Anaphylaxis during the perioperative period

Intraoperative Anaphylaxis to Gelatin during Alveolar Bone Grafting for Cleft Palate

Intraoperative anaphylaxis can be life threatening. Anaphylaxis to gelatin-based topical hemostatic agents is an underrecognized hypersensitivity. To date, only 21 cases of intraoperative anaphylaxis have been reported for gelatin-based hemostatic agents. In this article, we report the case of a 10-year-old male patient who sustained anaphylaxis after the use of Gelfoam during harvest of a bone graft. Rapid diagnosis and treatment of intraoperative anaphylaxis is imperative to prevent adverse outcomes. Referral to an allergist for identification of the allergen and appropriate notation in the medical record are paramount to avoid future anaphylactic events. Surgeons should avoid gelatin-based hemostatic agents, such as Gelfoam, in patients with reported intolerance of gelatin-based foods and medicines.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions in a Lebanese outpatient population: A decade-long retrospective analysis (2012-2021)

Background

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are becoming more common as a result of increasing prevalence and case complexity. Allergists and clinical immunologists worldwide are challenged daily to adequately diagnose and manage these reactions. Data in the literature regarding DHR outpatient consultations are scarce worldwide, limited in the Middle East, and currently unavailable in Lebanon.

Objective

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of all reported DHRs over 10 years in a tertiary-care allergy clinic in Lebanon.

Methods

We conducted a decade-long (2012-21) retrospective analysis of the archived medical records of patients with a history of DHRs. Demographics, clinical history, diagnostic tools, and characteristics of the DHRs were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 758 patients experienced DHRs to therapeutic molecules provided for ambulatory care. Our results identified 72 medications. The most frequently implicated drug classes included β-lactam antibiotics (53.8%), followed closely by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (48.9%). Of the 758 patients, 32.6% reported DHRs to multiple molecules, and 11.8% reported concomitant DHRs to 1 or several molecules provided in the perioperative setting. Of those, opioids and neuromuscular blocking agents were the 2 most common therapeutic classes. Furthermore, we evaluated the cross-reactivity between molecules of the same class. In neuromuscular blocking agents, rocuronium and cisatracurium were the most commonly cross-reactive, and for opioids, the most common association we recorded was with morphine and pethidine.

Conclusion

Our findings constitute the first step toward a more comprehensive evaluation of the clinical characteristics of DHRs in Lebanon.

Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis: National Database Analysis

(1) Background: National health system databases represent an important source of information about the epidemiology of adverse drug reactions including drug-induced allergy and anaphylaxis. Analysis of such databases may enhance the knowledge of healthcare professionals regarding the problem of drug-induced anaphylaxis. (2) Methods: A retrospective descriptive analysis was carried out of spontaneous reports (SRs) with data on drug-induced anaphylaxis (SRsAs) extracted from the Russian National Pharmacovigilance database (analyzed period 2 April 2019-21 June 2023). The percentage of SRsAs among SRs of drug-induced allergy (SRsDIAs) was calculated, as well as of pediatric, elderly, and fatal SrsAs. Drugs involved in anaphylaxis were assessed among total SRsAs, pediatric, and elderly SRsAs, and among fatal SRsAs. Demographic parameters of patients were assessed. (3) Results: SRsAs were reported in 8.3% of SRsDIAs (2304/27,727), the mean age of patients was 48.2 ± 15.8 years, and females accounted for 53.2% of cases. The main causative groups of drugs were antibacterials (ABs) for systemic use (44.6%), local anesthetics (20.0%), and cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors (10.1%). Fatal SRsAs were reported in 9.5% (218/2304) of cases, the mean age of patients was 48.0 ± 16.7 years, and females accounted for 56.4% of cases. Pediatric SRsAs accounted for 3.9% of pediatric SRsDIAs and 5.8% of all SRsAs, with a mean age of 11.8 ± 4.5 years, and females acccounted for 51.9% of cases. Elderly SRsAs accounted for 2% of elderly SRsDIAs and 2.8% of all SRsAs, and the mean age was 73.0 ± 5.3 years, and females accounted for 43.5% of cases. ABs caused 40% of SRsAs in the elderly, 42.9% in children, and 50% of fatal SRsAs. (4) Conclusions: Our study revealed a relatively high proportion of anaphylaxis among SRs of drug-induced allergy. ABs were the most prevalent causative agents, especially in fatal SRsAs.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) for procedural sedation and anesthesia induction in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor agonist that has attracted wide attention because of its lower injection pain and fewer adverse events. We summarized all available evidence and analyzed the efficacy and safety of ciprofol during procedural sedation and anesthesia induction.

