Anaphylaxis to Cisatracurium following Negative Skin Testing

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.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis]

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Interpreting the results of early skin tests after perioperative anaphylaxis requires special attention: a case report and review of literature

Skin tests are the gold standard for detecting the culprit drug of anaphylaxis, and should ideally be performed after an interval of 4-6 weeks after the reaction to avoid false-negative results. However, when re-operation cannot be delayed and early allergy tests are necessary, special attention is required during subsequent anesthesia, because early skin tests tend to produce false-negative results. This report presents a case of rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis in which early skin tests showed negative results for all the drugs tested. The second anesthesia was safely performed by avoiding all the drugs used for the first anesthesia. Ultimately, skin tests and basophil activation tests (BATs) performed after re-operation demonstrated rocuronium as the drug responsible for anaphylaxis. We recommend performing BATs in addition to skin tests to improve the accuracy of diagnosis of anaphylaxis. In this report, we also discuss interpretation of the results of early skin tests and subsequent selection of drugs for anesthesia. After postponement of surgery due to anaphylaxis, we are often required to perform allergy tests at an early stage if re-operation cannot be delayed. In such cases, skin test results alone should not be used to guide subsequent anesthesia management to avoid recurrent anaphylaxis.

Peri-Operative Anaphylaxis-An Investigational Challenge

Patients with suspected peri-operative anaphylaxis (POP) require thorough investigation to identify underlying trigger(s) and enable safe anesthesia for subsequent surgery. The changing epidemiology of POP has been striking. Previous estimates of the incidence of POP have ranged between 1:6,000 and1:20,000 anesthetics, but more recent data from France and the United Kingdom suggest an estimated incidence of 1:10,000. Other important changes include a change in the hierarchy of well-recognized triggers, with antibiotics (beta-lactams) supplanting neuromuscular blockers (NMB) as the leading cause of POP. The emergence of chlorhexidine, patent blue dye, and teicoplanin as important triggers have also been noteworthy findings. The mainstay of investigation revolves around critical analysis of the time-line of events leading up to anaphylaxis coupled with judicious skin testing. Skin tests have limitations with respect to unknown predictive values for most drugs/agents and therefore, knowledge of background positivity in healthy controls, test characteristics of individual drugs and the use of non-irritant concentrations is essential to avoid both false-positive and false-negative results. Specific IgE assays for individual drugs are available only for a limited number of agents and are not a substitute for skin testing. Acute serum total tryptase has a high specificity and positive predictive value in IgE-mediated POP anaphylaxis but is limited by its moderate sensitivity and negative predictive value. Planning for safe anesthesia in this group of patients is particularly challenging and consequently anesthetists need to be alert to the possibility of repeat episodes of anaphylaxis. Because of the limitations of current investigations for POP, collecting systematic data on the outcome of repeat anesthesia is valuable in validating current investigatory approaches. This paper reviews the changing epidemiology of POP with reference to the main triggers, and the investigation and outcome of subsequent anesthesia.

Assessing cross-reactivity to neuromuscular blocking agents by skin and basophil activation tests in patients with neuromuscular blocking agent anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Following diagnosis of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) anaphylaxis, identifying safe alternatives for subsequent anaesthesia is critical. A patient with anaphylaxis to one NMBA can also have an allergic reaction to other NMBAs (cross-reactivity). Whilst drug provocation testing is standard for identifying or excluding allergy, there is significant risk. In vitro, after an allergen activates basophils, basophils express surface activation markers that can be measured by basophil activation testing (BAT). We compared cross-reactivity between NMBAs assessed by BAT against that by skin testing.

METHODS

All patients attending an anaesthetic allergy clinic in Sydney, Australia between May 2017 and July 2018 diagnosed with NMBA anaphylaxis qualified for this study comparing intradermal skin tests and BAT with a panel of NMBAs (rocuronium, vecuronium, pancuronium, suxamethonium, cisatracurium).

RESULTS

Of the 61 patients participating, sensitisation on skin testing and on BAT completely matched in only nine patients (15%). Sensitisation was not in agreement for pancuronium, cisatracurium and rocuronium, but was in agreement for vecuronium and suxamethonium. Nine patients with negative skin tests subsequently tolerated cisatracurium, and one false positive on BAT to cisatracurium was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of BAT in identifying safe NMBAs for subsequent anaesthesia needs further evaluation. BAT detects a different cross-reactivity profile to skin tests. Negative skin testing and BAT might increase confidence in performing drug provocation testing, but this and follow-up of subsequent anaesthesia in our cohort is necessary to determine the clinical significance of BAT sensitisation.

