The Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis, a prospective nationwide study: clinical signs, severity, and therapeutic agents

Unraveling the Cause of Perioperative Anaphylaxis: The Role of Patent Blue Dye and Midazolam

We report a case of anaphylactic shock in a patient scheduled for a left mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy who was found to be allergic to both midazolam and patent blue dye. This case underscores the occurrence of dual drug allergy in a single patient, with the possibility of synergistic effects that cannot be ruled out. Additionally, it emphasizes the vital role of the immunoallergology team in suspected anaphylaxis cases, as their specialized knowledge is crucial for establishing an accurate diagnosis and identifying the causative agents.

Sugammadex hypersensitivity: a multicentre retrospective analysis of a large Australian cohort

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex hypersensitivity is an emerging safety concern. We aimed to describe the clinical and diagnostic features of perioperative hypersensitivity to sugammadex, and secondarily to provide an estimate of perioperative sugammadex hypersensitivity incidence in Australia.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed cases of hypersensitivity to sugammadex diagnosed by positive intradermal or skin prick testing at six perioperative allergy clinics in Australia. We included all grades of hypersensitivity and compared life-threatening with non-life-threatening presentations. Incidence of hypersensitivity events was estimated relative to the estimated number of sugammadex administrations across two health services between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2023.

RESULTS

Thirty cases were included (15 life-threatening and 15 non-life-threatening). The most common clinical signs were hypotension (n=25, 83.3%) and flushing/erythema (n=21, 70%). The median time to recognition of hypersensitivity was 5 (interquartile range 2-7.5) min. Five cases were recognised 10-30 min after administration. Serum tryptase was measured in 28 (93.3%) patients. Tryptase was positive in 15 (100%) life-threatening cases and nine (69.2%) non-life-threatening cases. The estimated incidence of sugammadex hypersensitivity was 0.004% (95% confidence interval 0.002-0.008%).

CONCLUSIONS

Sugammadex hypersensitivity presents similarly to other causes of perioperative hypersensitivity, however recognition can be delayed. The combination of positive serum tryptase and positive skin tests suggests an IgE-mediated mechanism of hypersensitivity. The estimated incidence of sugammadex hypersensitivity in Australia is lower than earlier reports.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of tryptase and histamine for perioperative anaphylaxis: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) is often challenging. Although a guideline recommends measuring tryptase rather than histamine, there is little evidence for this. We aimed to examine the diagnostic performance and appropriate timing of tryptase and histamine measurements for diagnosing anaphylaxis, and the association between Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme (HCSS) scores and elevated biomarkers.

METHODS

We measured tryptase and histamine levels thrice: 30 min, 2 h, and at least 24 h after an anaphylactic event for patients with suspected anaphylaxis, and at the induction of general anesthesia and 30 min and 2 h after the start of surgery for control patients without a reaction. Absolute values and the magnitude and rate of change from baseline were evaluated. We determined the thresholds of tryptase and histamine levels with the best diagnostic performance and compared their performance.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients with perioperative anaphylaxis were included in this study. The control group included 30 patients with uneventful general anesthesia and 12 patients with a suspected but unconfirmed diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis. Comparison at the same measurement timings showed that tryptase generally had better diagnostic performance than histamine. Both showed better diagnostic performance when assessed using multiple measurements rather than a single measurement. The best diagnostic performance was seen with the percentage change in the higher tryptase value, whether measured at 30 min or 2 h after anaphylaxis onset, as compared to baseline. However, neither tryptase nor histamine levels correlated with HCSS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, tryptase showed better diagnostic performance than histamine. When multiple tryptase measurements are possible, parameters calculated using two acute phase measurements and the baseline level have better diagnostic performance.

