Anaphylaxis during surgical and interventional procedures

A case series of perioperative anaphylaxis to cefazolin during kidney transplant and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative anaphylaxis is a life threatening and multiorgan system hypersensitivity reaction that frequently leads to cessation of operations. Despite the incidence of Cefazolin allergy being on the rise, the cases of anaphylaxis to Cefazolin during surgeries and its management are seldom reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present two patients with no known beta-lactam allergy and end stage kidney disease who received perioperative intravenous Cefazolin for planned deceased kidney transplant surgery at our academic medical center. Both patients developed anaphylaxes approximately three minutes following the administration of the antibiotic and experienced severe, refractory hypotension that required the use of vasopressors. The severity of the anaphylactic reactions resulted in the cessation of the transplant operation and multiple days of intensive care unit admission.

CONCLUSION

Peri-or intraoperative anaphylaxis to Cefazolin is on the rise and its consequences in transplant candidates are even more dire given the pre-existing end organ failure, financial burden for health care system, potential loss of donor organs, and emotional burden for recipients and their families. These are the first two cases of reported Cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis that actually resulted in aborting the kidney transplant operation. In addition, cases of previously reported Type 1 hypersensitivity to Cefazolin as prophylaxis for operations were reviewed and the allergy workups were discussed.

Anaphylaxis to Cisatracurium following Negative Skin Testing

General anaesthesia for the patient with a history of anaesthesia-related anaphylaxis is challenging. Precautions against anaphylaxis and the use of skin test negative drugs can reduce but not eliminate the risk. In the majority of such cases, subsequent anaesthesia is uneventful. However, the absence of a clearly identified triggering agent increases the difficulties facing the anaesthetist. We present a case of anaphylaxis to cisatracurium following a negative skin test.

Antibiotics Are the Most Commonly Identified Cause of Perioperative Hypersensitivity Reactions

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) during the perioperative period are unpredictable and can be life threatening. Prospective studies for the evaluation of perioperative HSRs are lacking, and data on causative agents vary between different studies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to prospectively determine the success of a comprehensive allergy evaluation plan for patients with HSRs during anesthesia, including identification of a causative agent and outcomes during subsequent anesthesia exposure.

METHODS

All patients referred for a perioperative HSR between November 2013 and March 2015, from a Boston teaching hospital, were evaluated using a standardized protocol with skin testing (ST) within 6 months of HSR. Comprehensive allergy evaluation included collection of patient information, including characteristics of HSR during anesthesia. We reviewed the results of ST and/or test doses for all potential causative medications Event-related tryptase levels were reviewed when available.

RESULTS

Over 17 months, 25 patients completed the comprehensive allergy evaluation. Fifty-two percent (13 of 25) were female with a median age of 52 (interquartile range 43-66) years. The most frequently observed HSR systems were cutaneous (68%), cardiovascular (64%), and pulmonary (24%). A culprit drug, defined as a positive ST, was identified in 36% (9 of 25) of patients. The most common agent identified was cefazolin (6 of 9). After our comprehensive evaluation and management plan, 7 (7 of 8, 88%) patients tolerated subsequent anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Cefazolin was the most commonly identified cause of a perioperative HSR in our study population. Skin testing patients within 6 months of a perioperative HSR may improve the odds of finding a positive result. Tolerance of subsequent anesthesia is generally achieved in patients undergoing our comprehensive evaluation.

Perioperative anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Anaphylaxis remains one of the potential causes of perioperative death, being generally unanticipated and quickly progress to a life threatening situation. A narrative review of perioperative anaphylaxis is performed.

CONTENT

The diagnostic tests are primarily to avoid further major events. The mainstays of treatment are adrenaline and intravenous fluids.

CONCLUSION

The anesthesiologist should be familiar with the proper diagnosis, management and monitoring of perioperative anaphylaxis.

Perioperative chlorhexidine allergy: Is it serious?

Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic agent, commonly used, in many different preparations, and for multiple purposes. Despite its superior antimicrobial properties, chlorhexidine is a potentially allergenic substance. The following is a review of the current evidence-based knowledge of allergic reactions to chlorhexidine associated with surgical and interventional procedures.

[Perioperative anaphylaxis]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Anaphylaxis remains one of the potential causes of perioperative death, being generally unanticipated and quickly progressing to a life-threatening situation. A review of perioperative anaphylaxis is performed.

CONTENT

The diagnostic tests are important mainly to avoid further major events. The mainstays of treatment are adrenaline and intravenous fluids.