Anaesthetic management of patients with pre-existing allergic conditions: a narrative review

This narrative review seeks to distinguish the clinical patterns of pre-existing allergic conditions from other confounding non-allergic clinical entities, and to identify the potential related risks and facilitate their perioperative management. Follow-up investigation should be performed after a perioperative immediate hypersensitivity to establish a diagnosis and provide advice for subsequent anaesthetics, the main risk factor for perioperative immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylaxis being a previous uninvestigated perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction. The concept of cross-reactivity between drugs used in the perioperative setting and food is often quoted, but usually not supported by evidence. There is no reason to avoid propofol in egg, soy, or peanut allergy. The allergenic determinants have been characterised for fish, shellfish, and povidone iodine, but remain unknown for iodinated contrast agents. Iodinated drugs may be used in seafood allergy. Evidence supporting the risk for protamine allergy in fish allergy and in neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin use is lacking. Conversely, cross-reactivity to gelatin-based colloid may occur in α-gal syndrome. Atopy and allergic asthma along with other non-allergic conditions, such as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease, chronic urticaria, mastocytosis, and hereditary or acquired angioedema, are not risk factors for IgE-mediated drug allergy, but there is a perioperative risk associated with the potential for exacerbation of the various conditions.

Review of Continuous Infusion Neuromuscular Blocking Agents in the Adult Intensive Care Unit

The use of continuous infusion neuromuscular blocking agents remains controversial. The clinical benefit of these medications may be overshadowed by concerns of propagating intensive care unit-acquired weakness, which may prolong mechanical ventilation and impair the inability to assess neurologic function or pain. Despite these risks, the use of neuromuscular blocking agents in the intensive care unit is indicated in numerous clinical situations. Understanding pharmacologic nuances and clinical roles of these agents will aid in facilitating safe use in a variety of acute disease processes. This article provides clinicians with information regarding pharmacologic differences, indication for use, adverse effects, recommended doses, ancillary care, and monitoring among agents used for continuous neuromuscular blockade.

Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group Perioperative Anaphylaxis Investigation Guidelines

These guidelines are a consensus document developed by a working party of the Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group (ANZAAG) to provide an approach to the investigation of perioperative anaphylaxis. They focus primarily on the use of skin testing as it is the investigation with the greatest clinical utility for the identification of the likely causative agent and potentially safer alternatives. The practicalities and process of skin testing, its limitations, and the place of other tests are discussed. These guidelines also address the roles of graded challenge and in vitro testing. The implications of anaphylaxis associated with neuromuscular blocking agents, beta-lactam antibiotics, local anaesthetic agents and chlorhexidine are discussed. Evidence for the recommendations is derived from literature searches using the words skin test, allergy, anaphylaxis, anaesthesia, and each of the individual agents listed in these guidelines. The individual articles were then reviewed for suitability for inclusion in these guidelines. Where evidence was not strong, as is the situation for many perioperative agents, expert consensus from the ANZAAG working party was used. These guidelines are intended for use by specialists involved in the investigation of perioperative allergy. They have been approved following peer review by members of ANZAAG and are available on the ANZAAG website: http://www.anzaag.com/anaphylaxis-management/testing-guidelines.pdf .

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among breast cancer and Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients under Taiwan's national health insurance system

RATIONALE, AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The beneficial effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis on reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (CIFN) were well documented throughout the literature. However, existing data regarding its cost-effectiveness were conflicting. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis in CIFN under Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) system.

METHODS

Data on clinical outcomes and direct medical costs were derived for 5179 newly diagnosed breast cancer and 629 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients from the NHI claims database. Patients were further categorized into three subgroups as "primary-", "secondary-" and "no -" prophylaxis based on their patterns of G-CSF use. Generalized estimating equations were applied to estimate the impact of G-CSF use on the incidence of CIFN. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of primary and secondary prophylactic G-CSF use were calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Primary prophylaxis of G-CSF decreased the incidence of CIFN by 27% and 83%, while secondary prophylaxis by 34% and 22% in breast cancer and NHL patients, respectively. Compared with those with no prophylaxis, the incremental cost per CIFN reduced in primary prophylaxis is $931 and $52 among patients with breast cancer and NHL, respectively. In contrast, secondary prophylaxis is dominated by no prophylaxis and primary prophylaxis in both cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Primary but not secondary prophylactic use of G-CSF was cost-effective in CIFN in breast cancer and NHL patients under Taiwan's NHI system.

General anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis: impact of allergy testing on subsequent anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy to drugs and substances used during general anaesthesia as well as non-allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions may account for anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis. As IgE-mediated anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening reaction, identification of the culprit allergen is essential to avoid anaphylaxis recurrence during subsequent general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To study whether preventive recommendations derived from allergy testing after intraoperative anaphylaxis were followed in subsequent general anaesthesia.

