Epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis

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.

Neuromuscular blocking agent drug challenge: a literature review and protocol proposal with biological evaluation

BACKGROUND

Drug challenge is the gold standard for identifying causative agents of drug allergies. Although clinical guidelines have recently been published, they do not recommend neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) drug challenges. NMBA challenges are rendered difficult by the lack of homogeneity of routine allergy work-ups and the necessity of a specialised setting. Several scenarios support NMBA challenges, such as an ambiguous allergy work-up, a high suspicion of a false-positive skin test or identification of a well tolerated alternative NMBA strategy. Furthermore, routine allergy work-ups may not recognise non-IgE mechanisms, such as IgG or MRGPRX2, whereas drug challenges may reveal them. Finally, if the culprit NMBA is not identified, subsequent anaesthesia regimens will be challenging to implement, resulting in increased risk.

OBJECTIVES

This literature review discusses the indications, strategies, doses, monitoring methods, limitations, and unresolved issues related to drug challenges for NMBAs.

DESIGN

The literature review included randomised controlled trials, observational studies, reviews, case reports, series, and comments on humans.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were retrieved from databases (PubMed) and electronic libraries (OVID, EMBASE, Scopus, etc.).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All studies that referred to the NMBA challenge were included without publication date limitations.

RESULTS

NMBA challenge may be considered in NMBA anaphylaxis patients with inconclusive or ambivalent IgE diagnostic work-up under controlled conditions (presence of anaesthetists and allergists with continuous monitoring in a secured environment). To illustrate its utility, a case report of a double NMBA challenge in a patient with NMBA cross-reactivity is presented, along with biological explorations to detect subclinical cellular activation, a novel aspect of this procedure.

CONCLUSION

Drug challenges could be implemented during the NMBA allergy work-up under strict safety conditions at specialised centres with close collaboration between anaesthetists and allergists. This could decrease uncertainty and contribute to defining a safer strategy for subsequent anaesthetic drug regimens.

Remimazolam-Induced Anaphylaxis and Cardiovascular Collapse: A Narrative Systematic Review of Eleven Cases

Background and Objectives: Remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, is used for procedural sedation and general anesthesia due to its rapid onset and short duration of action. However, remimazolam-induced anaphylaxis (RIA) is a rare but severe complication. This study aimed to analyze RIA characteristics, focusing on cardiovascular collapse, and provide guidelines for safe remimazolam use. Methods: This study conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. Research articles retrieved from PubMed on 26 May 2023, using the keywords 'remimazolam AND anaphylaxis' were evaluated based on the inclusion criteria of being written in English and aligning with the World Allergy Organization criteria for anaphylaxis, while studies not meeting these criteria were excluded. All published articles up to the search date were included without any date restrictions. The review analyzed factors such as age, sex, type of anesthesia, remimazolam dose (bolus/continuous), allergic symptoms and sign, epinephrine use, serum tryptase levels, and skin prick tests. Results: Among eleven cases, the mean age was 55.6 ± 19.6 years, with 81.8% male. Hypotension (81.8%) was the most common symptom, followed by bradycardia (54.5%) and desaturation (36.4%). Two patients experienced cardiac arrest. Serum tryptase levels confirmed anaphylaxis in ten cases. Epinephrine was the primary treatment, with intravenous doses ranging from 0.1 mg to 0.3 mg. Conclusions: Vigilance is crucial when administering remimazolam, adhering to recommended dosages, and promptly treating RIA with epinephrine. Further research is needed to understand the risk factors and refine the management strategies. Guidelines for safe remimazolam use are proposed.

Interactions of naturally occurring compounds with antimicrobials

Antibiotics are among the most often used medications in human healthcare and agriculture. Overusing these substances can lead to complications such as increasing antibiotic resistance in bacteria or a toxic effect when administering large amounts. To solve these problems, new solutions in antibacterial therapy are needed. The use of natural products in medicine has been known for centuries. Some of them have antibacterial activity, hence the idea to combine their activity with commercial antibiotics to reduce the latter's use. This review presents collected information on natural compounds (terpenes, alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, sulfoxides, and mycotoxins), of which various drug interactions have been observed. Many of the indicated compounds show synergistic or additive interactions with antibiotics, which suggests their potential for use in antibacterial therapy, reducing the toxicity of the antibiotics used and the risk of further development of bacterial resistance. Unfortunately, there are also compounds which interact antagonistically, potentially hindering the therapy of bacterial infection. Depending on its mechanism of action, each compound can behave differently in combination with different antibiotics and when acting against various bacterial strains.

