sectional survey

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Perioperative allergic reactions (POHs) are common and can lead to severe intraoperative instability and even mortality. In contrast to the situation in developed countries, where databases of perioperative anaphylaxis are well documented and analyzed, relevant data are lacking in China. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a national survey to explore the characteristics of perioperative allergic reactions, as well as the knowledge and attitudes toward management and reporting among anesthesiologists.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Anesthesia department.

PATIENTS

A nationally representative sample comprising anesthesiologists from 12 province-level regions was selected.

MEASUREMENTS

A 20-item questionnaire was designed and validated using the Delphi method. Survey distribution was performed between June 2019 and January 2020 by the Chinese Society of Anesthesiology (CSA), which is the official academic society of Chinese anesthesiologists. Responses were compiled and analyzed.

MAIN RESULTS

We received responses from 4389 anesthesiologists across China. The estimated rate of suspected POH was 2/1000 patients (0.2%). On average, an anesthesiologist encountered 2.1 suspected POH cases per year. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) were perceived as the most common causative agents, followed by antibiotics and succinylated gelatin. The rates of referral and allergy consultations were very low. Institutional support, including protocol development, cognitive aids, and tool kits, was not ideal. Additionally, the management of POH varied substantially. Most anesthesiologists believed that reporting and documenting POH was necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey revealed that POH is commonly encountered by Chinese anesthesiologists, but few patients are referred to allergy specialists or clinics for further investigation. A standardized recommendation based on research and data derived from Chinese patients is required.

Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood and outcomes of subsequent anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Pediatric perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare, and possibly life-threatening. Identification of precise etiology is crucial to circumvent future re-exposures.

AIMS

We aim to evaluate the clinical features and triggers of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in children, and determine the outcomes of subsequent general anesthesia.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed with patients who underwent skin testing for general anesthesia between 2007 and 2019. We noted demographic features and skin tests (neuromuscular blocking agents, induction agents, and antibiotics). We also recorded specific immunoglobulin Es or provocation results of drugs or substances (latex, chlorhexidine, and ethylene oxide) that patients were exposed to antecedent to the reaction. Telephone interviews were performed to determine the current status of the participants and reconsider subsequent anesthesia.

RESULTS

We enrolled 50 children (58% male) with a suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reaction. The median age was 6.67 (4.4-11.5) years, and the median time between the reaction, and skin tests was 4 (1-36) months. The most common potential causative agents were neuromuscular blocking agents (n = 8), midazolam (n = 3), ketamine (n = 2), and propofol (n = 1). Three children exhibited hypersensitivity to more than one general anesthetics, and three patients were allergic to latex. Thirty-one patients received subsequent anesthesia, and only one patient had a hypersensitivity reaction. A previous history multiple of general anesthesia administration (≥2) increased the risk of reaction to neuromuscular blocking agents.

CONCLUSION

Data on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood are rare due to limited diagnostic procedures. Different preference of general anesthetics may change the causative agent. Meticulous evaluation is necessary to safely administer subsequent anesthesia.

Approach to Perioperative Anaphylaxis in 2020: Updates in Diagnosis and Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of the paper is to review the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and manifestations of perioperative anaphylaxis (POA). We seek to review the most common culprits of POA and different diagnostic modalities for evaluation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Specific IgE testing has a limited role in POA evaluation due to lack of widespread availability and low sensitivity. Basophil activation testing is complementary to skin tests and can assist NMBA sensitivity diagnosis in complex cases. In the past years, there has been an exponential increase in suspected teicoplanin allergic reactions in the European Union. Chlorhexidine is also being increasingly implicated as a culprit in POA. Multiple classes of perioperative medications cause POA. Diagnostic modalities available include skin testing with nonirritating concentrations, basophil activation tests, specific IgE, and drug provocation testing. An accurate record and critical analysis of perioperative events is more important than isolated test results. Future studies evaluating the pathophysiology of these reactions and other therapeutic strategies, such as targeting the MRGPRX2 receptor, are needed.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis]

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Effect of body mass index and rocuronium on serum tryptase concentration during volatile general anesthesia: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

Female sex, body mass index (BMI), and neuromuscular blocking agents are risk factors of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions. This study aimed to investigate the effect of rocuronium on serum tryptase concentrations during general anesthesia in overweight and obese women.