Methods

An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Science Direct, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and the VIP Chinese Journal Service platform was conducted from inception of databases to March 1, 2023. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used separately for binary categorical and continuous variables. We performed trial sequential analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to judge the certainty of evidence.

Results

Fifteen randomized controlled trials with 2441 patients were included in this study. Ciprofol showed similar advantages to propofol in terms of induction success rate (RR = 1, 95 % CI = 0.99, 1.01, moderate certainty) and induction time (MD = 3.31, 95 % CI = -0.34, 6.95, low certainty), but did not increase the incidence of adverse events (RR = 0.88, 95 % CI = 0.78, 1.00, very low certainty), such as bradycardia (RR = 0.96, 95 % CI = 0.77, 1.21, high certainty), hypoxia (RR = 0.79, 95 % CI = 0.46, 1.37, p = 0.40, moderate certainty) and other adverse events. Although it may be associated with a longer time to be fully alert (MD = 1.22, 95 % CI = 0.32, 2.12, very low certainty), ciprofol significantly reduced injection pain (RR = 0.15, 95 % CI 0.09, 0.24, low certainty) and may have reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.63, 0.94, low certainty) and respiratory depression (RR = 0.29, 95 % CI = 0.15, 0.56, moderate certainty).

Conclusion

Ciprofol and propofol had similar effects on most outcomes. While the time to full alertness may be prolonged, injection pain was significantly reduced, and hypotension and respiratory depression may be reduced compared with propofol. We believe that ciprofol is an effective alternative to intravenous anesthetic agents.

Risks and benefits of anesthesia for combined pediatric procedures in the NIH undiagnosed diseases program

PURPOSE

The NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program (UDP) aims to provide diagnoses to patients who have previously received exhaustive evaluations yet remain undiagnosed. Patients undergo procedural anesthesia for deep phenotyping for analysis with genomic testing.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed to determine the safety and benefit of procedural anesthesia in pediatric patients in the UDP. Adverse perioperative events were classified as anesthesia-related complications or peri-procedural complications. The contribution of procedures performed under anesthesia to arriving at a diagnosis was also determined.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2020, 249 pediatric patients in the UDP underwent anesthesia for diagnostic procedures. The majority had a severe systemic disease (American Society for Anesthesiology status III, 79%) and/or a neurologic condition (91%). Perioperative events occurred in 45 patients; six of these were attributed to anesthesia. All patients recovered fully without sequelae. Nearly half of the 249 patients (49%) received a diagnosis, and almost all these diagnoses (88%) took advantage of information gleaned from procedures performed under anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of anesthesia involving multiple diagnostic procedures in a well-coordinated, multidisciplinary, research setting, such as in the pediatric UDP, outweigh the risks.

Management of Anastomotic Leaks in Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis

Anastomotic leaks remain a dreaded complication after ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA). Their impacts can be devastating, ranging from an acute leak leading to postoperative sepsis to chronic leaks and sinus tracts resulting in long-term pouch dysfunction and subsequent pouch failure. The management of acute leaks is intricate. Initial management is important to resolve acute sepsis, but the type of acute intervention impacts long-term pouch function. Aggressive management in the postoperative period, including the use of IV fluids, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and operative interventions may be necessary to preserve pouch structure and function. Early identification and knowledge of the most common areas of leak, such as at the IPAA anastomosis, are important for guiding management. Long-term complications, such as pouch sinuses, pouch-vaginal fistulas, and diminished IPAA function complicate the overall survival and functionality of the pouch. Knowledge and awareness of the identification and management of leaks is crucial for optimizing IPAA success.

