In vitro diagnostic tests for perioperative hypersensitivity, a narrative review: potential, limitations, and perspectives

Basophil activation test in the diagnostic workup of perioperative anaphylaxis due to neuromuscular blocking agents: A case series and implications for practice

In Australia, neuromuscular blocking agents are the leading cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. Current investigation of suspected anaphylaxis includes tryptase levels, serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and skin testing, including intradermal testing and skin prick testing. The gold standard for the diagnosis of a hypersensitivity reaction is a challenge test, but this poses a risk to patient safety. An alternative test, known as the basophil activation test (BAT) is a form of cellular in vitro testing using flow cytometry to measure the degree of basophil degranulation within a sample of blood following exposure to an allergen. This acts as a surrogate marker for mast cell and basophil activation, thereby identifying IgE-mediated allergy. It is most commonly used to supplement equivocal findings from initial in vitro testing to assist in confirming the diagnosis of a hypersensitivity reaction and identify the causative agent. We present a case series in which five patients with suspected anaphylaxis underwent a BAT, demonstrating its role and limitations in allergy testing within Australia.

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

Pholcodine and allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents: where are we and how did we get here?

Despite the purported link between pholcodine and neuromuscular blocking agent allergy, screening for prior pholcodine use offers no practical benefit to patients, and anaesthetists should continue to use a neuromuscular blocking agent where this is clinically indicated.

Tools for Etiologic Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Allergic Conditions

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a serious concern in clinical practice because they can be severe and result in lifelong sequelae. An accurate diagnosis and identification of the culprit drug is essential to prevent future reactions as well as for the identification of safe treatment alternatives. Nonetheless, the diagnosis can be challenging. In vivo and in vitro tests can be helpful, although none are conclusive; therefore, the tests are not usually performed in isolation but as part of a diagnostic algorithm. In addition, some in vitro tests are only available in research laboratories, and standardization has not been fully accomplished. Collaborating research is needed to improve drug hypersensitivity reaction diagnosis. In this review, we update the current available in vivo and in vitro tools with their pros and cons and propose an algorithm to integrate them into clinical practice.

Perioperative anaphylaxis: when the allergological work-up goes negative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) is rare but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients are referred to the allergist to identify the mechanism of the reaction, the causative agent and make recommendations regarding subsequent anaesthesia. Despite a well conducted allergological evaluation, the causative agent is not found in 30-60% of these reactions, leaving patients without a well established diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several mechanisms can induce POA. In addition to the well known IgE-mediated reactions, IgG-mediated reaction, MRGPR-X2-related reaction or nonspecific histamine release may be involved. These situations are not easily assessed by the allergological workup.

SUMMARY

When the allergological workup is negative, the situation should be reassessed with the team present at the time of the reaction to confirm the reality of the hypersensitivity reaction and to search for a possible differential diagnosis. If POA is confirmed, the allergological evaluation should be repeated, ensuring proper execution according to current guidelines and including the search for hidden allergens. Specific IgE assays or basophil activation tests may be of interest. In case of negative results, a closely monitored drug challenge test, in coordination with the anaesthesia teams, may be useful to avoid the exclusion of any drug injected during the reaction.

Suspected perioperative anaphylaxis: are we making the correct diagnosis?

We provide a commentary on aspects of a prospective study of the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan (Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis [JESPA]). Accurate diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is important for research but essential for clinical safety. We evaluate the diagnostic approach used in the JESPA study and caution against over-reliance on diagnostic tests that lack sensitivity and specificity when clinical data suggest an immediate perioperative hypersensitivity reaction is likely.

The Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis, a prospective nationwide study: allergen exposure, epidemiology, and diagnosis of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is often challenging. This study describes the utility of a newly developed tool for identifying patients with a high possibility of anaphylaxis, and aimed to investigate the frequency of anaphylaxis with each drug during the perioperative period in Japan.