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 Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis, a prospective nationwide study: allergen exposure, epidemiology, and diagnosis of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is often challenging. This study describes the utility of a newly developed tool for identifying patients with a high possibility of anaphylaxis, and aimed to investigate the frequency of anaphylaxis with each drug during the perioperative period in Japan.

METHODS

This study included patients with anaphylaxis of Grade 2 or higher severity during general anaesthesia at 42 facilities across Japan in 2019 and 2020. We developed and adopted a unique objective evaluation tool yielding a composite score for diagnosing anaphylaxis, which includes the results of skin tests and basophil activation tests, and clinical scores for perioperative anaphylaxis. The number of cases using each drug and the total number of anaphylaxis cases were investigated to calculate the frequency of anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

General anaesthesia was performed in 218 936 cases, which included 55 patients with suspected perioperative anaphylaxis. The developed composite score diagnosed 43 of them with a high probability of anaphylaxis. The causative agent was identified in 32 cases. Plasma histamine levels showed high diagnostic accuracy for anaphylaxis. The top causative agents were rocuronium (10 cases in 210 852 patients, 0.005%), sugammadex (7 cases in 150 629 patients, 0.005%), and cefazolin (7 cases in 106 005 patients, 0.007%).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a composite tool to diagnose anaphylaxis, and found that the combination of tryptase levels, skin testing, and basophil activation testing results and clinical score improved the certainty of anaphylaxis diagnosis. The incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis in our study was 1 in about 5000 general anaesthesia cases.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000035350.

Ten-year outcomes of Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong (PAWS-HK): Performance of diagnostic modalities

BACKGROUND

Studies on perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) in Asia are lacking. Furthermore, allergy workup for PA has largely been limited to the "silver standard" of skin tests (ST). Using in vitro tests as an adjunct to ST may improve and overcome these diagnostic challenges.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical characteristics and diagnostic tests of patients with suspected PA through the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong cohort.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of PA over a 10-year period were recruited into the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong. We reviewed the medical records, tryptase elevation, and diagnostic tests including ST, specific immunoglobulin E, and basophil activation tests (BAT).

RESULTS

In 151 patients with PA, diagnosis was reached in three-fourths of the cases (113/151, 74.8%). The most common culprits identified were neuromuscular blocking agents (25.8%), β lactams (17.2%) and chlorhexidine (13.9%). Severe anaphylaxis was associated with female sex, older age, elevated acute tryptase levels, and more cardiovascular manifestations during induction. Skin tests remained the most sensitive diagnostic modality overall (66.2%). BAT showed better performance for chlorhexidine and gelofusine anaphylaxis, with sensitivity of 80.0% and 79.6%, respectively. Specific Immunoglobulin E indicated even higher sensitivity (95.2%) than did ST (85.0%) and BAT (80.0%) for chlorhexidine anaphylaxis but performed poorly for other drugs.

CONCLUSION

Neuromuscular blocking agents remain the most common culprit in PA. There was a higher prevalence of gelofusine anaphylaxis in our cohort than was seen in the literature. Skin tests remain the most sensitive testing modality. In vitro tests for chlorhexidine and gelofusine showed promising results, but more studies to further elucidate its use are warranted.

Perioperative Hypersensitivity Evaluation and Management: A Practical Approach

Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening event. Identification of POH can be difficult given the lack of familiarity, physiological effects of anesthesia, draping of the patient during surgery, and potential nonimmunological factors contributing to signs and symptoms. Given the unique nature and large number of medications administered in the perioperative setting, evaluation of POH can be challenging. In this paper, we present a practical approach to management with an emphasis on understanding what happens in the operating room, the overlap of signs and symptoms between nonimmunological and immunological reactions, acute management, and subsequent evaluation. In addition, we provide a strategy for further review of an initially negative evaluation and emphasize the importance of establishing management plans for the patient as well as providing recommendations to the medical, anesthesia, and surgical teams for future surgeries. A critical factor for successful management at all points in the process is a close collaboration between the anesthesia and the allergy teams.

Diagnostic value of a medical algorithm for investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is challenging, and accurate screening tools are needed to optimize the diagnostic process. We aimed to assess and validate the diagnostic value of a published algorithm (using tryptase and clinical presentation) to identify appropriate individuals for further testing for IgE-mediated POH.