Cardiac Arrest Due to Perioperative Anaphylactic Shock Induced by Re-Exposure to Propofol: A Case Report

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that can result in fatal outcomes if not promptly and appropriately treated. The diagnosis of the cause of anaphylaxis during anesthesia can be challenging due to the complexity of the perioperative environment. Propofol-induced perioperative anaphylaxis is uncommon, occurring in perioperative anaphylactic shock cases. We present a case of perioperative anaphylactic shock in a patient with no known allergies who had been exposed to the same anesthetic agents, propofol, rocuronium, and remifentanil, three times previously without incident. Cardiac arrest occurred 50 min after induction, which showed pulseless electrical activity with decreasing saturation without bronchial spasm and skin erythema or edema. After prompt and appropriate management including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the patient recovered without complications. The diagnosis was confirmed as propofol-induced anaphylactic shock by an elevated serum tryptase level, measured in a timely manner, and by skin tests (skin prick test and intradermal test), which revealed strong hypersensitivity to propofol. This case is notable for the cardiovascular collapse that occurred without respiratory symptoms or skin manifestations, as well as the delayed onset of anaphylaxis (>50 min). This case underscores the importance of vigilance for anaphylaxis, even with repeated exposure to previously well-tolerated drugs, as sensitization can lead to more severe reactions. It also highlights the potential for anaphylaxis to occur outside the acute phase and without typical clinical features.

Management and treatment of perioperative hypersensitivity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare but potentially catastrophic events. This review acts to summarize recent recommendations for both immediate and poststabilization management of suspected reactions, alongside practical advice for anaesthetists who may be faced with these events.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prompt treatment is essential but may be hampered by delay in recognition. This can occur because there are multiple differential diagnoses for the observed clinical signs as well as variations in clinical presentation. Resuscitation is dependent on the use of adrenaline and fluids. Adrenaline should be administered in small, titrated intravenous boluses. Low-dose infusions should be commenced early if the response to boluses is poor. Large volume fluid resuscitation may be required to maintain adequate circulating volume. Chest compressions are recommended when there is evidence of inadequate perfusion, rather than waiting until cardiac arrest is confirmed. Antihistamines and corticosteroids are no longer recommended in the immediate management phase. Once the patient has been stabilized, it is important to obtain serial tryptase concentrations to aid the subsequent clinic investigation. The decision to proceed or abandon surgery will be based on an individual risk-benefit analysis. All cases of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity, including fatal cases, must be referred for formal investigation.

SUMMARY

There have been recent updates to management guidelines in perioperative hypersensitivity. Treatment algorithms, treatment packs and referral packs can all help the anaesthetist manage these complex cases, aid the subsequent investigation and ensure patient safety in the future.

Epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France in 2017-2018: the 11th GERAP survey

BACKGROUND

Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare but is associated with significant morbidity. This complication has been well described in France by the GERAP (Groupe d'Etude des Réactions Anaphylactiques Périopératoires), a network focused on its study. The epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis is evolving, influenced by environmental factors and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to update the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France.

METHODS

This multicentre retrospective study was performed in 26 allergy clinics of the GERAP network in 2017-8.

RESULTS

There were 765 patients with perioperative anaphylaxis included. Most cases were severe, with 428 (56%) reactions graded as 3 or 4 according to the Ring and Messmer classification. Skin test results were available for 676 patients, with a culprit agent identified in 471 cases (70%). Neuromuscular blocking agents were the main cause of perioperative anaphylaxis (n=281; 60%), followed by antibiotics (n=118; 25%) and patent blue dye (n=11; 2%). Cefazolin was the main antibiotic responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis (52% of antibiotic-related reactions). Suxamethonium and rocuronium were the main neuromuscular blocking agents responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis with 7.1 (6.1-8.4) and 5.6 (4.2-7.4) reactions per 100,000 vials sold, respectively, whereas cefazolin-related cases were estimated at 0.7 (0.5-0.9) reactions per 100,000 vials sold.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that most commonly identified triggering agents remain neuromuscular blocking agents. Reactions to antibiotics, particularly cefazolin, are becoming increasingly frequent. The origin of sensitisation to cefazolin is unknown, as no cross-sensitisation has been described, and it should be the subject of further study. Perioperative anaphylaxis should be followed over the years and understood given the changing triggers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04654923).

