Perioperative Anaphylaxis and the United States Perspective

Epidemiology of suspected life-threatening perioperative anaphylaxis: a cross-sectional multicentre study in China

BACKGROUND

Perioperative anaphylaxis is relatively rare but can be life-threatening. The incidence in China is unknown and may differ from other global geographic regions. This study was therefore designed to understand the incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis in China.

METHODS

We enrolled 112 tertiary care hospitals from seven distinct geographic areas in mainland China. We collected information about Ring and Messmer III and IV reactions from September 2018 to August 2019. A collaborative educational learning network was used to reduce diagnostic errors. Information about patient characteristics, clinical features, treatment, and clinical outcomes were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 447 cases of 5 078 118 surgical procedures met inclusion criteria. The incidence of suspected perioperative anaphylaxis throughout China was one in 11 360 anaesthetics (95% confidence interval [CI], with a range of 1:12 521 to 1:10 397). The incidence in South China was higher (one in 6050; 95% CI, from 1:8013 to 1:4859) than in Northeast China (one in 19 262; 95% CI, from 1:33 088 to 1:13 585) (P<0.01) with an increasing trend from the north to the south. The most common clinical manifestations were hypotension (91.1%) and tachycardia (65.3%). The majority of patients (83.4%) were given epinephrine. A total of 27 patients (6.0%) required cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Ultimately, nine patients died (2.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide survey showed an incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis of one in 11 360, but this varied significantly by region. The underlying reason for this pattern remains unknown and could be attributable to environmental or genetic influences, which requires further investigation.

CLINICAL REGISTRY NUMBER

ChiCTR1900025956.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

Specific questionnaire detects a high incidence of intra-operative hypersensitivity reactions

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of intra-operative immediate hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil, from January to December 2010. We developed a specific questionnaire to be completed by anesthesiologists. This tool included questions about hypersensitivity reactions during anesthesia and provided treatments. We included patients with clinical signs compatible with immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Hhypersensitivity reactions were categorized according to severity (grades I-V). American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA 1-6) was analyzed and associated with the severity of hypersensitivity reactions.

RESULTS

In 2010, 21,464 surgeries were performed under general anesthesia. Anesthesiologists answered questionnaires on 5,414 procedures (25.2%). Sixty cases of intra-operative hypersensitivity reactions were reported. The majority patients (45, 75%) had hypersensitivity reactions grade I reactions (incidence of 27.9:10,000). Fifteen patients (25%) had grade II, III or IV reactions (intra-operative anaphylaxis) (incidence of 7:10,000). No patients had grade V reactions. Thirty patients (50%) were classified as ASA 1. The frequency of cardiovascular shock was higher in patients classified as ASA 3 than in patients classified as ASA 1 or ASA 2. Epinephrine was administered in 20% of patients with grade III hypersensitivity reactions and in 50% of patients with grade II hypersensitivity reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients had hypersensitivity reactions grade I reactions; however, the incidence of intra-operative anaphylaxis was higher than that previously reported in the literature. Patients with ASA 3 had more severe anaphylaxis; however, the use of epinephrine was not prescribed in all of these cases. Allergists and anesthesiologists should implement preventive measures to reduce the occurrence of anaphylaxis.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Simple Knee Arthroscopy

PURPOSE

To determine the association between the use of preoperative antibiotics and the risk of postoperative infection after simple knee arthroscopy.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of a large integrated health care organization were used to identify patients who underwent simple knee arthroscopy between 2007 and 2012. Patient demographics, potential infection risk factors, and antibiotic administration data were extracted. Simple knee arthroscopy included debridement, meniscectomy, meniscus repair, synovectomy, microfracture, and lateral release. Complex knee arthroscopy, septic knees, and cases involving fractures were excluded. Deep infection was defined as a positive synovial fluid culture or signs and symptoms of infection and gross pus in the knee. Superficial infection was defined as clinical signs of infection localized to a portal site and treatment with an antibiotic.

RESULTS

Of 40,810 simple knee arthroscopies, 32,836 (80.5%) received preoperative antibiotics and 7,974 (19.5%) did not. There were 25 deep infections in the antibiotic group (0.08%) and 11 in the no-antibiotics group (0.14%) (risk ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 1.12, P = .10). There were 134 superficial infections in the antibiotic group (0.41%) and 32 in the no-antibiotics group (0.40%) (risk ratio = 1.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 1.49, P = .93).

CONCLUSIONS

In our large sample of patients who underwent simple knee arthroscopy, there was no association between preoperative antibiotic use and postoperative deep or superficial infection rates at the 95% confidence level (P = .05). There was an association between preoperative antibiotic use and a decreased deep infection rate at the P = .10 level.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

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.