CONCLUSION

The anesthesiologist should be familiar with the proper diagnosis, management and monitoring of perioperative anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis during the perioperative period

The incidence of anaphylaxis during anesthesia has been reported to range from 1 in 4000 to 1 in 25,000. Anaphylaxis during anesthesia can present as cardiovascular collapse, airway obstruction, and/or skin manifestation. It can be difficult to differentiate between immune and nonimmune mast cell-mediated reactions and pharmacologic effects from the variety of medications administered during general anesthesia. In addition, cutaneous manifestations of anaphylaxis are less likely to be apparent when anaphylaxis occurs in this setting. The evaluation of IgE-mediated reactions to medications used during anesthesia can include skin testing to a variety of anesthetic agents. Specifically, thiopental allergy has been documented by skin tests. Neuromuscular blocking agents such as succinylcholine can cause nonimmunologic histamine release, but there have also been reports of IgE-mediated reactions in some patients. Reactions to opioid analgesics are usually caused by direct mast cell mediator release rather than IgE-dependent mechanisms. Antibiotics that are administered perioperatively can cause immunologic or nonimmunologic reactions. Protamine can cause severe systemic reactions through IgE-mediated or nonimmunologic mechanisms. Blood transfusions can elicit a variety of systemic reactions, some of which might be IgE-mediated or mediated through other immunologic mechanisms. The management of anaphylactic reactions that occur during general anesthesia is similar to the management of anaphylaxis in other situations.

Examination of patients suspected as having hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media with leukocyte migration test

In vivo tests may be used for the diagnosis of allergy to iodinated contrast media (ICM); however, the tests do not provide definitive diagnosis and are associated with risks for patients. Diagnoses based on in vitro tests are limited, and there are almost no relevant studies. Herein, the authors examined involvement of allergic reaction from a multilateral standpoint in 39 patients suspected of having ICM allergies using leukocyte migration test (LMT). The positive rate of LMT was 44%. A comparison with the positive rate of LMT in drugs other than ICM (74%) indicated 30% difference, which was significantly low value, suggesting that there is poor involvement of these drugs in the allergic reaction. In LMT positives, 76% of hypersensitivity reactions were skin rash mainly erythema, and 18% was anaphylactic reactions. Cases considered as non-immediate hypersensitivity accounted for about 4 times as many as immediate-type hypersensitivity. In examination of relevancy between a history of drugs or food allergies, the incidence of ICM allergies was 35%. There is a high possibility that these adverse reactions were caused by pseudoallergy to drug. It was suggested that most hypersensitivity reactions were skin rash related to non-immediate hypersensitivity, and approximately 20% of the reaction was immediate anaphylactic reaction. Therefore attention should be paid not only to immediate-type hypersensitivity but also delayed reactions. Moreover, it was considered that patients with past history of drug or food allergies have a high potential for manifestation of the reactions.

Optimal treatment of anaphylaxis: antihistamines versus epinephrine

Anaphylaxis is a rapid, systemic, often unanticipated, and potentially life-threatening immune reaction occurring after exposure to certain foreign substances. The main immunologic triggers include food, insect venom, and medications. Multiple immunologic pathways underlie anaphylaxis, but most involve immune activation and release of immunomodulators. Anaphylaxis can be difficult to recognize clinically, making differential diagnosis key. The incidence of anaphylaxis has at least doubled during the past few decades, and in the United States alone, an estimated 1500 fatalities are attributed to anaphylaxis annually. The increasing incidence and potentially life-threatening nature of anaphylaxis coupled with diagnostic challenges make appropriate and timely treatment critical. Epinephrine is universally recommended as the first-line therapy for anaphylaxis, and early treatment is critical to prevent a potentially fatal outcome. Despite the evidence and guideline recommendations supporting its use for anaphylaxis, epinephrine remains underused. Data indicate that antihistamines are more commonly used to treat patients with anaphylaxis. Although histamine is involved in anaphylaxis, treatment with antihistamines does not relieve or prevent all of the pathophysiological symptoms of anaphylaxis, including the more serious complications such as airway obstruction, hypotension, and shock. Additionally, antihistamines do not act as rapidly as epinephrine; maximal plasma concentrations are reached between 1 and 3 hours for antihistamines compared with < 10 minutes for intramuscular epinephrine injection. This demonstrates the need for improved approaches to educate physicians and patients regarding the appropriate treatment of anaphylaxis.

About the role and underlying mechanisms of cofactors in anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is the systemic and most severe presentation of type I allergy. A number of conditions were identified that modulate the onset of anaphylaxis such as co- or augmentation factors, which significantly lower the allergen dose necessary for triggering anaphylaxis. Next to physical exercise or alcohol consumption, co-administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or concomitant infectious diseases are well-documented cofactors of anaphylaxis. Registries for anaphylaxis document a role for cofactors in about 30% of anaphylactic reactions. Some disease entities such as 'wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis' (WDEIA) are explicitly characterized by elicitation of anaphylaxis only in the presence of at least one such cofactor. Using WDEIA as a model disease, studies demonstrated that exercise increases skin prick test reactivity to and bioavailability of the allergen. Additional data indicate that alcohol consumption and NSAID administration display similar effects. Modulation of the cellular activation threshold is another mechanism underlying cofactor-induced anaphylaxis, most likely also functional when infectious diseases orchestrate elicitation of anaphylaxis. Cofactors are increasingly accepted to play a fundamental role in eliciting anaphylaxis. Consequently, to improve patient management modalities, a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms is warranted. This review aims to update clinicians and clinical scientists on recent developments.

