Systematic follow-up increases incidence of anaphylaxis during adverse reactions in anesthetized patients

Epidemiology and Triggers of Severe Perioperative Anaphylaxis: An 8-Year Single-Center Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the features, rescue measures, outcomes, re-allergic reactions, and independent risk factors associated with severe anaphylaxis during surgery.

DESIGN

Instances of severe perioperative anaphylaxis were identified through perioperative electronic records, adverse event reporting records, and surveys of anesthesiologists. Confirmed cases were randomly matched 4:1 with control cases on the same operation day. Patient risk factors, surgery type, anesthetic technique, and perioperative medications, fluids, and blood transfusions were given in instances of severe perioperative anaphylaxis were compared with control cases.

SETTING

A tertiary hospital in China.

PATIENTS

All patients undergoing surgery and anesthesia in the operating room from January 2014 to February 2022.

MEASUREMENTS

Incidence and the independent risk factors for severe perioperative anaphylaxis.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients experienced severe perioperative allergic responses during the 266,033 surgeries performed, with an incidence rate of 3.6 per 10,000. Three of 97 anaphylaxis patients experienced a severe allergic reaction again during the second surgery. The nested case-control study revealed that the independent triggers during surgery were allergy history (odds ratio 5.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.35-11.68; p < 0.001), cisatracurium use (odds ratio 5.03; 95% CI, 1.22-20.70; p < 0.001), hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 use (odds ratio 5.36; 95% CI, 2.99-9.60; p =0.025), and allogeneic plasma (odds ratio 11.02; 95% CI, 3.78-35.95; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative severe anaphylaxis is a rare but life-threatening complication. Previous allergic history, cisatracurium, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4, and allogeneic plasma may be the independent triggers. Early diagnosis of anaphylaxis and the timely administration of epinephrine are critical to allergic treatment. Avoiding exposure to allergens is effective for preventing severe allergic responses and the efficacy of glucocorticoids and antihistamines is controversial.

Adverse drug reactions in paediatric surgery: prospective study on frequency and risk related factors

BACKGROUND

Paediatric patients are especially prone to experiencing adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and the surgical environment gathers many conditions for such reactions to occur. Additionally, little information exists in the literature on ADRs in the paediatric surgical population. We aimed to quantify the ADR frequency in this population, and to investigate the characteristics and risk factors associated with ADR development.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in a cohort of 311 paediatric patients, aged 1-16 years, admitted for surgery at a tertiary referral hospital in Spain (2019-2021). Incidence rates were used to assess ADR frequency. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to evaluate the influence of potential risk factors on ADR development.

RESULTS

Distinct ADRs (103) were detected in 80 patients (25.7%). The most frequent being hypotension (N = 32; 35%), nausea (N = 16; 15.5%), and emergence delirium (N = 16; 15.5%). Most ADRs occurred because of drug-drug interactions. The combination of sevoflurane and fentanyl was responsible for most of these events (N = 32; 31.1%). The variable most robustly associated to ADR development, was the number of off-label drugs prescribed per patient (OR = 2.99; 95% CI 1.73 to 5.16), followed by the number of drugs prescribed per patient (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.41), and older age (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.49). The severity of ADRs was assessed according to the criteria of Venulet and the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System. According to both methods, only four ADRs (3.9%) were considered serious.

CONCLUSIONS

ADRs have a high incidence rate in the paediatric surgical population. The off-label use of drugs is a key risk factor for ADRs development.

Successful identification of culprit drugs of perioperative anaphylaxis by repeated skin testing after negative first skin tests in a patient with a long distant history of perioperative anaphylaxis

Background

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a severe immediate hypersensitivity reaction to drugs administered in immediate temporal association to surgical procedures. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommends allergologic tests be performed within the golden period of between 1 and 4 months after the date of the event to avoid false negatives. Nonetheless, many obstacles prevent patients from receiving diagnostic tests within the recommended time frame.

Case presentation

A 39-year-old male with congenital glaucoma had a history of multiple episodes of perioperative anaphylaxis since the age of 1 year including generalized urticaria, bronchospasm, cyanosis, and hypotension. Because the sequence of events was unclear due to incomplete documentation of operations and the destruction of medical records, the allergists tested different perioperative drugs on the patient. Although the first test results were all negative, repeated tests at 6 weeks were positive for morphine and ketamine. We identified more than one causative drug at the second round of skin tests. Using recommended skin test concentrations, negative skin tests in 5 control subjects could support the validity of the second test. The patient underwent sinus surgery in the next 3 months after the second skin test using propofol, midazolam, sevoflurane, chlorhexidine, and cefazolin without any anaphylactic reactions.