METHODS

This study included patients with anaphylaxis of Grade 2 or higher severity during general anaesthesia at 42 facilities across Japan in 2019 and 2020. We developed and adopted a unique objective evaluation tool yielding a composite score for diagnosing anaphylaxis, which includes the results of skin tests and basophil activation tests, and clinical scores for perioperative anaphylaxis. The number of cases using each drug and the total number of anaphylaxis cases were investigated to calculate the frequency of anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

General anaesthesia was performed in 218 936 cases, which included 55 patients with suspected perioperative anaphylaxis. The developed composite score diagnosed 43 of them with a high probability of anaphylaxis. The causative agent was identified in 32 cases. Plasma histamine levels showed high diagnostic accuracy for anaphylaxis. The top causative agents were rocuronium (10 cases in 210 852 patients, 0.005%), sugammadex (7 cases in 150 629 patients, 0.005%), and cefazolin (7 cases in 106 005 patients, 0.007%).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a composite tool to diagnose anaphylaxis, and found that the combination of tryptase levels, skin testing, and basophil activation testing results and clinical score improved the certainty of anaphylaxis diagnosis. The incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis in our study was 1 in about 5000 general anaesthesia cases.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000035350.

A quarter of a century fundamental and translational research in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis at the Antwerp university hospital, a Belgian Centre of Excellence of the World Allergy Organization

Perioperative hypersensitivity constitutes an important health issue, with potential dramatic consequences of diagnostic mistakes. However, safe and correct diagnosis is not always straightforward, mainly because of the application of incorrect nomenclature, absence of easy accessible in-vitro/ex-vivo tests and uncertainties associated with the non-irritating skin test concentrations. In this editorial we summarize the time line, seminal findings, and major realizations of 25 years of research on the mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of perioperative hypersensitivity.

Neuromuscular blocking agent induced hypersensitivity reaction exploration: an update

Acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHRs) occurring in present-day anaesthesia can have severe, sometimes fatal, consequences and their incidence is increasing. The most frequent allergens responsible for AHR during anaesthesia are neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) (70% of the cases) followed by antibiotics (18%), patent blue dye and methylene blue dye (5%), and latex (5%). Following an AHR, strategies for subsequent anaesthetic procedures (especially the choice of an NMBA) may be difficult to formulate due to inconclusive diagnostic analysis in up to 30% of AHRs. Current diagnosis of AHR relies on the detection of mast cell degranulation products and drug-specific type E immunoglobulins (IgE) in order to document an IgE-mediated anaphylaxis (IgE endotype). Nonetheless, other IgE-independent pathways can be involved in AHR, but their detection is not currently available in standard situations. The different mechanisms (endotypes) involved in peri-operative AHR may contribute to the inconclusive diagnostic work-up and this generates uncertainty concerning the culpable drug and strategy for subsequent anaesthetic procedures. This review provides details on the IgE endotype; an update on non-IgE related endotypes and the novel diagnostic tools that could characterise them. This detailed update is intended to provide explicit clinical reasoning tools to the anaesthesiologist faced with an incomplete AHR diagnostic work-up and to facilitate the decision-making process regarding anaesthetic procedures following an AHR to NMBAs.

Perioperative Hypersensitivity Evaluation and Management: A Practical Approach

Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening event. Identification of POH can be difficult given the lack of familiarity, physiological effects of anesthesia, draping of the patient during surgery, and potential nonimmunological factors contributing to signs and symptoms. Given the unique nature and large number of medications administered in the perioperative setting, evaluation of POH can be challenging. In this paper, we present a practical approach to management with an emphasis on understanding what happens in the operating room, the overlap of signs and symptoms between nonimmunological and immunological reactions, acute management, and subsequent evaluation. In addition, we provide a strategy for further review of an initially negative evaluation and emphasize the importance of establishing management plans for the patient as well as providing recommendations to the medical, anesthesia, and surgical teams for future surgeries. A critical factor for successful management at all points in the process is a close collaboration between the anesthesia and the allergy teams.

Methods and Advances in the Design, Testing and Development of In Vitro Diagnostic Instruments

With the continuous improvement of medical testing and instrumentation engineering technologies, the design, testing and development methods of in vitro diagnostic instruments are developing rapidly. In vitro diagnostic instruments are also gradually developing into a class of typical high-end medical equipment. The design of in vitro diagnostic instruments involves a variety of medical diagnostic methods and biochemical, physical and other related technologies, and its development process involves complex system engineering. This paper systematically organizes and summarizes the design, testing and development methods of in vitro diagnostic instruments and their development in recent years, focusing on summarizing the related technologies and core aspects of the R&D process, and analyzes the development trend of the in vitro diagnostic instrument market.

Intraoperative chlorhexidine-induced anaphylaxis suggesting an immunoglobulin-E-dependent mechanism indicated by basophil activation tests: two case reports

BACKGROUND

Although chlorhexidine allergy has been shown to be mediated by immunoglobulin (Ig) E, few reports investigated the mechanism of chlorhexidine-induced anaphylaxis using basophil activation tests (BATs).