METHODS

Results of standardized allergy testing after anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis and outcome of subsequent general anaesthesia were analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Fifty-three of 107 patients were diagnosed with IgE-mediated allergy to a drug or substance used during general anaesthesia, and 54 patients were test negative. Twenty-eight of 29 allergy patients tolerated subsequent general anaesthesia uneventfully. One patient with cefazolin allergy suffered from anaphylaxis recurrence due to accidental reapplication of cefazolin. Twenty-two of 24 test-negative patients tolerated subsequent general anaesthesia, whereas two patients again developed anaphylaxis despite pre-medication regimens.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our results confirm the practical impact of allergy testing in general anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis. By identification of the allergen, it is possible to avoid allergic anaphylaxis during subsequent anaesthesia. In most cases, recommended pre-medication seems to prevent the recurrence of non-allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions.

Anaphylaxis from atracurium without skin manifestation

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal allergic reaction involving multi organ system that is triggered by a wide range of antigens with a subsequent release of chemical mediators from mast cells and basophils. Diagnosis is primarily clinical though laboratory studies are helpful in further confirmation. Anaphylactic reactions during anesthesia are rare, but can be fatal if not promptly recognized and treated. Among all drugs commonly used in anesthesia, muscle relaxants are the most notorious to trigger anaphylactic reactions and benzylisoquinolinium group of drugs are known to be less common an offender than the steroidal compounds. We report severe anaphylactic reaction after administration of atracurium that was promptly diagnosed and managed without any further morbidity.

In the hour of Sugammadex

Sugammadex is a modified gamma-cyclodextrin which is showing favorable outcomes regarding reversal of neuromuscular blockade, especially by rocuronium. It is designed to encapsulate rocuronium and being considered a new class of drugs as selective relaxant binding agents. It has given countless benefits to the patients at risk of incomplete or delayed recovery after neuromuscular block and has renown for another milestone in anesthesia practice. Recurrence of neuromuscular block has not been reported to be associated with the provided doses of sugammadex that are adequate for selected for reversal. Acceptable profiles are brought to light telling safety of sugammadex. However, some questions related to the twitch characteristics those resembled succinylcholine when reversal, the application for rocuronium anaphylaxis, and the hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis to sugammadex remain and are need of further investigation. It is imperative that potential problems that we need attention may include the patient's history of pulmonary disease and allergic disease for using sugammadex.

Timing of skin testing after a suspected anaphylactic reaction during anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

A delay of 4 to 6 weeks after a suspected anaphylactic reaction has commonly been recommended before performing skin testing. However, sometimes surgery cannot be delayed, and investigation must be done earlier. Recent recommendations suggest that skin testing can be performed immediately after a reaction.

METHODS

We describe three cases in which skin testing was performed within 3 weeks after the suspected anaphylactic reaction. A literature review was undertaken to evaluate cases where skin testing was performed within 3 weeks of a suspected anaphylactic reaction during anaesthesia.

RESULTS

Review of the literature did not give a definite answer to the optimal timing of skin testing after a suspected anaphylactic reaction during anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Only positive skin tests can be taken into account, and there is little safety data to provide confidence in early skin testing. A protocol of how to act if urgent surgery is necessary is suggested.

Negative predictive value of skin tests to neuromuscular blocking agents

Allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) is the most important caue of perioperative anaphylaxis in France. The diagnosis relies on a careful clinical history, the search of serum IgE antibodies, and the realization of skin tests. Although the skin tests are the most important tool and their sensitivity is widely recognized, the lack of information about their negative predictive value represents an important issue in the management of patients who require a new procedure with NMBA injection. We present a series of 49 patients with confirmed allergy to NMBAs, six of whom required a subsequent surgery with neuromuscular blockade. Negative skin tests allowed the selection of an alternative NMBA, which was well tolerated in all 6 cases. We found an excellent negative predictive value of skin tests in our series but larger studies are required to properly address this question.

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.

Peri-operative anaphylaxis

Peri-operative anaphylaxis is an important cause for mortality and morbidity associated with anaesthesia. The true incidence is unknown and is most likely under reported. Diagnosis can be difficult, particularly as a number of drugs are given simultaneously and any of these agents can potentially cause anaphylaxis. This review covers the clinical features, differential diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis associated with anaesthesia. The investigations to confirm the clinical suspicion of anaphylaxis and further tests to identify the likely drug(s) are examined. Finally the salient features of common and rare causes including non-drug substances are described.

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.