[Severe adverse event following iv administration of 10 ml 6% Dextran60 (0.6 g) in a healthy volunteer]

Anaphylactic reaction with hydroxyethyl starch during anesthesia - A case report

Background

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES), a class of synthetic colloid solutions, has been widely used to treat perioperative hypovolemia. The use of HES, however, is associated with the risk of allergic reactions.

Case

An 83-year-old man was scheduled to undergo an open reduction and internal fixation of a pertrochanteric fracture under spinal anesthesia. He had no history of allergy. Five minutes after HES administration, hypotension, agitation, and skin rash were developed. HES infusion was terminated due to a suspected anaphylactic reaction. The vital signs recovered following administration of phenylephrine, dexamethasone, and hydrocortisone. Serum tryptase and total immunoglobulin E levels were elevated in plasma samples collected following the commencement of the allergic reaction during surgery.

Conclusions

In the present report, the risk of anaphylactic reaction with HES and the laboratory tests needed to support the diagnosis are highlighted.

Cytokine and Chemokine Recovery Is Increased by Colloid Perfusates during Dermal Microdialysis

Cytokines and chemokines play important roles in cell signalling, and microdialysis is a promising tool for monitoring these inflammation markers ex vivo. Therefore, the collecting of these mediators at the highest concentrations possible is crucial. Depending on the size of the mediator of interest, the collection of these high molecular mass molecules has thus far been difficult due to their low recovery, even when using high cut-off (100 kDa) microdialysis membranes. This study aimed to optimize the recovery of various cytokines and chemokines by validating the use of different perfusates in cutaneous microdialysis, and comparing intravenous (i.v.) colloids, crystalloids, and a lipid emulsion formulations that are approved for i.v. applications. Methods: In vitro and in vivo recovery experiments using six recombinant cytokines varying in molecular size (interleukin-2 (15 kDa), interleukin-6 (20.5 kDa), interleukin-8 (8 kDa), interleukin-12p70 (70 kDa), TNF-α (17.5 kDa), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (38 kDa)) were performed in the presence of different perfusates for i.v. applications: Ringer’s lactate, dextran 60 kDa, hydroxyethyl starch 70 kDa, and hydroxyethyl starch 200 kDa solutions as well as a lipid emulsion formulation. Recovery was determined through (i) microdialysis of cytokines and chemokines in Ringer’s lactate solution or human serum in vitro, and (ii) retrodialysis of excised porcine and human skin cadavers in vitro and porcine skin in vivo. Furthermore, we used skin trauma (catheter insertion) and Ultraviolet B irradiation of 3 × 3 cm² skin areas to sample cytokines and chemokines in vivo and compared the amounts that were obtained using crystalloid and colloid perfusates. All the cytokines and chemokines within the dialysates were quantified through a flow cytometry-based bead array assay. Results: Overall, recovery was strongly increased by the colloids, particularly hydroxyethyl starch 70 kDa, in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo. When compared with the recovery achieved using Ringer’s lactate, this increase was most effective for proteins ranging from 8 to 20.5 kDa. Hydroxyethyl starch 70 kDa significantly increased the recovery of interleukin (IL)-8 in human serum in vitro when compared with Ringer’s lactate. More cytokines and chemokines were recovered using colloids compared with crystalloids. However, the increase in recovery values was lower for IL-12p70 and VEGF. Conclusions: Regarding the dialysate volumes and final dialysate concentrations, colloid perfusates are overall superior to crystalloid perfusates, such as Ringer’s lactate, when sampling cytokines and chemokines, resulting in higher recoveries. However, the sampling of high-molecular-mass cytokines during microdialysis remains challenging, and experimental in vitro data are not completely comparable with data obtained ex vivo or in vivo.

Hypersensitivity reactions to anticoagulant drugs: diagnosis and management options

Anticoagulants, including heparins, coumarins, hirudins, and some of the previously used plasma volume expanders, belong to the most widely used drugs. Hypersensitivity reactions from these agents are uncommon. However, they may have a considerable impact on patient safety and treatment decisions. Therefore, early diagnosis of potentially life-threatening adverse events and identification of alternatives is clinically important. This review contains an update on current knowledge about hypersensitivity reactions caused by the different anticoagulants. In addition, it discusses pathophysiologic mechanisms, diagnostic possibilities, and management options. The most common hypersensitivity reactions are erythematous plaques, occurring with a delay after subcutaneous application of heparins. Seldom they turn into maculopapular exanthema. Other hypersensitivity reactions are rare but may be life-threatening, e.g. skin necrosis because of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Skin and provocation tests with immediate and late readings are the most reliable diagnostic tools for heparin- or hirudin-induced urticaria/anaphylaxis or heparin-induced delayed plaques. If necrosis from heparins or coumarins is suspected, skin tests are contraindicated. In anaphylactic reactions caused by dextrans or hydroxyethyl starch skin tests are useless. Most in vitro tests have a low sensitivity and are not generally available. Therefore, in some anticoagulant-associated hypersensitivity reactions detailed allergologic investigation may help to identify safe treatment alternatives. However, several tests may be needed, and the procedures are usually time-consuming.