METHODS

We analysed the clinical presentation (tryptase elevation, cardiovascular, respiratory, skin involvement) of patients proceeding to testing for possible IgE-mediated POH at a single tertiary referral centre, relative to subsequent skin testing and specific IgE results. Clinical presentations by drug class were also determined.

RESULTS

In 293 consecutive patients, the use of a published algorithm based on one or more of; (i) defined increase in serum tryptase, (ii) involvement of at least two-organ systems, or (iii) presentation with new urticaria and/or angioedema; was highly sensitive [98.8% (CI95: 95.7-99.9%)] but less specific [34.6% (CI95: 25.7-44.4%)] in identifying patients testing positive on skin testing and/or specific IgE. Presentation with cardiovascular symptoms was also sensitive [89.8%(CI95: 84.2-94.0%)], while the combination of respiratory symptoms and increased tryptase was most specific [85.9%(CI95:76.6-92.5%)]. Respiratory involvement was more common in neuromuscular blocking agent allergy, while urticaria/angioedema was more common in antibiotic allergy.

CONCLUSION

The published algorithm (of tryptase rise, two-organ involvement or new urticaria/angioedema) is highly sensitive, and appropriate as a screening tool to identify patients suitable for testing for IgE-mediated POH.

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.

Combined Treatment with KV Channel Inhibitor 4-Aminopyridine and either γ-Cystathionine Lyase Inhibitor β-Cyanoalanine or Epinephrine Restores Blood Pressure, and Improves Survival in the Wistar Rat Model of Anaphylactic Shock

Simple Summary

Allergic diseases are presenting a constant increase all over the world and caused by such different substances as food, drugs, and pollens. Anaphylactic shock is the more severe complication of allergy which can induce death if the treatment is not administered immediately. Some patients do not respond to the recommended treatment, intra venous or intramuscular epinephrine. The pathophysiology of anaphylactic shock is still under investigation. The mediators released after the activation of mast cells and basophiles act on endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells, inducing the vasodilation responsible for hypotension and shock. Nitric oxide and hydrogen sulphide are both intracellular mediators that induce vasodilation. The role of potassium voltage dependent channels is suspected. We aimed to demonstrate the ability of a blocker of potassium voltage dependent channels, 4-aminopyridine, alone or in combination with inhibitors of cystathionine γ-lyase to restore blood pressure and improve survival in an ovalbumin rat anaphylactic shock model. The blockade of potassium voltage dependent channels alone or combined with inhibitors of cystathionine γ-lyase, dl-propargylglycine, or β-cyanoalanine restored blood pressure and improved survival. These findings suggest possible investigative treatment pathways for research concerning epinephrine-refractory anaphylactic shock in patients.

Abstract

The mechanism of anaphylactic shock (AS) remains incompletely understood. The potassium channel blocker 4-aminopyridine (4-AP), the inhibitors of cystathionine γ-lyase (ICSE), dl-propargylglycine (DPG) or β-cyanoalanine (BCA), and the nitric oxide (NO) synthase produce vasoconstriction and could be an alternative for the treatment of AS. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the ability of L-NAME, ICSE alone or in combination with 4-AP to restore blood pressure (BP) and improve survival in ovalbumin (OVA) rats AS. Experimental groups included non-sensitized Wistar rats (n = 6); AS (n = 6); AS (n = 10 per group) treated i.v. with 4-AP (AS+4-AP), epinephrine (AS+EPI), AS+DPG, AS+BCA, or with L-NAME (AS+L-NAME); or AS treated with drug combinations 4-AP+DPG, 4-AP+BCA, 4-AP+L-NAME, or 4-AP+EPI. AS was induced by i.v. OVA (1 mg). Treatments were administered i.v. one minute after AS induction. Mean arterial BP (MAP), heart rate (HR), and survival were monitored for 60 min. Plasma levels of histamine, prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and F2 (PGF2α), leukotriene B4 and C4, angiotensin II, vasopressin, oxidative stress markers, pH, HCO3, PaO2, PaCO2, and K+ were measured. OVA induced severe hypotension and all AS rats died. Moreover, 4-AP, 4-AP+EPI, or 4-AP+BCA normalized both MAP and HR and increased survival. All sensitized rats treated with 4-AP alone or with 4-AP+BCA survived. The time-integrated MAP “area under the curve” was significantly higher after combined 4-AP treatment with ICSE. Metabolic acidosis was not rescued and NO, ICSE, and Kv inhibitors differentially alter oxidative stress and plasma levels of anaphylactic mediators. The AS-induced reduction of serum angiotensin II levels was prevented by 4-AP treatment alone or in combination with other drugs. Further, 4-AP treatment combined with EPI or with BCA also increased serum PGF2α, whereas only the 4-AP+EPI combination increased serum LTB4. Serum vasopressin and angiotensin II levels were increased by 4-AP treatment alone or in combination with other drugs. Moreover, 4-AP alone and in combination with inhibition of cystathionine γ-lyase or EPI normalizes BP, increases serum vasoconstrictor levels, and improves survival in the Wistar rat model of AS. These findings suggest possible investigative treatment pathways for research into epinephrine-refractory anaphylactic shock in patients.