Conclusions

Repeated skin tests after negative results of the first tests may identify the causative drugs, thus providing optimal patient safety, and should be considered under the physician's discretion together with consideration of the severity of the allergic symptoms, time interval from last reactions, and the patient's consent.

Diagnostic performance of serial serum total tryptase measurement to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing among patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Serum total tryptase has been shown to increase during acute allergic reactions (acute tryptase, T_A ); however, few studies have investigated the values of T_A or a combination of T_A and baseline tryptase (T_B ) to discriminate positive from negative testing in perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (POH) allergy work up. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of T_A in order to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH and analyze the diagnostic performance of serial tryptase levels using several formulas.

METHODS

All patients from the University hospital of Montpellier and Strasbourg, France who presented with suspected POH and underwent complete drug allergy work-up between March 2011 and December 2019 with available T_A and T_B were included. Four formulas, including a change in T_A >11 (F1), or >2+1.2xT_B (F2), or >3+T_B (F3), or >120%T_B (F4), were applied.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-two patients were included, and 131 of them (80.8%) had grade III or IV reactions. Ninety patients had positive allergy testing. The optimal cut-off value of T_A to distinguish positive from negative allergy testing patients was 9.8 μg/L with an AUC of 0.817 (95%CI: 0.752-0.882, p<0.001). The 93% PPV threshold for T_A was 33 μg/L (95.8% specificity). Paired tryptase levels according to formulas F2 and F3 yielded the highest Youden index (0.54 and 0.53, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The optimal cut-off point for T_A for distinguishing positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH was 9.8 μg/L. T_A value of 33 μg/L was required to achieve >90% PPV.

Severe Anaphylaxis in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Clinical Presentation to Determine Outcomes

Anaphylactic reactions during pregnancy can range from subjective cutaneous symptoms to anaphylaxis and lethal anaphylactic shock. The fetal and maternal outcomes are unpredictable. This study is the first systematic review of the clinical presentation of severe anaphylaxis in pregnancy as defined by the World Allergy Organization to determine maternal and fetal outcomes. We searched PubMed, the Web of Science, and Scopus databases for articles published between 1 January 1985 and 15 April 2021 using the following terms (((anaphylactic shock) AND (pregnancy)) OR ((anaphylaxis) AND (pregnancy))). In 42 studies involving 47 patients, 36.17% of patients were 31-35 years old, and 74.47% of cases occurred peripartum, mostly during cesarean section. Accurate diagnosis with valid and reliable outcome measures was reported for 71.74% of cases. Twenty-two allergens were identified: antibiotics (penicillins and cephalosporins), anesthetic drugs (suxamethonium, mepivacaine), latex, oxytocin, sodium and sucrose iron, laminaria, misoprostol, rubber from Foley catheter, oral phytomenadione, ranitidine, chamomile, and ant sting. Two cases of maternal death related to latex and intravenous iron sucrose, and six infants with neurological disease were reported, mostly related to antibiotics. This review of the currently available literature shows that favorable outcomes are attainable with a high degree of observation, multidisciplinary cooperation, and rapid treatment.

Epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in the United States: new insights but more to learn and do

Gonzalez-Estrada and colleagues report an estimated risk of severe or fatal perioperative anaphylaxis of one in 6,825 procedures during the period 2005-2014. This is slightly higher than that reported previously in France and England. Several predictors of near-fatal and fatal reactions are identified, such as increased age, cancer, and congestive cardiac failure.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are heterogeneous in their pathomechanisms, clinical presentation, severity, and outcomes. Novel DHR mechanisms, phenotypes, and endotypes have been described. The key to prevention from further exposure to the culprit drugs involves correct identification of the putative drug through a combination of in vitro and/or in vivo tests, accurate drug allergy labeling and reporting, and electronic decision support systems within electronic medical records to prevent future accidental prescribing. Prescreening and premedication, the focus of this review, may be a useful adjunct to preventive measures in certain situations. After an index immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction, prescreening may be useful in perioperative anaphylaxis, and iodinated (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media (GCM) where the culprit and potential alternative agents are skin tested. In certain nonimmediate DHR, pharmacogenomic prescreening may be used before prescribing high-risk drugs (eg, carbamazepine and allopurinol) where specific human-leukocyte antigen genotypes are associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Premedication with antihistamine and systemic corticosteroids is another therapeutic strategy to prevent infusion reactions for certain biologicals and chemotherapeutic agents, in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, ICM and GCM DHR, and clonal mast cell disorders. Rapid drug desensitization may also be used to induce temporary tolerance in situations where there are limited alternative drugs.

