Perioperative anaphylaxis and investigations: a local study in Hong Kong

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.

Management of Suspected Life-Threatening Perioperative Anaphylaxis and Risk Factors for Near-Fatal and Fatal Outcomes: A Retrospective Study in China

Purpose

Perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) is an acute severe systemic hypersensitivity reaction characterized by life-threatening respiratory and circulatory collapse. In our previous study, we reported the epidemiology of suspected POA in China. In the present study, we aimed to elucidate the management and outcomes of these cases and further verify the risk factors for near-fatal and fatal outcomes.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective study of 447 cases of suspected life-threatening POA encountered at 112 tertiary hospitals in mainland China between September 2018 and August 2019. Patient characteristics, symptoms, duration of hypotension, treatments, and clinical outcomes were documented. Bivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for near-fatal and fatal outcomes.

Results

Most cases of suspected POA (89.9%) were recognized and treated within 5 min. Epinephrine was administered as the initial treatment in 232 (51.9%) cases. Corticosteroids (26.6%), other vasoactive drugs (18.3%), and bronchodilators (1.6%) were also administered as the initial treatment instead of epinephrine. The initial dosage of epinephrine (median, 35 µg) was insufficient according to the anaphylaxis guidelines. On multivariable analysis, age ≥65 years (odds ratio [OR] 7.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33-41.87, P=0.022), ASA physical status IV (OR 17.68; 95% CI: 4.53-68.94; P<0.001), and hypotension duration ≥15 min (OR 3.63; 95% CI: 1.11-11.87; P=0.033) were risk factors for fatal and near-fatal outcomes.

Conclusion

Most cases in this study were managed in a timely manner, but the epinephrine application should be optimized according to the guidelines. Age ≥65 years, ASA physical status IV, and long-term hypotension were risk factors for near-fatal and fatal outcomes.

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

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

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.

Clinical Manifestations and Causes of Anaphylaxis. Analysis of 382 Cases from the Anaphylaxis Registry in West Pomerania Province in Poland

Anaphylaxis is most commonly defined as an acute, severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction. Current expert consensus has defined anaphylaxis as a serious reaction that is rapid in onset and can be fatal, and is a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is still rarely diagnosed. For safety reasons, patients should visit an allergologist to identify potential causes of this reaction. There are no data from other health care centres in Poland presenting characteristics of anaphylactic reactions. Clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis should be analysed, because some patients (10-30%) with anaphylaxis can present without cutaneous findings. This lack of skin/mucosa involvement can lead to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Objectives-to gather epidemiological data on anaphylactic reactions, to identify clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis (organ systems involved), to present diagnostic methods useful for the identification of anaphylaxis triggers, and most importantly, to find causes of anaphylaxis. In this retrospective analysis, we used a questionnaire-based survey regarding patients visiting the Clinical Allergology Department, Pomeranian Medical University (PMU) in Szczecin, between 2006 and 2015. The registry comprised patients with grade II (Ring and Messmer classification) or higher anaphylaxis. Patients with grade I anaphylaxis (e.g., urticaria) were not included in the registry. The incidence of anaphylaxis was higher in women. Clinical manifestations included cutaneous and cardiovascular symptoms, but more than 20% of patients did not present with cutaneous symptoms, which may create difficulties for fast and correct diagnosis. Causes of anaphylaxis were identified and confirmed by means of detailed medical interview, skin tests (STs), and measurement of specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) and tryptase levels. In the analysed group, the most common cause of anaphylaxis (allergic and nonallergic) was Hymenoptera stinging (wasp), drugs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs) and foods (peanuts, tree nuts, celery). The incidence of anaphylaxis is low, but because of its nature and potentially life-threatening consequences it requires a detailed approach. Comprehensive management of patients who have had anaphylaxis can be complex, so partnerships between allergy specialists, emergency medicine and primary care providers are necessary. Monitoring its range is very important to monitor changes in allergy development.