Penicillin Allergy and Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy, while perioperative anaphylaxis is overall rare. This review covers the epidemiology of both penicillin allergy and perioperative anaphylaxis both separately and taken together. Considerations regarding anaphylaxis to penicillin during pregnancy are also discussed, since penicillin is the drug of choice for Group B Streptococcus prophylaxis. The minimal cross reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is addressed, since the vast majority of patients with a penicillin allergy label can receive perioperative cephalosporins. The management of the patient who has experienced perioperative anaphylaxis, including the importance of allergy referral is covered. Approaches to pre-operative penicillin allergy evaluations and opportunities for education are highlighted.

Clinical characteristics and allergen detection of perioperative anaphylaxis: a 12-year retrospective analysis from an anesthesia clinic in China

Abstract

Background

Anaphylaxis during anesthesia is a rare but often a potentially life-threatening event for patients. Identifying culprit agents responsible for anaphylaxis is of great important for avoiding potential re-exposure to allergens, but it poses great challenge for anesthetists. This retrospective study aimed to analyze the culprits of patients with a history of perioperative anaphylaxis referred to an anesthesia allergy clinic in China, and to evaluate the role of allergy diagnostic tests in clinical practice.

Methods

A total of 145 patients (102 female/43 male) who attended the Anesthesia Allergy Clinic for allergen detection between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, results of allergy diagnostic tests including skin, and/or basophil activation tests, and the incidence of repeat anaphylaxis after use of recommended alternative anesthetics were obtained.

Results

Of these 145 patients, 109 patients (75.2%, 74 females/35 males) were determined to experience perioperative anaphylaxis. The most common presenting clinical feature was cardiovascular manifestations (n = 63, 57.8%). According to diagnostic work up, the most common causative agents for perioperative anaphylaxis were neuromuscular blocking agents (n = 35, 32.1%). After diagnostic work up, 52 patients underwent repeat anesthesia. None of these patients experienced recurrent anaphylaxis.

Conclusions

This study suggests that neuromuscular blocking agents are the main cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. For patients with perioperative anaphylaxis, allergy diagnostic tests are essential to identify causative agents, and to find suitable alternative drugs for the future planning of subsequent anesthetics.

Sugammadex-induced anaphylactic reaction: A systematic review

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a rare, but life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Sugammadex is a relatively new drug used to reverse the neuromuscular blockade of specific anesthetics in surgery. Several case reports indicate that there may be a risk of anaphylaxis associated with the use of sugammadex This review examines the literature in order to evaluate the strength of the association between sugammadex use and anaphylaxis. A query of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted using a combination of terms to identify relevant articles from inception until March 9, 2020. We included any primary study that identified sugammadex as a probable causative agent based on the World Allergy Organization diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. A total of 24 articles were reviewed. Across the three randomized controlled trials, there were only four cases of anaphylaxis identified. Incidence of anaphylaxis was reported in only one trial at 0.33%. Two retrospective observational studies conducted in Japan identified cases of anaphylaxis, with incidences of 0.02 and 0.04%. Among 19 case reports and series, 25 patient cases of anaphylaxis were confirmed via allergy testing to be caused by sugammadex or sugammadex-rocuronium complex. Commonly reported symptoms included hypotension, erythema, and decreased oxygen saturation. Based on the findings of this review, there appears to be a rare, but serious, association of sugammadex-induced perioperative anaphylaxis with an incidence between 0.02 and 0.04% in observational studies. It is unclear whether sugammadex on its own or in complex with rocuronium triggers this reaction, but it is clearly involved in inducing anaphylaxis. Further population studies are needed to get a more accurate global incidence rate, and more detailed allergy testing is required to better describe which step of the sugammadex reversal pathway initiates the anaphylactic attack.

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.

Epidemiology of suspected life-threatening perioperative anaphylaxis: a cross-sectional multicentre study in China

BACKGROUND

Perioperative anaphylaxis is relatively rare but can be life-threatening. The incidence in China is unknown and may differ from other global geographic regions. This study was therefore designed to understand the incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis in China.