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.

Detection of drug-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and acute mediator release for the diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions

The diagnosis of a drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) is complex. The first step after taking the clinical history is to look for a sensitization to confirm or exclude the diagnosis and to identify the culprit drug. Skin tests are the primary means of detecting sensitization in DHR, but are associated with a risk for a severe reaction and may be contraindicated. In vitro tests offer the potential to support or confirm a diagnosis of DHR and influence medical decision making. For immediate-type DHR, a few validated assays for measurement of specific IgE (sIgE) are commercially available to a limited number of drugs. In addition, several home-made sIgE radioimmunoassays have been used in other studies. The sensitivity of the sIgE assay is drug-dependant and generally low (0-85%) for betalactams and reported heterogeneous for other drugs ranging from 26% for chlorhexidine and 44% for suxamethonium to 92% for chlorhexidine. However, as all these studies included patients, in whom DHR was confirmed only by skin tests and not by provocation, the results have to be interpreted carefully and may be unreliable. Determination of mediators during an acute phase of a reaction may indirectly support the diagnosis of a DHR by demonstrating mast cell and basophil mediator release. Negative in vitro tests do not exclude a DHR or imputability of a drug, but a positive result may support causality and eliminate the necessity for a drug provocation test. Unfortunately, evidence is limited with a lack of well-controlled studies in larger numbers of well-phenotyped patients, which results in susceptibility for bias and a need for future multicenter studies.

Mast Cell Activation During Suspected Perioperative Hypersensitivity: A Need for Paired Samples Analysis

BACKGROUND

Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) reactions constitute a significant clinical and diagnostic challenge. A transient increase in serum tryptase during POH reflects mast cell activation (MCA) and helps to recognize an underlying hypersensitivity mechanism.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic performance of different tryptase decision thresholds based on single and paired measurements to document MCA in suspected POH.

METHODS

Acute serum tryptase (aST) and baseline serum tryptase (bST) samples were obtained from patients referred to our outpatients clinic because of clinical POH. Tryptase samples from controls were obtained before induction (Tt₀) and 1.5 hours after induction (Tt₁) in uneventful anesthesia. Different cutoff points for tryptase increase over bST and the percentage increase in tryptase (%T) were calculated and compared with existing thresholds: aST > [1.2 × (bST) + 2] (consensus formula), aST higher than 11.4 ng/mL, and aST higher than 14 ng/mL.

RESULTS

Patients with POH had higher bST and aST levels compared with controls (respectively 5.15 vs 2.28 ng/mL for bST and 20.30 vs 1.92 ng/mL for aST). The consensus formula and a tryptase increase over bST of greater than or equal to 3.2 ng/mL held the highest accuracies to document MCA in POH (respectively 81% and 82%). A bST of higher than 8 ng/mL was present in 4% of controls, 5% of patients with grade 1 POH, 24% of patients with grade 2 POH, 15% of patients with grade 3 POH, and 17% of patients with grade 4 POH.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data endorse the consensus formula for detection of MCA in POH. Furthermore, it shows that a bST of higher than 8 ng/mL was associated with occurrence of anaphylaxis.