World allergy organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis

The illustrated World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Guidelines were created in response to absence of global guidelines for anaphylaxis. Uniquely, before they were developed, lack of worldwide availability of essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis was documented. They incorporate contributions from more than 100 allergy/immunology specialists on 6 continents. Recommendations are based on the best evidence available, supported by references published to the end of December 2010. The Guidelines review patient risk factors for severe or fatal anaphylaxis, co-factors that amplify anaphylaxis, and anaphylaxis in vulnerable patients, including pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and those with cardiovascular disease. They focus on the supreme importance of making a prompt clinical diagnosis and on the basic initial treatment that is urgently needed and should be possible even in a low resource environment. This involves having a written emergency protocol and rehearsing it regularly; then, as soon as anaphylaxis is diagnosed, promptly and simultaneously calling for help, injecting epinephrine (adrenaline) intramuscularly, and placing the patient on the back or in a position of comfort with the lower extremities elevated. When indicated, additional critically important steps include administering supplemental oxygen and maintaining the airway, establishing intravenous access and giving fluid resuscitation, and initiating cardiopulmonary resuscitation with continuous chest compressions. Vital signs and cardiorespiratory status should be monitored frequently and regularly (preferably, continuously). The Guidelines briefly review management of anaphylaxis refractory to basic initial treatment. They also emphasize preparation of the patient for self-treatment of anaphylaxis recurrences in the community, confirmation of anaphylaxis triggers, and prevention of recurrences through trigger avoidance and immunomodulation. Novel strategies for dissemination and implementation are summarized. A global agenda for anaphylaxis research is proposed.

The diagnostic value of basophil activation test in patients with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction to radiocontrast media

BACKGROUND

No available test diagnoses allergic reactions to radiocontrast media (RCM). The basophil activation test (BAT) has been introduced for the diagnosis of both immunoglobulin (Ig) E and non-IgE-dependent mast cell degranulation, but its value to diagnose immediate RCM reactions is still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of BAT in immediate RCM hypersensitivity.

METHODS

The BATs were performed in 26 patients with immediate RCM reactions and in 43 specimens from healthy volunteers. The sample's whole blood was incubated with the responsible RCM and % activated (CD63+/CCR3+) basophils were analyzed by flow cytometry. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed to calculate the optimal cutoff value of activated basophils to diagnose patients with RCM hypersensitivity.

RESULTS

The incubation of blood with RCM yielded significantly higher activated basophil percentages in patients with a history of immediate RCM reactions than in normal controls with both 1:100 and 1:10 dilutions (13.11% vs. 2.71%, P value = .01; and 19.23% vs. 3.73%, P = .001, respectively). Both % activated basophils and stimulation index (SI) had acceptable discrimination powers to diagnose RCM hypersensitivity. The area under the curve was 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.91, P = .000) by using SI as the diagnostic criteria with 1:100 dilution of RCM. The specificity of the test ranged from 88.4% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated the potential of BAT as a diagnostic tool for an immediate RCM hypersensitivity, particularly as a confirmation test. Further studies are required to confirm the test accuracy and identify a patient's predisposing factors.

In vivo evaluation of acellular human dermis for abdominal wall repair

Limitations of synthetic biomaterials for abdominal wall repair have led investigators to seek naturally derived matrices, such as human acellular dermis, because of their excellent biocompatibility and their ability to naturally interface with host tissues with minimal tissue response. In this study, we investigated two different biomaterials derived from human dermis (FlexHD acellular dermis and FlexHD acellular dermis-thick) in a rabbit abdominal hernia repair model. One quarter of the abdominal wall was replaced with each biomaterial, and the animals were followed for up to 24 weeks. Rabbit hernias repaired with AlloDerm, a commercially available acellular dermal matrix, and sham operated animals served as controls. Retrieved samples of these implants were assessed grossly and histologically. Collagen production measurements and tension studies were performed. FlexHD acellular dermis, FlexHD acellular dermis-thick, and AlloDerm maintained their strength in the rabbit hernia repair model with no incidence of hernia formation or bowel adhesion. The exact size measurements at 24 weeks were 217.0 +/- 20.9% for FlexHD acellular dermis, 200.8 +/- 23.5% for FlexHD acellular dermis-thick, and 209.7 +/- 32.9% for AlloDerm. Macroscopic and microscopic evaluation showed excellent integration and tissue formation. All biomaterials studied harbored cells that produced new collagen fibers, and a six-fold increase in these fibers was observed at 24 weeks. This study shows that acellular biomaterials derived from human dermis are suitable for abdominal hernia repair.

The diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis practice parameter: 2010 update

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The Diagnosis and Management of Anaphylaxis Practice Parameter: 2010 Update." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, or the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

General anesthetic allergy testing

Anaphylaxis in the setting of general anesthesia is a rare but potentially lethal event. The investigation of severe reactions is important for confirming the clinical diagnosis and identifying likely causative agents and safe agents that may be used in the future. Many comprehensive reports have described the testing protocol of individual specialized units, whereas there has been no standardization of testing techniques or formal assessment of these tests' diagnostic accuracy. We review the literature with reference to the recently published standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD) and make recommendations for future studies of diagnostic accuracy in the field.

A case of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine during digital rectal examination

Chlorhexidine is widely used as an antiseptic and disinfectant in medical and nonmedical environments. Although the sensitization rate seems to be low, its ubiquitous use raises the possibility of sensitization in many patients and medical care workers. We describe a patient with anaphylaxis during digital rectal examination with chlorhexidine jelly. Urticaria, angioedema, dyspnea, and hypotension developed within a few minutes of the rectal examination. The patient fully recovered after treatment with epinephrine and corticosteroids. Skin tests for chlorhexidine were undertaken 5 weeks later, showing positive prick and intradermal skin tests. Within 30 min of the skin test, the patient complained of febrile sensation, chest tightness, angioedema, and urticaria on the face and trunk. An enzyme allergosorbent test for latex was negative. We present this case to alert clinicians about hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine that could potentially be life-threatening. We suggest that chlorhexidine should be recognized as a causative agent of anaphylaxis during procedural interventions.

Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia: diagnostic approach

Correct management of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia requires a multidisciplinary approach with prompt recognition and treatment of the acute event by the attending anaesthesiologist, and subsequent determination of the responsible agent(s) with strict avoidance of subsequent administration of all incriminated and/or cross-reacting compounds. However, correct identification of the causative compound(s) and safe alternatives is not always straightforward and, too often, not done. This review is not intended to discuss acute management of anaesthesia-related anaphylaxis but summarizes the major causes of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia and the diagnostic approach of this rare but potentially life-threatening complication. Apart from general principles about the diagnostic approach, history taking and importance of tryptase quantification, more specific confirmatory diagnostic procedures are organized on the basis of the major causes of perioperative anaphylactic reactions.

Peri-anesthetic Anaphylaxis

General anesthesia and anaphylaxis cause profound physiologic changes. When both occur simultaneously, it is often difficult to recognize and identify the medication or product responsible for the latter. Following such an event, the proper assessment, diagnosis, and recommendations are essential to prevent future reactions. This article reviews the more common causes of anaphylaxis during anesthesia.

Clindamycin-induced anaphylactic shock during general anesthesia

Clindamycin-related anaphylactic reaction is rarely reported. We report a male patient with buccal cancer who was undergoing radical neck dissection when life-threatening anaphylactic shock developed soon after intravenous infusion of clindamycin. Immediate cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed, and the patient recovered uneventfully. Perioperative anaphylactic shock is a serious problem due to the difficulty of judgment and potentially disastrous outcome. Immediate diagnosis and halting of drug infusion should be the first actions taken.

Intraoperative anaphylaxis to bacitracin during pacemaker change and laser lead extraction

BACKGROUND

Bacitracin is widely used in operating rooms to soak implants, irrigate compound fractures, and apply to surgical incisions. However, bacitracin is a known sensitizer and causes not only allergic contact dermatitis but also anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a 72-year-old woman with anaphylaxis after irrigation and packing of an infected pacemaker pocket with a bacitracin solution.

METHODS

Skin prick testing to bacitracin and latex; serum tryptase, serum histamine, serum IgE to latex, and serial cardiac enzyme measurements; blood cultures, transthoracic echocardiograms, and venograms were performed to characterize the reaction.

RESULTS

Six hours after the anaphylactic event, the patient had an elevated serum tryptase level of 49 ng/mL (reference range, 2-10 ng/mL), which normalized the next morning. She had immediate-type skin prick test reactions to full-strength bacitracin ointment (500 U/g) and bacitracin solution (150 U/mL). Serum IgE level to latex was undetectable, and results of skin testing to latex were negative.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first case report of anaphylaxis to bacitracin during pacemaker surgery. This case illustrates that intraoperative anaphylaxis to bacitracin can be life-threatening.