METHODS

We enrolled 112 tertiary care hospitals from seven distinct geographic areas in mainland China. We collected information about Ring and Messmer III and IV reactions from September 2018 to August 2019. A collaborative educational learning network was used to reduce diagnostic errors. Information about patient characteristics, clinical features, treatment, and clinical outcomes were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 447 cases of 5 078 118 surgical procedures met inclusion criteria. The incidence of suspected perioperative anaphylaxis throughout China was one in 11 360 anaesthetics (95% confidence interval [CI], with a range of 1:12 521 to 1:10 397). The incidence in South China was higher (one in 6050; 95% CI, from 1:8013 to 1:4859) than in Northeast China (one in 19 262; 95% CI, from 1:33 088 to 1:13 585) (P<0.01) with an increasing trend from the north to the south. The most common clinical manifestations were hypotension (91.1%) and tachycardia (65.3%). The majority of patients (83.4%) were given epinephrine. A total of 27 patients (6.0%) required cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Ultimately, nine patients died (2.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide survey showed an incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis of one in 11 360, but this varied significantly by region. The underlying reason for this pattern remains unknown and could be attributable to environmental or genetic influences, which requires further investigation.

CLINICAL REGISTRY NUMBER

ChiCTR1900025956.

Clinical reasoning in anaphylactic shock: addressing the challenges faced by anaesthesiologists in real time: A clinical review and management algorithms

Acute hypersensitivity reactions to drugs occur infrequently during anaesthesia and the peri-operative period. When clinical presentation includes the classical triad, erythema, cardiovascular abnormalities and increased airway pressure, the diagnosis is evident and the challenge is to prescribe a therapeutic regimen according to guidelines and to manage refractory signs in a timely manner. In many situations, however, the initial clinical signs are isolated, such as increased airway pressure or arterial hypotension. Rendering a differential diagnosis with causes and mechanisms other than acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHRs) is difficult, delaying treatment with possible worsening of the clinical signs, and even death, in previously healthy individuals. In these difficult diagnostic situations, clinical reasoning is mandatory, and guidelines do not explicitly explain the elements on which clinical reasoning can be built. In this article, based on clinical evidence whenever available, experimental data and pathophysiology, we propose algorithms that have been evaluated by experts. The goal of these algorithms is to provide explicit elements on which the differential diagnosis of AHRs can be made, accelerating the implementation of adequate therapy.

Practical guidelines for the response to perioperative anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a severe adverse event during anesthesia that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment by physicians, including anesthesiologists. Muscle relaxants and antibiotics are the most common drugs that cause perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan, as in many countries. In addition, sugammadex appears to be a primary causative agent. Obtaining previous anesthesia records is necessary in a patient with a history of allergic reactions during anesthesia, whenever possible, to avoid recurrence of anaphylaxis. Although medical staff are likely to notice abnormal vital signs because of complete monitoring during anesthesia, surgical drapes make it difficult to notice the appearance of skin symptoms. Even if there are no skin symptoms, anaphylaxis should be suspected, especially when hypotension resistant to inotropes and vasopressors persists. For improving the diagnostic accuracy of anaphylaxis, it is helpful to collect blood samples to measure histamine/tryptase concentrations immediately after the events and at baseline. The first-line treatment for anaphylaxis is adrenaline. In the perioperative setting, adrenaline should be administered through the intravenous route, which has a faster effect onset and is secured in most cases. Adrenaline can cause serious complications including severe arrhythmias if the appropriate dose is not selected according to the severity of symptoms. The anesthesiologist should identify the causative agent after adverse events. The gold standard for identifying the causative agent is the skin test, but in vitro tests including specific IgE antibody measurements and basophil activation tests are also beneficial. The Working Group of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists has developed this practical guide to help appropriate prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, and postoperative diagnosis of anaphylaxis during anesthesia.Grade of recommendations and levels of evidence Anaphylaxis is a relatively rare condition with few controlled trials, and thus a so-called evidence-based scrutiny is difficult. Therefore, rather than showing evidence levels and indicating the level of recommendation, this practical guideline only describes the results of research available to date. The JSA will continue to investigate anaphylaxis during anesthesia, and the results may lead to an amendment of this practical guideline.