Use and Interpretation of Acute and Baseline Tryptase in Perioperative Hypersensitivity and Anaphylaxis

Paired acute and baseline serum or plasma tryptase sampling and determination have recently been included as a mechanistic approach in the diagnostic and management guidelines of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis. The timing of this paired sampling is clearly defined in international consensus statements, with the optimal window for acute tryptase sampling between 30 minutes and 2 hours after the initiation of symptoms, whereas baseline tryptase should be measured in a sample collected before the event (preop) or at least 24 hours after all signs and symptoms have resolved. A transient elevation of the acute tryptase level greater than [2 + (1.2 × baseline tryptase level)] supports the involvement and activation of mast cells. Here, we provide the clinical, pathophysiological, and technical rationale for the procedure and interpretation of paired acute and baseline tryptase. Clinical examples, up-to-date knowledge of hereditary α-tryptasemia as a frequent cause of baseline tryptase of 7 μg/L and higher, mastocytosis, other clonal myeloid disorders, cardiovascular or renal failure, and technical improvements resulting in continued lowering of the 95th percentile value are discussed. Clues for improved management of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis include (1) sustained dissemination and implementation of updated guidelines; (2) preoperative sample storage for deferred analysis; (3) referral for thorough allergy investigation, screening for mast cell-related disorders, and recommendations for future anesthetic procedures; and (4) sustained collaboration between anesthesiologists, immunologists, and allergists.

Anaphylaxis-induced atrial fibrillation and anesthesia: Pathophysiologic and therapeutic considerations

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in western society affecting more than 35 million individuals worldwide annually. It is a common postoperative complication and may also occur spontaneously during general and local anesthesia administration. Aging, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases including cardiomyopathies, congenital cardiac anomalies, heart failure, myocardial ischemia, pericarditis, previous cardiac surgery, vascular disease, and valvular heart disease are some correlated factors. Beyond age, increased incidence of atrial fibrillation has been correlated to autoimmune system activation as it is the underlying mechanism of persistent atrial fibrillation development. Current research supports an association between the complement system activation and lymphocyte-pro-inflammatory cytokines release with the cardiac conduction system and atrial fibrosis. The loss of CD28 antigen from CD4+ CD28+ T lymphocytes seems to play a major role in atrial fibrillation development and prognosis. Except atrial fibrillation, a variety of additional electrocardiographic changes, resembling those with digitalis intoxication may accompany anaphylaxis and particularly Kounis syndrome. Histamine is one well-known mediator in allergic and inflammatory conditions as physiologically regulates several cardiovascular and endothelial functions with arrhythmogenic potential. The increased oxidative stress, measured by the redox potentials of glutathione, has been correlated with atrial fibrillation incidence and prevalence. The use of antazoline, a first-generation antihistamine agent used for rapid conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with preserved left ventricular function and for rapid atrial fibrillation termination during accessory pathway ablation denotes that anaphylaxis-induced histamine production could be the cause of atrial fibrillation at least in some instances. The anaphylaxis diagnosis in anesthesia can be challenging owing to the absence of cutaneous manifestetions such as flushing, urticaria, or angioedema. Anticoagulation for stroke prevention, rate and rhythm control medications, invasive methods such as radiofrequency ablation or cryoablation of pulmonary veins as well surgical ablation constitute the treatment basis of atrial fibrillation. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of atrial fibrillation by cardiologists, anesthesiologists and surgeons, as well as potential treatments, to optimize care is of paramount importance.

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.

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.

Biomarkers in Human Anaphylaxis: A Critical Appraisal of Current Evidence and Perspectives

Anaphylaxis is a type I hypersensitivity reaction that is potentially fatal if not promptly treated. It is a clinical diagnosis, although measurement of serial serum total mast cell tryptase (MCT) is gold standard and may help differentiate anaphylaxis from its mimics. The performance characteristics of MCT assays in anaphylaxis has been variable in previous studies, due to multiple factors including differences in the definition of anaphylaxis, methods of MCT interpretation, clinical setting of anaphylaxis, causative agents, and timing of blood sample. An international consensus equation for MCT to interpret mast cell activation has been proposed and recently validated in the context of peri-operative anaphylaxis during general anesthesia. There has been an interest in the detection of newer biomarkers in anaphylaxis including platelet activation factor (PAF), chymase, carboxypeptidase A3, dipeptidyl peptidase I (DPPI), basogranulin, and CCL-2. The key determinants of an ideal biomarker in anaphylaxis are half-life, sample handling and processing requirements, and cost. There may be a role for metabolomics and systems biology in the exploration of novel biomarkers in anaphylaxis. Future studies applying these approaches might provide greater insight into factors determining severity, clinical risk stratification, identification of mast cell disorders and improving our understanding of this relatively complex acute immunological condition. Post mortem MCT evaluation is used in Forensic Medicine during autopsy for cases involving sudden death or suspected anaphylaxis. Interpretation of post mortem MCT is challenging since there is limited published evidence and the test is confounded by multiple variables largely linked to putrefaction and site of sampling. Thus, there is no international consensus on a reference range. In this state of the art review, we will focus on the practical challenges in the laboratory diagnosis of anaphylaxis and critically appraise (a) performance characteristics of MCT in anaphylaxis in different clinical scenarios (b) the role for novel biomarkers and (c) post mortem MCT and its role in fatal anaphylaxis.