CASE PRESENTATION

A 79-year-old man underwent cholecystectomy under general anesthesia. Anaphylaxis was diagnosed based on the clinical symptoms and high serum tryptase and histamine levels. Skin tests showed positive results only for chlorhexidine. Subsequently, BATs demonstrated that the causative agent was likely chlorhexidine. The inhibitory effect of wortmannin, an inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase, on basophil activation suggested an IgE-dependent mechanism underlying chlorhexidine-induced anaphylaxis. An 89-year-old man underwent inguinal hernioplasty under general anesthesia. Anaphylaxis was diagnosed based on the clinical symptoms and high serum tryptase and histamine levels. Skin tests and BATs with wortmannin were performed, showing similar results to case 1.

CONCLUSIONS

BATs suggested an IgE-dependent mechanism for chlorhexidine-induced anaphylaxis and might be useful for investigating the mechanisms underlying drug-induced 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 reasoning in anaphylactic shock: addressing the challenges faced by anaesthesiologists in real time: A clinical review and management algorithms

Acute hypersensitivity reactions to drugs occur infrequently during anaesthesia and the peri-operative period. When clinical presentation includes the classical triad, erythema, cardiovascular abnormalities and increased airway pressure, the diagnosis is evident and the challenge is to prescribe a therapeutic regimen according to guidelines and to manage refractory signs in a timely manner. In many situations, however, the initial clinical signs are isolated, such as increased airway pressure or arterial hypotension. Rendering a differential diagnosis with causes and mechanisms other than acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHRs) is difficult, delaying treatment with possible worsening of the clinical signs, and even death, in previously healthy individuals. In these difficult diagnostic situations, clinical reasoning is mandatory, and guidelines do not explicitly explain the elements on which clinical reasoning can be built. In this article, based on clinical evidence whenever available, experimental data and pathophysiology, we propose algorithms that have been evaluated by experts. The goal of these algorithms is to provide explicit elements on which the differential diagnosis of AHRs can be made, accelerating the implementation of adequate therapy.

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.

Intraoperative anaphylaxis due to aprotinin after local application of fibrin sealant diagnosed by skin tests and basophil activation tests: a case report

Background

There are few cases of anaphylaxis after local application of fibrin sealant diagnosed by skin tests.

Case presentation

A 49-year-old woman underwent partial lung resection under general anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced uneventfully. Shortly after applying absorbable suture reinforcement felt that contained fibrin sealant, her systolic blood pressure fell to approximately 70 mmHg, along with facial flushing. Anaphylaxis was diagnosed based on the clinical symptoms and high serum tryptase levels. Three months after the event, skin tests were performed with all agents and were positive only for fibrin sealant vial no. 2, whose main component is aprotinin. Subsequently, basophil activation tests using fibrin sealant vial no. 2 and pure aprotinin demonstrated that the causative agent was likely aprotinin.

Conclusions

We diagnosed aprotinin-induced anaphylaxis using skin tests and basophil activation tests. The occurrence of anaphylaxis should be considered when changes in vital signs are observed after the use of fibrin sealant.

Investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an update on how best to manage the investigation of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions based on recent literature and key publications.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past two years, several very important initiatives have been taken in the field of perioperative hypersensitivity. The 6th national audit project in the United Kingdom has provided new knowledge through a series of studies, including a nationwide prospective study, and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has commissioned a position paper with updated recommendations for investigations. Lastly, a large international working group comprising experts in anesthesiology, allergology, and immunology, the International Suspected Perioperative Allergic Reactions group, has published a series of articles providing updates and new insights into several different key areas of perioperative hypersensitivity.

SUMMARY

The investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions is highly complex and aims to identify the correct culprit to ensure future avoidance but also to disprove allergy to other suspected culprits, making them available for subsequent anesthesia. To achieve this, close collaboration between anesthesiologists and allergists is called upon to ensure the best possible outcome for the patient.

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.

Mast cell activation tests by flow cytometry: A new diagnostic asset?