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.

Complications of Hair Transplant Procedures-Causes and Management

Hair transplant surgery per se has low risk, is relatively safe, and has minimum incidence of complications. However, it is a well-accepted fact that no medical science procedure exists without any potential risk of complications. The complication may be a single complaint in the form of pain, itching, dissatisfaction related to the procedure's outcome, or surgical complication in the form of infection, wound dehiscence or skin necrosis. Inadequate counselling increases unsatisfaction. Improper examination increases the complications, and incomplete medical history and history of allergy increases the risk during surgery.

The author collected data of his 2896 patients, operated over a period of 10 years, and recorded the complains and complications. The most common complications were sterile folliculitis, noted in 203 patients, vasovagal shock in seven patients of, hypertensive crisis in one patient, hiccups in six patients, facial edema after hair transplant in 18 patients, graft dislodgement in 8 patients, infection in two diabetic patients, minor necrotic patches in recipient area in three patients, keloid development in one patient, numbness in 18 cases, and hypersensitivity in recipient and/or donor area. Donor area effluvium was seen in one case and three patients showed recipient area effluvium. Twenty-six patients were not happy with the results, and five cases showed partial loss of implanted hair. The overall significant life-threatening or major complications were zero, but the total minor complications' percentage was 0.10%.

The key to minimize complaints and complications are detailed counselling, taking careful medical history and history of allergy, and proper examination of patients.

Anaphylaxis: Definition, Epidemiology, Diagnostic Challenges, Grading System

There are many definitions of anaphylaxis in the medical literature. The authors propose a modified definition of anaphylaxis to be used for clinical decision making that promotes the early utilization of intramuscular epinephrine. Anaphylaxis can be a result of an allergic or nonallergic mechanism. In general, allergic reactions are more severe; however, any type of anaphylaxis can result in death and improve with IM epinephrine. The World Allergy Organization's Grading Criteria for allergic systemic reactions are adapted as a guide to identify manifestations that may progress to anaphylaxis. The intent is to promote and encourage the use of IM epinephrine in the health care setting before the progression of manifestations and the onset of life-threatening respiratory or cardiovascular dysfunction generally recognized as meeting the definition of anaphylaxis.

Practical guidelines for the response to perioperative anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a severe adverse event during anesthesia that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment by physicians, including anesthesiologists. Muscle relaxants and antibiotics are the most common drugs that cause perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan, as in many countries. In addition, sugammadex appears to be a primary causative agent. Obtaining previous anesthesia records is necessary in a patient with a history of allergic reactions during anesthesia, whenever possible, to avoid recurrence of anaphylaxis. Although medical staff are likely to notice abnormal vital signs because of complete monitoring during anesthesia, surgical drapes make it difficult to notice the appearance of skin symptoms. Even if there are no skin symptoms, anaphylaxis should be suspected, especially when hypotension resistant to inotropes and vasopressors persists. For improving the diagnostic accuracy of anaphylaxis, it is helpful to collect blood samples to measure histamine/tryptase concentrations immediately after the events and at baseline. The first-line treatment for anaphylaxis is adrenaline. In the perioperative setting, adrenaline should be administered through the intravenous route, which has a faster effect onset and is secured in most cases. Adrenaline can cause serious complications including severe arrhythmias if the appropriate dose is not selected according to the severity of symptoms. The anesthesiologist should identify the causative agent after adverse events. The gold standard for identifying the causative agent is the skin test, but in vitro tests including specific IgE antibody measurements and basophil activation tests are also beneficial. The Working Group of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists has developed this practical guide to help appropriate prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, and postoperative diagnosis of anaphylaxis during anesthesia.Grade of recommendations and levels of evidence Anaphylaxis is a relatively rare condition with few controlled trials, and thus a so-called evidence-based scrutiny is difficult. Therefore, rather than showing evidence levels and indicating the level of recommendation, this practical guideline only describes the results of research available to date. The JSA will continue to investigate anaphylaxis during anesthesia, and the results may lead to an amendment of this practical guideline.