Anaphylactic Shock During Pediatric Anesthesia: An Unexpected Reaction to Sevoflurane

During general anesthesia, while muscle relaxants, latex and antibiotics are normally considered as very common causes of anaphylactic reactions, there are no documented cases of anaphylaxis due to inhalational agents. We report the case of a 6-year-old child scheduled for adenotonsillectomy who had an anaphylactic shock reaction due to Sevoflurane. Several allergic tests were performed to detect the trigger. Drugs used during operation were tested on both patient and three matched controls. While controls were negative, the patient displayed a positive reaction to Sevoflurane. To our knowledge, this is the first published report describing an allergic reaction caused by a volatile anesthetic.

Difficult Airway Management Caused by Local Anesthetic Allergy During Emergent Cesarean Delivery: A Case Report

Difficult airway management in the gravid patient is a well-described phenomenon. We present a case of emergent cesarean delivery complicated by a "cannot intubate, cannot ventilate" scenario that was later determined to be secondary to an allergic, IgE-mediated reaction to epidurally administered local anesthetic.

Intraoperative medications associated with hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To facilitate the identification of drugs and patient factors associated with hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis.

DESIGN

Using an existing database containing complete perioperative records, instances of hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis were identified using a physiologic and treatment-based screening algorithm. All cases were manually reviewed by 2 clinicians, with a third adjudicating disagreements, and confirmed cases were matched 3:1 with control cases. Intraoperative medications given in instances of hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis and patient risk factors were compared with control cases.

SETTING

University of Michigan Hospital, a large, tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

All adult patients undergoing surgery between January 1, 2004, and January 5, 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Incidence of hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis during anesthesia. Patient risk factors and intraoperative medications associated with hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis.

MAIN RESULTS

Hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis occurred in 55 of 461 986 cases (1 in 8400). Hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis occurred in 52 patients, with 1 patient experiencing 3 instances and another patient 2 instances. Only 1 drug was associated with an increased risk of hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis: protamine (odds ratio, 11.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-99.26; P=.0233). No category of drugs was associated with increased risk. Of patient risk factors, only personal history of anaphylaxis was associated with an increased risk (odds ratio, 77.1; 95% confidence interval, 10.46-567.69; P=<.0001). Postoperative follow-up and evaluation of patients were low at our institution. A serum tryptase level was sent in only 49% of cases, and 41% of levels were positive, an overall positive rate of 20% of cases. Following instances of hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis, only 29% of patients were seen and evaluated by an allergist at our institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis is a rare complication of anesthesia, with an incidence consistent with the existing literature. Contrary to most existing literature, only protamine was associated with increased risk. A personal history of anaphylaxis appears to best predict risk of hemodynamically significant anaphylaxis.

The incidence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: a single-center, prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions, which can be life-threatening, ranges from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 1361. These reactions are usually classified as IgE or non-IgE mediated. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of allergic reactions during general anesthesia in our hospital, to establish the incidence of the allergic reactions for each drug used, to assess the frequency of IgE-mediated reactions in even mild reactions, and to compare the degree of agreement between anesthesiologist suspicion and allergy diagnosis.

METHODS

We included patients diagnosed with a clinical hypersensitivity reaction during a procedure under general anesthesia over a 30-month period (February 2008 to August 2010). Plasma histamine and serum tryptase concentrations were determined in these patients. We performed skin tests to diagnose the causative agent. Data from the hospital electronic prescribing system were collected to determine the ratio of reactions for each drug.