METHODS

The study was conducted in two groups: Group I (n=66) underwent volatile anesthesia with rocuronium and group II (n=60) underwent volatile anesthesia without any muscle relaxant. Serum tryptase concentration (STC) measurements were performed at baseline (STC 0) and postoperatively (STC 1). ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04035707 RESULTS: The highest median value of STC 0 was seen in obese patients (3.44 μg L-1) and it was significantly higher than in overweight (p=0.01) and underweight patients (p=0.03). The maximum STC 0 was observed in overweight patients (20.4 μg L-1). In group I, STC 0 in obese patients presented the highest median value (4.49 μg L-1), and was significantly higher than in overweight patients (p=0.03), and had significantly higher STC 1 than patients with normal BMI (p=0.04). STC 0 and STC 1 in overweight and obese female patients did not differ significantly between groups. STC 1 did not correlate with rocuronium doses. In group I, BMI positively correlated with the duration of rocuronium infusion (rho=0.37) and STC 1 positively correlated with BMI (rho=0.32).

CONCLUSION

Excess weight and obesity predispose to higher preoperative serum tryptase values. Postoperative STC is not linked to rocuronium doses. BMI is the main determinant factor of STC during combined volatile general anesthesia.

Recent developments and highlights in drug hypersensitivity

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are nowadays the third cause of allergy after rhinitis and asthma with a significant increase in prevalence in both adults and paediatric population with new drugs included as culprit. For this, DHRs represent not only a health problem but also a significant financial burden for affected individuals and health systems. Mislabelling DHRs is showing to be a relevant problem for both, false label of drug allergic and false label of nonallergic. All this reinforces the need to improve accurate diagnostic approaches that allow an appropriate management. Moreover, there is a need for training both, nonallergist stakeholders and patients to improve the reaction identification and therefore decrease the mislabelling. The use of allergy cards has shown to be relevant to avoid the induction of DHRs due to the prescription of wrong medication. Recent developments over the last 2 years and highlights about risk factors, diagnostic approaches, mechanisms involved as well as prevention actions, and management have been reviewed. In these papers, it has been outlined the need for correct diagnosis and de-labelling of patients previously false-reported as allergic, which will improve the management and treatment of patients with DHRs.

Peri-Operative Anaphylaxis-An Investigational Challenge

Patients with suspected peri-operative anaphylaxis (POP) require thorough investigation to identify underlying trigger(s) and enable safe anesthesia for subsequent surgery. The changing epidemiology of POP has been striking. Previous estimates of the incidence of POP have ranged between 1:6,000 and1:20,000 anesthetics, but more recent data from France and the United Kingdom suggest an estimated incidence of 1:10,000. Other important changes include a change in the hierarchy of well-recognized triggers, with antibiotics (beta-lactams) supplanting neuromuscular blockers (NMB) as the leading cause of POP. The emergence of chlorhexidine, patent blue dye, and teicoplanin as important triggers have also been noteworthy findings. The mainstay of investigation revolves around critical analysis of the time-line of events leading up to anaphylaxis coupled with judicious skin testing. Skin tests have limitations with respect to unknown predictive values for most drugs/agents and therefore, knowledge of background positivity in healthy controls, test characteristics of individual drugs and the use of non-irritant concentrations is essential to avoid both false-positive and false-negative results. Specific IgE assays for individual drugs are available only for a limited number of agents and are not a substitute for skin testing. Acute serum total tryptase has a high specificity and positive predictive value in IgE-mediated POP anaphylaxis but is limited by its moderate sensitivity and negative predictive value. Planning for safe anesthesia in this group of patients is particularly challenging and consequently anesthetists need to be alert to the possibility of repeat episodes of anaphylaxis. Because of the limitations of current investigations for POP, collecting systematic data on the outcome of repeat anesthesia is valuable in validating current investigatory approaches. This paper reviews the changing epidemiology of POP with reference to the main triggers, and the investigation and outcome of subsequent anesthesia.

Anaesthetic management of patients with pre-existing allergic conditions: a narrative review

This narrative review seeks to distinguish the clinical patterns of pre-existing allergic conditions from other confounding non-allergic clinical entities, and to identify the potential related risks and facilitate their perioperative management. Follow-up investigation should be performed after a perioperative immediate hypersensitivity to establish a diagnosis and provide advice for subsequent anaesthetics, the main risk factor for perioperative immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylaxis being a previous uninvestigated perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction. The concept of cross-reactivity between drugs used in the perioperative setting and food is often quoted, but usually not supported by evidence. There is no reason to avoid propofol in egg, soy, or peanut allergy. The allergenic determinants have been characterised for fish, shellfish, and povidone iodine, but remain unknown for iodinated contrast agents. Iodinated drugs may be used in seafood allergy. Evidence supporting the risk for protamine allergy in fish allergy and in neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin use is lacking. Conversely, cross-reactivity to gelatin-based colloid may occur in α-gal syndrome. Atopy and allergic asthma along with other non-allergic conditions, such as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease, chronic urticaria, mastocytosis, and hereditary or acquired angioedema, are not risk factors for IgE-mediated drug allergy, but there is a perioperative risk associated with the potential for exacerbation of the various conditions.