Perioperative Allergic Reactions: Allergy Assessment and Subsequent Anesthesia

Perioperative anaphylaxis manifesting as cardiac arrest during cardiac surgery

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a serious entity with high morbidity and mortality. Perioperative anaphylaxis can be caused by any of the multitude of medications and substances used in anesthesia and surgery, and the most common causes include neuromuscular blocking agents, antibiotics, antiseptics, latex, and dyes. The differential diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is wide from both an immunologic and a nonimmunologic standpoint. The majority of the intraoperative anaphylaxis reactions are thought to be immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated; however, other primary non-IgE-mediated mechanisms can also be present. Clinical manifestations can vary from mild cutaneous exanthema to cardiac arrest. Tryptase can be helpful in identifying perioperative anaphylaxis. In this article, we present the case of a 75-year-old man who had a cardiac arrest without skin symptoms perioperatively during coronary artery bypass surgery. We describe the presentation, strategic evaluation, and subsequent management with recommendations for future surgery based on his evaluation and the identified culprit. Subsequent surgery was later completed. Understanding the clinical presentation, key components of testing, and recommendations for future management of perioperative anaphylaxis are invaluable skills that the allergist can provide for the patient and the anesthesia and surgery teams.

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.

Case Report: Isosulfan Blue-Related Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute multisystem syndrome typically resulting from the sudden release of mast cell and basophil-derived mediators into the circulatory system. Isosulfan blue dye is a rare, but known, mediator of anaphylaxis with an incidence between 0.16% and 2% of cases. We report two cases of anaphylaxis attributed to the use of isosulfan blue dye in the intraoperative setting. Both of the patients we report had grade 3 anaphylactic reactions requiring vasopressors to correct significant hypotension. Both patients required overnight monitoring in the intensive care unit with the second patient also requiring continued vasopressor support.

The Nonirritating Concentrations of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents and Related Compounds

BACKGROUND

Skin testing (ST) concentrations of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), NMBA-reversal agents, and the sugammadex-rocuronium inclusion complex (S-R-Cx) vary widely among reports.

OBJECTIVE

To determine maximal ST nonirritant concentrations (NICs) of NMBAs (cisatracurium, rocuronium, succinylcholine, and vecuronium), NMBA-reversal agents (neostigmine and sugammadex), and S-R-Cx in NMBA-tolerant and NMBA-naïve participants.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective study between October 2019 and November 2021 of adult participants with or without a planned surgical procedure. The reference standard was tolerance of medication tested during a procedure (NMBA-tolerant group) before ST. Participants received skin prick testing (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) injections at 5-7 increasing concentrations of 1 or more medications. All medications were reconstituted according to package insert instructions and diluted with 0.9% saline. A concentration was considered irritant when more than 5% of participants had a positive test per ST positivity criteria (wheal ≥3 mm than initial wheal and associated erythema of the same size or greater than wheal). We also compared our results with current guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 187 participants (78% NMBA-tolerant) underwent 7812 skin tests. All undiluted SPT concentrations were nonirritant. We found the following maximal IDT NICs (mg/mL): cisatracurium (0.02), rocuronium (0.05), succinylcholine (0.8), vecuronium (0.01), neostigmine (0.2), sugammadex (50), and S-R-Cx (sugammadex 7.14 + rocuronium 2).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that SPT may be performed with undiluted stock concentrations. We confirm maximal IDT NICs for cisatracurium and rocuronium. We also propose that currently recommended maximal IDT NICs of succinylcholine, neostigmine, sugammadex, and S-R-Cx could be increased, whereas the maximal IDT NIC of vecuronium could be decreased compared with current guidelines and prior reports.