RESULTS

During the study period, 16,946 anesthetic procedures were performed (53% involved males; mean age, 51.6 years). Forty-four perianesthetic reactions were recorded, and the ratio of reactions was 1 in 385 operations (95% confidence interval, 1/529-1/287). Twenty-five reactions (25/44; 57%) occurred during the induction of anesthesia. Twenty-one reactions (21/44; 48%) were mild, involving only skin, and 23 of 44 (52%) were anaphylactic reactions. Four of 10 patients who had only a rash experienced IgE-mediated reactions. Five surgeries (11%) were suspended because of the severity of the reactions. Fifteen reactions (15/30; 50%) were IgE mediated, and, in 2 of 30 (7%), a non-IgE agent was found (cold urticaria and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug intolerance). The ratio of reactions for each drug was as follows: protamine, 1 in 468; cisatracurium, 1 in 1388; amoxicillin-clavulanate, 1 in 1968; atracurium, 1 in 2039; and dipyrone, 1 in 3159.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative reactions are more common than previously reported. Mild hypersensitivity perioperative reactions-involving only skin-should be considered in evaluating patients because a substantial number of these reactions are IgE mediated.

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.

Incidence of Intraoperative Hypersensitivity Reactions: A Registry Analysis

Background:

Previously reported incidences for intraoperative hypersensitivity reactions vary more than 15-fold. The goal was to determine the incidence of intraoperative hypersensitivity events at a U.S. surgical center.

Methods:

With institutional review board (Cleveland, Ohio) approval and waiver of written/informed consent, the anesthesia records of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery from 2005 to 2011 at the Cleveland Clinic were queried using a novel electronic search protocol developed to identify potential hypersensitivity reactions: cardiovascular collapse defined as systolic arterial blood pressure less than 50 mmHg; administration of epinephrine; administration of diphenhydramine; physician comments in the anesthesia record suggestive of hypersensitivity reactions; laboratory tests for histamine, tryptase, or immunoglobulin-E within 24 h of surgery; and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes suggestive of hypersensitivity reactions. Each electronically identified candidate chart was evaluated by an adjudication committee. Hypersensitivity reactions were graded on a 5-point severity scale. From these data, the authors determined the proportion of operations having adjudicated hypersensitivity reactions, and calculated the 95% exact binomial CI.

Results:

Among 178,746 records, 4,008 charts were identified by the search strategies. After adjudication, 264 hypersensitivity cases were identified. The overall incidence of hypersensitivity reactions was 1:677 surgeries, corresponding to 15 (95% CI, 13 to 17) cases per 10,000 operations. The incidence of severe hypersensitivity reactions (grades 3 to 5) was 1:4,583, corresponding to 2 (95% CI, 2 to 3) cases per 10,000 operations.

Conclusions:

The incidence of severe hypersensitivity reactions was similar to previous reports. However, the overall incidence of hypersensitivity reactions was much greater than reported elsewhere, possibly because of a comprehensive search strategy.

Multi-centre retrospective analysis of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia in the United Kingdom: aetiology and diagnostic performance of acute serum tryptase

This is the first multi-centre retrospective survey from the United Kingdom to evaluate the aetiology and diagnostic performance of tryptase in anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia (GA). Data were collected retrospectively (2005-12) from 161 patients [mean ± standard deviation (s.d.), 50 ± 15 years] referred to four regional UK centres. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) were constructed to assess the utility of tryptase measurements in the diagnosis of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated anaphylaxis and the performance of percentage change from baseline [percentage change (PC)] and absolute tryptase (AT) quantitation. An IgE-mediated cause was identified in 103 patients (64%); neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) constituted the leading cause (38%) followed by antibiotics (8%), patent blue dye (6%), chlorhexidine (5%) and other agents (7%). In contrast to previous reports, latex-induced anaphylaxis was rare (0·6%). A non-IgE-mediated cause was attributed in 10 patients (6%) and no cause could be established in 48 cases (30%). Three serial tryptase measurements were available in 34% of patients and a ROC analysis of area under the curve (AUC) showed comparable performance for PC and AT. A ≥ 80% PPV for identifying an IgE-mediated anaphylaxis was achieved with a PC of >141% or an AT of >15·7 mg/l. NMBAs were the leading cause of anaphylaxis, followed by antibiotics, with latex allergy being uncommon. Chlorhexidine and patent blue dye are emerging important health-care-associated allergens that may lead to anaphylaxis. An elevated acute serum tryptase (PC >141%, AT >15·7 mg/l) is highly predictive of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, and both methods of interpretation are comparable.