Serum CD203c+ Extracellular Vesicle Serves as a Novel Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker for Succinylated Gelatin Induced Perioperative Hypersensitive Reaction

Background

Perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (HR) is an IgE-FcϵRI-mediated hypersensitivity reaction with degranulation and activation of mast cells and basophils. Several studies have focused on assessing the degranulation and activation of mast cells and basophils to diagnose and predict the prognosis of drug induced HR. However, it is challenging to isolate sufficiently pure mast cells and basophils from human sources to investigate. Effective biomarkers to assess mast cells and basophils activation in vivo could potentially have high diagnostic and prognostic values. In the present study, we investigated EVs pelleted from serum in patients with succinylated gelatin induced HR.

Methods

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) were isolated using a total exosome isolation kit and ultracentrifugation, characterized by Western blot, transmission electron microscopy, and nanoparticle tracking analysis. Basophils were isolated from fresh peripheral blood by negative selection using Basophil Isolation Kit II. Human mast cell line was stimulated with IL4. The expression levels of proteins related to the hypersensitive response were evaluated by Western blotting and flow Cytometer. Histamine and tryptase levels were tested using a commercial ELISA kit, and gene expression of inflammatory mediators was evaluated by qRT-PCR. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of biomarker in predicting HR.

Results

The concentration of EVs and protein expression level of CD63, FcϵRI, CD203c and tryptase were significantly (p< 0.05) increased in HR samples. The expression level of mast cell/basophil specific CD203c were significantly increased in EVs derived from serum and basophils of HR patients, and the CD203c⁺-EVs production in mast cells is dramatically increased in the presence of IL4, which positively correlated with histamine, tryptase and inflammatory mediators. Moreover, the ROC curve of EVs concentration and CD203c expression indicated that CD203c⁺-EVs had a strong diagnostic ability for HR.

Conclusion

Serum CD203c+-EVs serves as a novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for HR.

New perspectives on propofol allergy

PURPOSE

Propofol is an intravenous sedative used in many patient populations and care settings. Although generally considered safe and effective, the drug has historically been avoided in patients with reported allergies to egg, soy, and/or peanut on the basis of the manufacturer's prescribing information. Concerns exist for potential adverse events, increased medication costs, reduced efficacy, and risk of medication errors when using alternative agents. Here we present a critical examination of the literature concerning cross-reactivity of food allergies with propofol to provide evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation and management of potential allergic reactions.

SUMMARY

Literature regarding the history of propofol allergy warnings and clinical trial data were assessed to provide an alternative perspective on avoidance of propofol in patients with food allergies. Suspected trigger molecules are discussed with evaluation of the antigenic potential of excipient ingredients used in the manufacture of multiple propofol formulations. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for pharmacist-led screening of adult patients with reported food allergies to support selection of propofol or alternative therapy.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of definitive evidence that propofol must be routinely avoided in patients with reported allergies to egg, soy, and/or peanut products. Data from clinical trials suggest that propofol is safe for patients with nonanaphylactic food allergies. Patients who do experience allergic reactions following administration of propofol should undergo further testing to definitively identify the specific trigger and prevent future unnecessary avoidance of preferred medication regimens. Pharmacists can play an important role in interviewing patients with reported food allergies to better determine the risk vs benefit of propofol avoidance.

Review of topical gelatin-based haemostatic agents; an insidious culprit of intraoperative anaphylaxis?