A case of anaphylaxis apparently induced by sugammadex and rocuronium in successive surgeries

Rocuronium is the agent most frequently involved in perioperative anaphylaxis, and sugammadex has also been known to induce anaphylactic reactions. We describe a case of successive anaphylactic episodes that seemed to be induced by clinical doses of rocuronium and sugammadex. The patient was a 19-year-old woman who had a medical history of asthma, but no history of surgery. She had been injured in a fall, and several surgeries were scheduled for multiple bone fractures. At the first surgery under general anesthesia, she developed anaphylaxis 5 min after sugammadex administration. A second general anesthesia for treatment of calcaneal fracture was induced uneventfully without neuromuscular blockade after 10 days. A third general anesthesia was scheduled to reinforce the spinal column 12 days after the first surgery. She developed anaphylaxis 8 min after rocuronium administration. The level of plasma histamine was elevated, but serum tryptase level remained normal. This surgery was canceled and rescheduled without use of a neuromuscular blockade. Skin tests were performed in a later investigation. The patient showed positive results on intradermal tests for sugammadex and rocuronium, supporting a diagnosis of allergic reactions to both drugs. Clinicians must be aware that anaphylactic reactions can be induced by both sugammadex and rocuronium.

Chlorhexidine-induced anaphylaxis in surgical patients: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine (CHL) has antiseptic and disinfectant properties used to prevent hospital-acquired infections. CHL-induced anaphylaxis is poorly reported in surgical literature despite government warnings and growing recognition. The aim of this review is to increase awareness of CHL-induced anaphylaxis in the surgical population.

METHODS

Literature review of Embase, Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane library using 'anaphylaxis (and) chlorhexidine' search terms.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles were published on surgical patients suffering anaphylaxis to CHL. Within these, seven patients had two proven separate anaphylactic reactions and one had three separate proven anaphylactic reactions. The most commonly affected speciality was urology. The majority occurred during elective procedures. A history of atopy was surprisingly uncommon as was bronchospasm. Six patients required active chest compressions and 39.71% of patients had their surgical procedure abandoned. Unplanned intensive care admissions occurred in 27.94%.

DISCUSSION

In order to reduce abandoned procedures, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, morbidity and mortality associated with CHL-induced anaphylaxis we recommend the following: rationalization of CHL-containing products, greater vigilance regarding subtle symptoms of CHL allergy, appropriate investigation of these symptoms and a greater awareness of CHL-containing products. Lastly, we outline the appropriate investigations and highlight the need for meticulous documentation in those who are CHL allergic.

Severe anaphylaxis: the secret ingredient

In this case report, we describe a healthy urological patient who suffered severe intraoperative anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine, an ingredient contained in frequently used lubricants (Instillagel, Endosgel). Chlorhexidine is a well-known skin disinfectant and antiseptic component in mouthwash or other over the counter antiseptic pharmaceuticals. There is little awareness that commonly used lubricants may contain hidden chlorhexidine. After severe intraoperative anaphylaxis, it is important to investigate all potential (including hidden) agents that might have caused this life-threatening reaction.

Perioperative anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition with an estimated prevalence of 1:3,500 to 1:20,000 procedures and a mortality rate of up to 9 %. Clinical presentation involves signs such as skin rash, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm, tachycardia, bradycardia, and hypotension. Prompt recognition and treatment is of utmost importance to the patient's prognosis, since clinical deterioration can develop rapidly. Epinephrine is the main treatment drug, and its use should not be postponed, since delayed administration is associated with increased mortality. Elevated levels of serum tryptase help to confirm the diagnosis. The main agents involved in IgE-mediated perioperative anaphylaxis are neuromuscular blocking agents, latex, antibiotics, hypnotics, opioids, and colloids. Specific investigation should be conducted 4 to 6 weeks after the reaction and relies on skin tests, serum-specific IgE, and challenge procedures. This review aims to discuss the main aspects of perioperative anaphylaxis: risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, culprit agents, specific investigation, and preventive measures.

The association of hypno-anesthesia and conventional anesthesia in a patient with multiple allergies at risk of anaphylactic shock

A male patient needed surgery for the ablation of 4 impacted maxillary molars that prevented chewing and had contributed to progressively worsening trigeminal neuralgia. Two previous anesthetic procedures led to episodes of severe anaphylactic shock with the need for a prolonged stay in the ICU. Hypnotic anesthesia was therefore selected as a safer option for this patient. After 4 preparative sessions, on the day of surgery, the hypnotist provided an induction followed by suggestions for mouth and face anesthesia. Intubation occurred following the introduction of remifentanil and sevoflurane. The surgery lasted about 90 minutes and proceeded uneventfully. This case report describes how conventional and hypnotic anesthesia may work synergistically and may be particularly advantageous in case of drug allergy.