Evaluation of skin test indications for general anesthetics in real life: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In daily practice, atopic patients and those who have other drug allergies are referred to allergy clinics for evaluation of possible general anesthetic allergy despite the fact that it is not recommended in recent guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective study is to determine the negative predictive value of skin tests for common general anesthetic drugs prior to general anesthesia in atopic patients and in patients who had drug allergies by including the data of those who had previously tolerated or reacted to general anesthesia.

METHODS

A database program was constituted to collect the preoperative skin test data of patients referred to our clinic between 2013 and 2018. Demographic and clinical history, medications implemented during perioperative period, reactions, and results of skin tests performed with anesthetic drugs and latex were evaluated.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-nine out of the total 1167 patients referred fulfilled the inclusion criteria for further evaluation. Nearly 75% of the patients were female and mean age was 46.3 ± 14.3 years. History of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) due to NSAIDs and/or antibiotics, radiocontrast agents, local anesthetics, and food were present in the 53.1%, 4.1%, 1.5%, and 2.0%, respectively. The negative predictive values of skin tests for general anesthetics were in the range of 80-100%. Only 4 patients (0,87%) experienced HRs during operation.

CONCLUSION

These real-life data reveal high rates of negative predictive value of skin tests with general anesthetic drugs and a low reaction rate in atopic patients and in patients with allergy to other drugs.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

[Tolerance and effectiveness of an alcoholic solution of 2% chlorhexidine in patients with a long-term central venous route.]

Alcoholic chlorhexidine 2 % is recommended for the prevention of catheter infections. A retrospective study was conducted in a nutritional assistance unit in a cohort of patients with a long-term central venous route. The tolerance (number of skin reactions) and efficacy (number of infections/days of catheters) of this antiseptic used in repeated care in these patients were described.

A 48-year-old female with perioperative anaphylaxis

Identifying the culprit medication in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis can be extremely challenging. A detailed and accurate history, coupled with the appropriate testing, plays a key role in discovering the etiology of perioperative anaphylaxis. We present the case of a 48-year-old woman with a cranial meningioma who was scheduled for surgery. Chlorhexidine, midazolam, lidocaine, propofol, fentanyl, rocuronium, and furosemide were administered during the perioperative period. She developed hypotension, urticaria, bronchospasm, and other symptoms of anaphylaxis soon after general anesthesia. The serum tryptase level obtained during anaphylaxis was 119 ng/mL (normal, <11.4 ng/mL). Epinephrine was administered, and the surgery was canceled, with no cause identified. For the next surgical attempt, she was pretreated with diphenhydramine and ranitidine, and the neuromuscular blocker was withheld. Again, she developed hypotension consistent with anaphylaxis, and epinephrine was administered. She was referred for consultation. A detailed and accurate history was obtained. The baseline serum tryptase level was 6.4 ng/mL. Skin-prick puncture tests were completed, and a diagnosis was made. The surgical team was instructed to avoid the culprit medication, and the cranial surgery was successful. Although difficult, cases of perioperative anaphylaxis can be solved with a detailed history, keen detective work, and appropriate testing.

Concurrent positive skin tests to prophylactic antibiotics and rocuronium in two patients with life-threatening anaphylaxis after induction of anesthesia

Background

Prophylactic antibiotics and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) are two of the major causative agents of anaphylaxis after induction of anesthesia.

Case presentation

One female and one male patients (aged 29 and 69 years, respectively) had Ring and Messmer scale grade III anaphylaxis after administration of prophylactic antibiotics following induction of anesthesia. They showed typical hemodynamic and respiratory features of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Postoperative skin tests in these two patients were positive for antibiotics and concurrently positive for rocuronium.

Conclusions

Our present report suggests the possibility that both prophylactic antibiotics and NMBA concurrently and synergistically enhance anaphylactic reaction and the necessity to differentiate an immune mechanism from non-immune mechanisms when anesthesiologists encounter concurrent positive skin tests for both antibiotics and NMBA.

Intraoperative Hypotension in a Patient with Antithrombin Deficiency, Bilateral Pulmonary Emboli, and Cefazolin Allergy

In medicine, the search for a clear answer can at times be elusive. However, this does not necessarily preclude the administration of intelligent and thoughtful therapeutic treatments. Here, we describe a complicated emergent event of severe hypotension and near-arrest that occurred in the operating room in a young, healthy woman undergoing outpatient thyroid surgery. We detail the situation as it presented in the operating room and the measures taken to rule out potential life-threatening diagnoses and develop a thoughtful treatment plan. We further describe the evidence for and against the two remaining diagnostic possibilities: anaphylaxis versus acute pulmonary embolism.