Diagnostic value of histamine and tryptase concentrations in severe anaphylaxis with shock or cardiac arrest during anesthesia

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of acute life-threatening allergic reactions during anesthesia relies on clinical signs, histamine and/or tryptase measurements, and allergic testing. In patients who die after the reaction, skin tests cannot be performed, and the effect of resuscitation manoeuvres on mediator concentrations is unknown. The authors compared plasma histamine and tryptase concentrations in patients with severe allergic reactions during anesthesia with those measured in patients with shock due to other causes.

METHODS

Patients with life-threatening allergic reactions were retrieved from a previous database (Group ALLERGY). All had positive allergy tests to administered agents. Patients with severe septic/cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (Group CONTROL) had histamine and tryptase measurements during resuscitation manoeuvres. Receiver operating characteristics curves were built to calculate the optimal mediator thresholds differentiating allergic reactions from others.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included, 75 in Group ALLERGY (cardiovascular collapse, 67; cardiac arrest, 8) and 25 in Group CONTROL (shock, 11; cardiac arrest, 14). Mean histamine and tryptase concentrations remained unchanged throughout resuscitation in Group CONTROL and were significantly higher in Group ALLERGY. The optimal thresholds indicating an allergic mechanism were determined as 6.35 nmol/l for histamine (sensitivity: 90.7% [95% CI, 81.7 to 96.1]; specificity: 91.7% [73.0 to 98.9]) and 7.35 μg/l for tryptase (sensitivity: 92% [83.4 to 97.0]; specificity: 92% [73.9 to 99.0]).

CONCLUSIONS

Resuscitation manoeuvres by themselves did not modify mediator concentrations. Virtually all life-threatening reactions during anesthesia associated with mediator concentrations exceeding the thresholds were allergic events. These findings have potential forensic interest when a patient dies during anesthesia.

Perioperative allergic reactions: experience in a Flemish referral centre

BACKGROUND

The incidence of perioperative anaphylactic reactions is overall estimated to be 1 per 10,000-20,000 anaesthetic procedures. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients referred to a University Allergy Centre in Belgium with the suspicion of an allergic reaction during or shortly after general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to assess the causes of perioperative allergic reactions, to evaluate cross-reactivity among neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) and to analyze the diagnostic relevance of tryptase levels in the discrimination between IgE and non-IgE-mediated reactions.

METHODS

A total of 119 patients, referred from 2007 to 2011 were included. The diagnostic protocol consisted in case history, serum tryptase measurements, immunoassays and skin tests.

RESULTS

A diagnosis of IgE-mediated reaction was established in 76 cases (63.9%). The most common agents were NMBA (61.8%), antibiotics (14.5%), latex (9.2%) and chlorhexidine (5.2%). Rocuronium was the most frequently causative NMBA (48.9%). Vecuronium cross-reactivity was established by skin testing in 47.6% of cases. Cisatracurium was the NMBA most frequently tolerated (cross-reaction in 13.9%). In 23.4% of NMBA allergic patients, the reaction occurred on the first exposure. Most IgE-mediated reactions occurred during the induction phase (72.4%). Latex-induced reactions occurred mainly during maintenance and recovery phases (71.4%; p<0.02). Mean tryptase values were significantly higher in patients with IgE-mediated reactions (p=0.0001), than in those with no identified cause.

CONCLUSIONS

NMBA, antibiotics, latex and chlorhexidine were the main culprits of IgE-mediated perioperative reactions. Uncertainties remain concerning the specificity and sensitivity of skin testing. Tryptase assays can be useful in the discrimination of IgE and non-IgE-mediated reactions.

Hypersensitivity reactions to Patent Blue V in breast cancer surgery: a prospective multicentre study

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) have been reported after the use of Patent Blue V (PBV) for breast cancer surgery. This is the first study to publish prospective data with systematic allergological assessment.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre study in 10 French cancer centres for over 6 months. All patients scheduled for breast surgery with injection of PBV were included in the study. Patients were screened for past medical history, atopy, and known food and drug allergies. When suspected HSR or unexplained reactions occurred after injection of PBV, blood samples were taken, and plasma histamine and serum tryptase concentrations were measured. HSR to PBV was suggested if skin tests performed 6 weeks later were positive.

RESULTS

Nine suspected HSR to PBV were observed in 1742 patients. Skin tests were positive in six patients, giving an incidence of 0.34%. Four grade I and two grade III HSR were observed, both requiring intensive care unit treatment. Mean onset time of the reaction was 55 ± 37 min. Plasma histamine was elevated in four patients, while serum tryptase was normal. We found no risk factors associated with HSR to PBV.