Allergic and other adverse reactions to drugs used in anesthesia and surgery

The list of drugs patients may be exposed to during the perioperative and postoperative periods is potentially extensive. It includes induction agents, neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs), opioids, antibiotics, sugammadex, colloids, local anesthetics, polypeptides, antifibrinolytic agents, heparin and related anticoagulants, blue dyes, chlorhexidine, and a range of other agents depending on several factors related to individual patients’ clinical condition and progress in the postoperative recovery period. To avoid poor or ultrarapid metabolizers to a particular drug (for example tramadol and codeine) or possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs), some drugs may need to be avoided during or after surgery. This will be the case for patients with a history of anaphylaxis or other adverse events/intolerances to a known drug. Other drugs may be ceased for a period before surgery, e.g., anticoagulants that increase the chance of bleeding; diuretics for patients with acute renal failure; antihypertensives relative to kidney injury after major vascular surgery; and serotonergic drugs that together with some opioids may rarely induce serotonin toxicity. Studies of germline variations shown by genotyping and phenotyping to identify a predisposition of genetic factors to ADRs offer an increasingly important approach to individualize drug therapy. Studies of associations of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes with some serious delayed immune-mediated reactions are ongoing and variations of drug-metabolizing cytochrome CYP450 enzymes, P-glycoprotein, and catechol-O -methyltransferase show promise for the assessment of ADRs and non-responses to drugs, particularly opioids and other analgesics. Surveys of ADRs from an increasing number of institutions often cover small numbers of patients, are retrospective in nature, fail to clearly identify culprit drugs, and do not adequately distinguish immune-mediated from non-immune-mediated anaphylactoid reactions. From the many surveys undertaken, the large list of agents identified during and after anesthesia and surgery are examined for their ADR involvement. Drugs are classified into those most often involved, (NMBD and antibiotics); drugs that are becoming more frequently implicated, namely antibiotics (particularly teicoplanin), and blue dyes; those becoming less frequently involved; and drugs more rarely involved in perioperative, and postoperative adverse reactions but still important and necessary to keep in mind for the occasional potential sensitive patient. Clinicians should be aware of the similarities between drug-induced true allergic type I IgE/FcεRI- and pseudoallergic MRGPRX2-mediated ADRs, the clinical features of each, and their distinguishing characteristics. Procedures for identifying MRGPRX2 agonists and diagnosing and distinguishing pseudoallergic from allergic reaction mechanisms are discussed.

Could Artificial Intelligence Prevent Intraoperative Anaphylaxis? Reference Review and Proof of Concept

Drugs and various medical substances have been used for many decades to diagnose or treat diseases. Procedures like surgery and anesthesia (either local or general) use different pharmacological products during these events. In most of the cases, the procedure is safe and the physician performs the technique without incidents. Although they are safe for use, these substances (including drugs) may have adverse effects, varying from mild ones to life-threatening reactions in a minority of patients. Artificial intelligence may be a useful tool in approximating the risk of anaphylaxis before undertaking a medical procedure. This material presents these undesirable responses produced by medical products from a multidisciplinary point of view. Moreover, we present a proof of concept for using artificial intelligence as a possible guardship against intraoperative anaphylaxis.

Acute Urticaria and Anaphylaxis: Differences and Similarities in Clinical Management

Acute urticaria is a common condition that presents with wheals and/or angioedema. However, these symptoms are also frequent in anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction that should be immediately diagnosed and treated. In both, mast cells play a central role in the physiopathology. Causes and triggers of acute urticaria and anaphylaxis are similar in general, but some peculiarities can be observed. The diagnostic approach may differ, accordingly to the condition, suspicious causes, age groups and regions. Adrenaline is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, but not for acute urticaria, where H1-antihistamines are the first choice. In this paper, we review the main aspects, similarities and differences regarding definitions, mechanisms, causes, diagnosis and treatment of acute urticaria and anaphylaxis.

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.

Mechanisms of human drug-induced anaphylaxis

Drug-induced anaphylaxis is a hyperacute reaction affecting multiple organs that can be of fatal consequence. Its incidence is increasing, consistent with a global increased sensitization to various allergens and drugs in the population. Few risk factors and mechanisms have been identified from human studies due to the rarity of anaphylactic events and their unpredictability. This systemic reaction is caused by the rapid release of a large range of functionally diverse mediators, including histamine and platelet-activating factor as the main drivers identified. Mechanisms defined from models of experimental anaphylaxis identify drug-specific antibodies of the IgE and IgG class that link the drug to antibody receptors on multiple cell types, causing their activation and mediator release. In the case of drugs with peculiar chemical structures, antibodies may not be necessary because drug-binding receptors, such as Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor member X2, have been identified. This review describes the complex reaction leading to drug-induced anaphylaxis that can involve various antibody classes, various cell types-including mast cells, neutrophils, platelets, basophils, macrophages, and monocytes-and their mediators and receptors that, importantly, can be activated alone or in association to participate in the severity of the reaction.