Perioperative anaphylaxis: A five-year review in a tertiary paediatric hospital

Making a diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis and identifying culprit drugs are diagnostic challenges. The aim of this study is to describe the perioperative presentation of anaphylaxis and results of patients who underwent allergy evaluation. This is a retrospective review of perioperative anaphylaxis of severity Grade 2 and above based on the Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group criteria from 2015 to 2019 in a tertiary paediatric hospital. Data collected were demographics, clinical features, investigations and management. Of the 35,361 cases of paediatric anaesthesia, there were 15 cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, giving an incidence of four in 10,000. The median age was seven years (interquartile range four-15 years) with a male predominance of 86.7% (13/15). The severity of anaphylaxis was Grade 2 in 33.3% (5/15) and Grade 3 in 66.7% (10/15). The commonest presenting feature was hypotension (13/15, 86.7%) while the earliest symptom was respiratory change (9/15, 60.0%). Dynamic tryptase was raised in 75% (6/8) of the patients with adequate tryptase samples. Eight patients (53.3%) completed allergy testing, of whom five patients (62.5%) had IgE-mediated anaphylaxis with skin test positive to cefazolin (n = 3), atracurium (n = 1) and rocuronium (n = 1). Three patients (25.0%) had non-IgE-mediated reactions with negative skin tests. Although only half the patients completed allergy evaluation, a culprit drug could be identified in 62.5%, with antibiotics being the commonest. This emphasises the need for appropriate evaluation in cases of suspected perioperative anaphylaxis.

Drug-induced anaphylaxis during general anesthesia in 14 tertiary hospitals in Japan: a retrospective, multicenter, observational study

Since perioperative anaphylaxis occurs suddenly, and it can be life-threatening, anesthesiologists need to have sufficient knowledge of the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis and appropriate coping strategies to deal with it. Recent studies conducted in Western countries reported the characteristics of perioperative anaphylaxis in each country. However, there are few studies of perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan. To bridge the gap between Japan and other countries, the data of 46 anaphylaxis patients at Gunma University Hospital and 13 neighboring hospitals between 2012 and 2018 were collected and analyzed. The recently developed clinical scoring system was combined with a skin test to include only cases with a definite diagnosis. The most common causative agents were sugammadex, followed by rocuronium, cefazolin, and antibiotics other than cefazolin. Furthermore, the characteristics of anaphylaxis for each causative drug were identified. Time from drug administration to appearance of the first symptom was the longest in the cefazolin group. The incidence of canceled operation was the highest in the rocuronium group. Although it is unclear whether the results of this study can apply to Japan as a whole, the information about the agents responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis and the characteristics of anaphylaxis due to each agent would be helpful to anesthesiologists.

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.

Perioperative Allergic Reactions: Allergy Assessment and Subsequent Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines are needed in the United States to improve evaluation of perioperative allergic reactions including recommendations for subsequent anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To identify causative agent(s) and evaluate patients' tolerability of subsequent anesthesia in patients evaluated by Allergy/Immunology (A/I) at Massachusetts General Hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients referred to the outpatient A/I clinic for perioperative allergic reactions between October 2003 and May 2017. Patient demographics, atopic history, and prior adverse drug reactions were reviewed. Patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation with testing including skin testing (ST), drug challenges (when appropriate), tryptase level measurement, and specific IgE to latex measurement. Tolerance of subsequent procedures requiring anesthesia was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 123 patients referred, 74 (60%) were female and the mean age was 46 (±18) years. At least 1 causative agent was identified in 28 patients (24%, n = 28 of 118). Seventeen of 28 (61%) patients were ST positive to an antibiotic, including 13 (46%) positive to cefazolin; 3 patients (11%) had a positive latex specific IgE. Of 85 patients who had subsequent anesthesia with a known outcome, 78 (91%) did not have another perioperative allergic reaction. Two of 5 patients with an elevated baseline tryptase level did not tolerate subsequent anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients safely received subsequent anesthesia after comprehensive A/I evaluation for their perioperative allergic reactions; however, improved algorithmic care is needed in the United States. Among ST-positive patients (24%), antibiotics (especially cefazolin) were the most common culprits. An elevated baseline tryptase level was associated with an increased risk of recurrent perioperative allergic reactions.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document of the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part I: post-crisis guidelines and treatment]

Experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) interested in the issue of perioperative anaphylaxis, and aiming to strengthen the collaboration between the two societies, combined efforts to study the topic and to prepare a joint document to guide specialists in both areas. The purpose of the present series of two articles was to report the most recent evidence based on the collaborative assessment between both societies. This first article will consider the updated definitions, treatment and guidelines after a perioperative crisis. The following article will discuss the major etiologic agents, how to proceed with the investigation, and the appropriate tests.

