Consequences of proceeding with surgery after resuscitation from intra-operative anaphylaxis

A Case of Anaphylactic Shock Suspected to Be Caused by Bovine Serum Albumin Tissue Adhesive (BioGlue) During Thoracoabdominal Aortic Replacement

Bovine serum albumin (BSA) tissue adhesive (BioGlue, Cryolife Inc., Kennesaw, GA, USA) is often used as a hemostatic adjunct in adult patients undergoing open surgical repair of large vessels, such as the aorta, femoral, and carotid arteries. We present a case of intraoperative anaphylaxis attributed to the use of BioGlue during thoracoabdominal aortic replacement. The patient suddenly developed hypotension, hypoxemia, and airway edema after the BioGlue application. BioGlue is composed of purified BSA and glutaraldehyde. Despite the BSA component being an allergen that can cause anaphylaxis in some patients, reported occurrences of anaphylaxis are extremely rare. We need to recognize BSA tissue adhesive as a potential allergen. In the event of an intraoperative shock, prompt recognition and investigation of the underlying cause are necessary.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04654923).

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.

Perioperative anaphylaxis: when the allergological work-up goes negative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) is rare but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients are referred to the allergist to identify the mechanism of the reaction, the causative agent and make recommendations regarding subsequent anaesthesia. Despite a well conducted allergological evaluation, the causative agent is not found in 30-60% of these reactions, leaving patients without a well established diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several mechanisms can induce POA. In addition to the well known IgE-mediated reactions, IgG-mediated reaction, MRGPR-X2-related reaction or nonspecific histamine release may be involved. These situations are not easily assessed by the allergological workup.

SUMMARY

When the allergological workup is negative, the situation should be reassessed with the team present at the time of the reaction to confirm the reality of the hypersensitivity reaction and to search for a possible differential diagnosis. If POA is confirmed, the allergological evaluation should be repeated, ensuring proper execution according to current guidelines and including the search for hidden allergens. Specific IgE assays or basophil activation tests may be of interest. In case of negative results, a closely monitored drug challenge test, in coordination with the anaesthesia teams, may be useful to avoid the exclusion of any drug injected during the reaction.

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.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Anesthesiologists routinely manage patients receiving drugs and agents, all of which have the potential for anaphylaxis, the life-threatening presentation of an allergic reaction. Clinicians must be ready to diagnose and manage the acute cardiopulmonary dysfunction that occurs.

Agreement of a clinical scoring system with allergic anaphylaxis in suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: prospective validation of a new tool

BACKGROUND

A clinical scoring system to estimate the likelihood that a reaction represents a perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction has been devised using a Delphi consensus process. Agreement of this clinical scoring system with the outcome of allergological assessment would allow the use of this tool in post-resuscitation and subsequent management of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction and potentially as a new standard reference for clinical investigations.

METHODS

We prospectively scored 301 cases of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction according to the Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme. Classification of cases was by allergological workup based on immediate and delayed investigations. The discrimination and calibration of the Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme was compared with results from an expert panel of allergologists, skin testing, mast cell tryptase ratios, and specific IgE assays, as was agreement by Cohen's kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

The Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme predicted cases of allergic perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction with comparable discrimination to an expert panel, mast cell tryptase formula, and specific IgE assays in anaphylaxis to neuromuscular blocking drugs. Using a score threshold of 15 or greater to indicate allergic perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction, the sensitivity was 88.9%, with a specificity of 79.4%. Prospectively, the Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme correctly classified a greater number of subjects than the expert panel and the optimal post hoc binary logistic regression model (86% vs 85% vs 84%), however it was inferior to skin testing.

CONCLUSION

The Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme predicts allergic perioperative immediate hypersensitivity using features of the acute syndrome. This approach could guide algorithms for the post-resuscitative management of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity, and identify patients requiring drug provocation challenge.

Incidence and outcome of anaphylaxis in cardiac surgical patients

Introduction:

Anaphylaxis is a rare but serious and potentially fatal complication of anesthesia. Little is known about the incidence and outcome of anaphylaxis in cardiac surgical patients, which we aimed to investigate.

Methods:

This was a 21-year retrospective study of cardiac surgical patients at Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Results:

A total of 19 cases of anaphylaxis were reported among 17,589 patients (0.108%) undergoing cardiac surgery. The majority (15/19) occurred before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), mostly during or within 30 min after the induction of anesthesia (10/19). Two occurred within 15 min of going onto CPB. Of these 17 cases, 11 were abandoned, and 6 proceeded. The severity of reactions in the patients who proceeded ranged from grade II to grade IV of the Ring and Messmer classification. Two cases occurred after the completion of surgery. All patients survived to 90 days. However, this did not appear to be related to CPB or protamine as most of the reactions occurred before CPB. Instead, the most common causative agents were gelofusine, antibiotics, muscle relaxants, and chlorhexidine. In 6 cases, surgery proceeded despite the anaphylaxis, in 11 cases the surgery was postponed, and in 2 cases the procedure had already been completed.

Conclusion:

As all patients survived, our results provide preliminary support for proceeding with surgery although we cannot speculate on the likely outcomes of patients who were postponed, had their surgery proceeded. Based on our data, the incidence of anaphylaxis in cardiac surgical patients may be 10–20 times higher than in the general surgical population.

[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.

Skin Testing to Identify Safe Drugs for Patients with Rocuronium-Induced Anaphylaxis

Among patients who develop anaphylaxis during anesthesia, anaphylaxis caused by a neuromuscular blocking agent has the highest incidence. In patients who developed IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, and cross-reactivity among NMBAs is a concern in subsequent anesthetic procedures. We present a patient who developed rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis in whom the skin prick test (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) could identify a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure. A 32-year-old female developed anaphylactic shock at the induction of general anesthesia. She recovered by administration of hydrocortisone and epinephrine. Skin tests including the SPT followed by the IDT revealed rocuronium as the drug that caused anaphylaxis and vecuronium as a safe drug to use for the subsequent general anesthesia. She safely underwent surgery with general anesthesia using vecuronium one month after the skin testing. There are not many reports on the effectiveness of the SPT followed by IDT in identifying the causative drug as well as a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure following anaphylaxis during anesthesia. The usefulness of the SPT should be re-evaluated.

Anaesthesia for a biopsy of corpus callosum in patient with a recent intra-operative anaphylaxis to an unknown anaesthetic allergen: a case report

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis in general anaesthesia occurs with a frequency of 1:5000-1:20000. This clinical summary reports on the use of an effective risk management strategy employing second line anaesthesia agents and alternative endotracheal intubation tools in a patient with a recent history of an intra-operative anaphylaxis to an unknown anaesthetic agent.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 71-year-old male presented for a repeat biopsy of corpus callosum 4 days following the cancellation of the procedure for a presumed anaphylactic reaction to an unknown anaesthetic agent. During the repeat care episode, the decision was made to proceed based on the urgent need for tissue diagnosis to facilitate further treatment and lack of feasibility for more definitive identification of the causative agent(s). A consideration was made of the optimum ways to manage and mitigate risk in this setting. The airway was managed using flexible endoscopic intubation in a spontaneously ventilating awake patient. Continuous remifentanil infusion was maintained throughout the case. Anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane at less than one MAC, with an uneventful completion of the biopsy of corpus callosum. All of the anaesthetic agents used during the prior care episode, with the exception of remifentanil, were avoided.

CONCLUSION

In cases of an anaphylaxis to an unknown anaesthetic allergen, anaesthetic strategy consists of careful risk mitigation and deployment of second agent approaches. Awake flexible endoscopic intubation and remifentanil infusion are viable alternatives to standard induction techniques.