CONCLUSION

An incidence rate of one in 300 HSR to PBV was observed for patients exposed to PBV during sentinel lymph node detection. This rate is higher than rates reported after the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, latex or antibiotics.

Muscle relaxants allergy

The most common agents that are responsible for intraoperative anaphylaxis are muscle relaxants. In fact, neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) contribute to 50-70 percent of allergic reactions during anaesthesia. The main mechanism of hypersensitivity reactions to NMBAs is represented by acute type I allergic reactions and the most severe form is anaphylaxis. The rate of non IgE mediated immediate hypersensitivity reactions usually varies between 20 percent and 35 percent of the reported cases in most large series. In a recent report, non allergic suspected reactions to NMBAs occurred with almost the same frequency as did those with an allergic component. Although the precise mechanisms of these reactions remain difficult to ascertain, they usually result from direct non specific mast cell and basophil activation. After diagnostic procedures, regardless of the specific IgE results, NMBAs are contraindicated if the skin tests were positive. In view of the constantly evolving anesthesiologic practices, and of the complexity of allergy investigation, an active policy to identify patients at risk and to provide any necessary support to anaesthetists and allergologists should be promoted. The high frequency of IgE anaphylactic reactions and the feasibility of skin tests in children justify systematic allergy testing whenever hypersensitivity reaction occurs during general anaesthesia.

Perioperative Allergy: Clinical Manifestations

Adverse drug reactions or side effects are usually expected, dose dependent, and occur at therapeutic doses. Anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions are unexpected and dose independent and can occur at the first exposure to drugs used during anesthesia. Perioperative anaphylaxis is a severe and rapid clinical condition that can be lethal even in previously healthy patients. The initial diagnosis of anaphylaxis is presumptive. A precise identification of the drug responsible for the adverse reaction is more difficult to establish in the case of anaphylactoid reaction because the adverse reaction could result from additive side effects of different drugs injected simultaneously. The timing of the reaction in relation to events, e.g. induction, start of surgery, administration of other drugs, i.v. fluids, is essential for the diagnosis. Generally, reactions are predominant in the induction and recovery phases, and manifested mainly as cutaneous symptoms. Reactions to drugs coincide with the phases when they are administered. Reactions to antibiotics are more frequent in the induction phase, to neuromuscular agents in the initiation and maintenance phases and to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents in the recovery phase. The differential diagnosis of any adverse reaction during or following anesthesia should include the possibility of anaphylaxis.

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.

Perioperative anaphylaxis

The incidence of immune-mediated anaphylaxis during anesthesia ranges from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 20,000. Neuromuscular blocking agents are most frequently incriminated, followed by latex and antibiotics, although any drug or substance used may be a culprit. Diagnosis relies on tryptase measurements at the time of the reaction and skin tests, specific immunoglobulin E, or basophil activation assays. Treatment consists of rapid volume expansion and epinephrine administration titrated to symptom severity.

BSACI guidelines for the investigation of suspected anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia

Investigation of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia requires an accurate record of events including information on timing of drug administration provided by the anaesthetist, as well as timed acute tryptase measurements. Referrals should be made to a centre with the experience and ability to investigate reactions to a range of drug classes/substances including neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetics, antibiotics, opioid analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local anaesthetics, colloids, latex and other agents. About a third of cases are due to allergy to NMBAs. Therefore, investigation should be carried out in a dedicated drug allergy clinic to allow seamless investigation of all suspected drug classes as a single day-case. This will often require skin prick tests, intra-dermal testing and/or drug challenge. Investigation must cover the agents administered, but should also include most other commonly used NMBAs and i.v. anaesthetics. The outcome should be to identify the cause and a range of drugs/agents likely to be safe for future use. The allergist is responsible for a detailed report to the referring anaesthetist and to the patient's GP as well as the surgeon/obstetrician. A shorter report should be provided to the patient, adding an allergy alert to the case notes and providing an application form for an alert-bracelet indicating the wording to be inscribed. The MHRA should be notified. Investigation of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia should be focussed in major allergy centres with a high throughput of cases and with experience and ability as described above. We suggest this focus since there is a distinct lack of validated data for testing, thus requiring experience in interpreting tests and because of the serious consequences of diagnostic error.