Pediatric Patients with Previous Anaphylactic Reactions to General Anesthesia: a Review of Literature, Case Report, and Anesthetic Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is rare to see pediatric patients with previous perioperative anaphylaxis receiving future anesthesia, but it is critical to understand how to choose assessments, interpret the results, and develop a future anesthetic plan.

RECENT FINDINGS

Analysis of the results revealed that patients, at any age, regardless of sex and nationality, and the number of surgeries, have the risk of perioperative anaphylaxis while the risk of allergy increases as patients present multiple surgical events or have a previous history of atopy. 94.7% of pediatric patients with allergy testing after perioperative anaphylaxis tolerated subsequent general anesthesia without complications. Specific IgE tests, basophil activation tests, and skin tests are not available and suitable for all culprits. The early skin test could be considered a supplement for later testing. Drug challenge test is the golden standard but can only be used as the last resort. If general anesthesia is inevitable, avoidance of the culprit and use of alternative agents can help the patients prevent another potential recurrence. Full use of inhalation anesthesia without unnecessary neuromuscular blockade agents and avoidance of latex is recommended when the surgery is urgent or skin tests for children cannot be performed in time. This review summarizes characteristics of perioperative pediatric anaphylaxis, main tests for various drugs, and their sensitivities and specificities as well as recommendations as to how to implement safe anesthesia in the future.

Perioperative approach of allergic patients

Perioperative allergic reactions are rare, yet important complications of anesthesia. Severe, generalized allergic reactions called anaphylaxis are estimated to have a mortality of 3.5-4.8%. Adequate recognition and handling of a severe perioperative anaphylactic reaction result in better outcomes, including less hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and death. The diagnosis of a perioperative allergic reaction can be difficult as the list of possible culprits of a perioperative allergic reaction is extensive. Making an informed guess on the causative agent and avoiding this agent in future anesthesia procedures is undesirable and unsafe. Therefore, to ensure future patient safety, a thorough investigation following a perioperative allergic reaction is mandatory. A collaborate approach by allergists and anesthesiologists is advised. In this article, we discuss the basic approach of the allergic patient and of patients with a suspected allergy to perioperatively administered medication.

Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis in a Vietnamese Pharmacovigilance Database: Trends and Specific Signals from a Disproportionality Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the numerous studies investigating drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA), understanding and quantitative data analysis in developing countries remain limited. The aim of our study is to describe and quantify DIA using the National Pharmacovigilance Database of Vietnam (NPDV).

METHODS

Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) recorded between 2010 and 2016 were retrospectively analysed to identify DIA reports. The trend and characteristics of DIA cases were described. Multivariate disproportionality analysis was used for signal generation.

RESULTS

Overall, 4873 DIA cases (13.2% of total ADRs) were recorded in the NPDV, 111 of which resulted in death (82% of total ADR-induced deaths) over a 7-year period. There was a remarkable increase in DIA reporting over time (p < 0.001). The incidence rates of DIA reporting per total ADRs and per 100,000 inhabitants remained high (mean rates [95% CI] of 12.06 [9.88-14.24] and 0.77 [0.33-1.20], respectively). Concerning suspected drugs, systemic antibiotics (n = 3318, 68%) were mostly reported with a reporting odds ratio (ROR) and 95% CI of 2.35 [2.20-2.51]. In the case of antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis, the third-generation cephalosporins were predominant (n = 1961, 40.2%, ROR 2.39 [2.24-2.55]). We also noted drugs generally associated with DIA such as contrast agents (ROR 2.43 [2.04-2.88]) and anaesthetics (ROR 4.02 [3.30-4.89]). Furthermore, unexpected signals were observed for alpha-chymotrypsin (ROR 1.75 [1.23-2.44]) and amoxicillin/sulbactam (ROR 1.59 [1.18-2.10]), uncommonly reported in western countries.

CONCLUSION

In recent years, cases of drug-induced DIA have increased in Vietnam, mostly due to antibiotics and third-generation cephalosporins. The inappropriate use of these drugs should be taken into account. Our findings also highlighted typical Vietnamese signals for alpha-chymotrypsin- and amoxicillin/sulbactam-induced anaphylaxis, which may relate to a specific sociological context in resource-limited countries.

An EAACI position paper on the investigation of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.