Peri-operative cardiac arrest due to suspected anaphylaxis as reported to the 7th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists

The 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists studied peri-operative cardiac arrest. Among 59 cases reported as possible anaphylaxis, 33 (56%) were judged to be so by the review panel with high or moderate confidence. Causes in excluded cases included: isolated severe hypotension; bronchospasm; and oesophageal intubation. Severe bronchospasm leading to cardiac arrest was uncommon, but notably in one case led to a reported flat capnograph. In the baseline survey, anaesthetists estimated anaphylaxis as the cause of 10% of cases of peri-operative cardiac arrests and to be among the four most common causes. In a year-long registry of peri-operative cardiac arrest, suspected anaphylaxis was the seventh most common cause accounting for 4% of reports. Initial management was most often with low-dose intravenous adrenaline, and this was without complications. Both the NAP7 baseline survey and case registry provided evidence of reluctance to starting chest compressions when systolic blood pressure had fallen to below 50 mmHg and occasionally even when it was unrecordable. All 33 patients were resuscitated successfully but one patient later died. The one death occurred in a relatively young patient in whom chest compressions were delayed. Overall, peri-operative anaphylaxis leading to cardiac arrest occurred with a similar frequency and patterns of presentation, location, initial rhythm and suspected triggers in NAP7 as in the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6). Outcomes in NAP7 were generally better than for equivalent cases in NAP6.

Emergency treatment of peri-operative anaphylaxis: Resuscitation Council UK algorithm for anaesthetists

Peri-operative anaphylaxis is a rare but potentially catastrophic event which must be considered whenever unexpected and significant cardiovascular or respiratory compromise occurs during anaesthesia. The Resuscitation Council UK algorithm for peri-operative anaphylaxis highlights the importance of early intravenous adrenaline and fluid resuscitation and provides guidance on the treatment of refractory anaphylaxis and immediate follow-up. This algorithm is endorsed by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, Association of Anaesthetists, British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and Clinical Immunology Professional Network of the British Society for Immunology. This document was produced by the Perioperative Allergy Network steering committee in collaboration with the Resuscitation Council UK.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis in Japanese Secondary Care Institutions: Incidence, Causes, and the Imperative for Improved Diagnostic Practices

Background This research investigates the incidence, suspected causes, and diagnostic procedures for perioperative anaphylaxis (POA), a potentially severe complication, in secondary care hospitals across Japan. Methodology We surveyed Saiseikai hospitals and gathered data on surgical procedures, POA occurrences, potential triggers, and diagnostic methods. Results Among 70,523 surgeries, seven were associated with POA, resulting in an approximate incidence rate of 0.01%. Rocuronium was the most commonly suspected trigger, followed by sugammadex, latex, and angiography contrast agents. Despite the importance of skin tests as the most basic and crucial diagnostic method, they were conducted in only three instances. No in vitro tests for drug identification were conducted, and in four cases, the cause was determined merely based on the timing of drug administration, indicating significant diagnostic limitations. Conclusions The study underscores the critical situation in Japan regarding insufficient diagnostic practices and difficulties in identifying triggering drugs rather than the consistent prevalence of POA in secondary care facilities. The findings emphasize the need for improved diagnostic proficiency and more rigorous drug identification practices to ensure prompt and accurate POA diagnosis. It is essential to conduct further research and interventions to increase patient safety during the perioperative period in secondary care settings.

Investigating the optimal diagnostic value of histamine for diagnosing perioperative hypersensitivity: a prospective, observational study

Although several guidelines recommend measuring blood tryptase and histamine concentrations to diagnose perioperative anaphylaxis (POA), tryptase measurement is more common. The appropriate timing of blood collection and the diagnostic threshold for histamine measurement are still controversial. To address these issues, histamine concentrations in patients with anaphylaxis and those with anaphylaxis-uncertain were compared in our previous study, the Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis (JESPA). However, because we could not rule out the possibility that the anaphylactic-uncertain group included anaphylactic patients, histamine concentrations were measured in patients who underwent general anesthesia with no complications as controls in the present study. Histamine levels were measured at anesthesia induction (baseline), 30 min (first point), and 2 h (second point) after the start of surgery in 30 control patients. Histamine concentrations in controls were lower than in patients with POA in JESPA at the first and second points. At the first point, a threshold of 1.5 ng/ml resulted in sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 100%. A threshold of 1.1 ng/ml at the second point resulted in sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 87%. Measurement of histamine concentrations within two hours after symptom onset might help diagnose POA.