BACKGROUND

An under-recognized complication of gelatin-based haemostatic agents is their potential to cause anaphylactic reactions. This review aims to collate and analyse case in the literature of intraoperative anaphylaxis secondary to locally applied haemostatic agents.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and ProQuest. A total of 7671 articles were reviewed from title and abstract. After exclusion criteria and duplicates removed, 19 articles with 21 cases were included for analysis. Data extracted from each of the articles included patient demographics, haemostatic agent used, surgery type, known allergies and any objective evidence of hypersensitivity post anaphylactic episode, that is tryptase levels, IgE levels, skin prick testing.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven percent of cases involved patients <18 years of age; 57% of cases involved spinal surgery; 100% of cases displayed objective evidence of hypersensitivity (tryptase levels, bovine or porcine IgE levels, or skin prick testing). Thirty-three percent of patients had exposure preoperatively to a known agent causing anaphylaxis or allergy which would preclude the use of a gelatin-based haemostat. These products included vaccines, spam meats, red meat, Jell-O and CollaPlug. Gelatin-based haemostat agents included Floseal, Gelfoam, Surgiflo, fibrin glue, Avitene, haemofibrine sponge, topical bovine thrombin and thrombin-soaked gelatin.

CONCLUSION

Increased awareness of allergy to gelatin-based haemostats for surgical and anaesthetic is imperative, with 33% of cases having a known contraindication to gelatin-based haemostat. This review highlights important aspects in the pre-operative patient history and post-event patient investigation that could assist anaesthetists and surgeons in the prevention of future events.

Local anaesthesia in dentistry: a review

Over the past century, there is perhaps no greater contribution to the practice of clinical dentistry than the development and application of local anaesthesia. What were once considered painful procedures have now been made routine by the deposition and action of local anaesthetics. This article will serve as a review of basic pharmacological principles of local anaesthesia, subsequent sequelae that can arise from their use, considerations when using local anaesthetics, and recent advances in the delivery of local anaesthetics.

Focus on the agents most frequently responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis

Adverse reactions (ARs) to drugs administered during general anesthesia may be very severe and life-threatening, with a mortality rate ranging from 3 to 9%. The adverse reactions to drugs may be IgE and non-IgE-mediated. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) represent the first cause of perioperative reactions during general anesthesia followed by latex, antibiotics, hypnotic agents, opioids, colloids, dyes and antiseptics (chlorhexidine). All these substances (i.e. NMBA, anesthetics, antibiotics, latex devices) may cause severe systemic non-IgE-mediated reactions or fatal anaphylactic events even in the absence of any evident risk factor in the patient's anamnesis. For this reason, in order to minimize perioperative anaphylactic reactions, it is important to have rapid, specific, sensitive in vitro diagnostic tests able to confirm the clinical diagnosis of acute anaphylaxis.

Reclassifying Anaphylaxis to Neuromuscular Blocking Agents Based on the Presumed Patho-Mechanism: IgE-Mediated, Pharmacological Adverse Reaction or "Innate Hypersensitivity"?

Approximately 60% of perioperative anaphylactic reactions are thought to be immunoglobulin IgE mediated, whereas 40% are thought to be non-IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions (both considered non-dose-related type B adverse drug reactions). In both cases, symptoms are elicited by mast cell degranulation. Also, pharmacological reactions to drugs (type A, dose-related) may sometimes mimic symptoms triggered by mast cell degranulation. In case of hypotension, bronchospasm, or urticarial rash due to mast cell degranulation, identification of the responsible mechanism is complicated. However, determination of the type of the underlying adverse drug reaction is of paramount interest for the decision of whether the culprit drug may be re-administered. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) are among the most frequent cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. Recently, it has been shown that NMBA may activate mast cells independently from IgE antibodies via the human Mas-related G-protein-coupled receptor member X2 (MRGPRX2). In light of this new insight into the patho-mechanism of pseudo-allergic adverse drug reactions, in which as drug-receptor interaction results in anaphylaxis like symptoms, we critically reviewed the literature on NMBA-induced perioperative anaphylaxis. We challenge the dogma that NMBA mainly cause IgE-mediated anaphylaxis via an IgE-mediated mechanism, which is based on studies that consider positive skin test to be specific for IgE-mediated hypersensitivity. Finally, we discuss the question whether MRGPRX2 mediated pseudo-allergic reactions should be re-classified as type A adverse reactions.