Since the late nineties, evidence has accumulated that flow-assisted basophil activation test (BAT) might be an accessible and reliable method to explore the mechanisms governing basophil degranulation and diagnostic allowing correct prediction of the clinical outcome following exposure to the offending allergen(s) and cross-reactive structures for different IgE-dependent allergies and particular forms of autoimmune urticaria. Although the BAT offers many advantages over mediator release tests, it is left with some weaknesses that hinder a wider application. It is preferable to perform the BAT analysis within 4 h of collection, and the technique does not advance diagnosis in patients with non-responsive cells. Besides, the BAT is difficult to standardize mainly because of the difficulty to perform large batch analyses that might span over several days. This article reviews the status of flow cytometric mast cell activation test (MAT) using passively sensitized mast cells (MCs) with patients' sera or plasma (henceforth indicated as passive MAT; pMAT) using both MC lines and cultured MCs in the diagnosis of IgE-dependent allergies. In addition, this paper provides guidance for generating human MCs from peripheral blood CD34⁺ progenitor cells (PBCMCs) and correct interpretation of flow cytometric analyses of activated and/or degranulating cells. With the recent recognition of the mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) occupation as a putative mechanism of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs), we also speculate how direct activation of MCs (dMAT)-that is direct activation by MRGPRX2 agonists without prior passive sensitization-could advance paradigms for this novel endotype of IDHRs.

Basophil and mast cell activation tests by flow cytometry in immediate drug hypersensitivity: Diagnosis and beyond

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) constitute a significant health issue with serious consequences of diagnostic error. The primary diagnostics to document IDHRs usually consists of quantification of drug-specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies and skin tests. Unfortunately, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of these tests are not absolutely, which leaves room for new tests. Over the last two decades, the basophil activation test (BAT), in which ex vivo activation of individual basophils is quantified by flow cytometry, has emerged as a reliable complementary diagnostic to document IDHRs, to explore allergenic recognition, to study cross-reactivity and to monitor therapy. However, the BAT is technically challenging requiring specialized personnel and equipment, fresh samples and the technique is lost as a diagnostic in patients showing a non-responder status of their cells. By consequence, the BAT has still not entered mainstream application. In contrast, mast cell activation tests (MATs) use serum samples that can be frozen, stored, and shipped to a recognized reference centre experienced in mast cell (MC) lines and/or cultures and capable of offering batch testing with necessary quality controls. This review does not only highlight the use of the BAT and MAT as diagnostics in IDHRs, but also outlines the potential of both techniques in further exploring and unveiling the mechanisms that govern drug-induced basophil and MC activation and degranulation.

Concurrent positive skin tests to prophylactic antibiotics and rocuronium in two patients with life-threatening anaphylaxis after induction of anesthesia

Background

Prophylactic antibiotics and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) are two of the major causative agents of anaphylaxis after induction of anesthesia.

Case presentation

One female and one male patients (aged 29 and 69 years, respectively) had Ring and Messmer scale grade III anaphylaxis after administration of prophylactic antibiotics following induction of anesthesia. They showed typical hemodynamic and respiratory features of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Postoperative skin tests in these two patients were positive for antibiotics and concurrently positive for rocuronium.

Conclusions

Our present report suggests the possibility that both prophylactic antibiotics and NMBA concurrently and synergistically enhance anaphylactic reaction and the necessity to differentiate an immune mechanism from non-immune mechanisms when anesthesiologists encounter concurrent positive skin tests for both antibiotics and NMBA.

The trends in nanomaterial-based biosensors for detecting critical biomarkers in stroke

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS), is the second global cause of death after cardiovascular diseases, accounts for 80-85% of cerebrovascular disease. Stroke diagnosis could be challenging in the acute phase. Detection of biomarkers for evaluating the prognosis of diseases is essential for improving personalized treatment and decreasing mortality. At the present time, the absence of a broadly existing and rapid diagnostic test is an important limitation in the evaluation and treatment of diseases. The use of a biomarker-based diagnostic attitude has confirmed very valuable in acute coronary syndromes, which has been promoted in acute stroke to help early management decisions. Over the past decade, different detection procedures have developed for the assessment of human cardiac troponins (cTnI). This review emphasizes on summarizing optical, and electrochemical biosensors for the detection of cTnI, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) as a critical biomarker in stroke.

Integration of Ni/NiO nanoparticles and a microfluidic ELISA chip to generate a sensing platform for Streptococcus pneumoniae detection

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are tests that uses antibody recognition and enzyme catalytic activity to identify a substance, and they have been widely used as a diagnostic tool in the clinic.

[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.

A Case of Anaphylaxis in Which a Basophil Activation Test Was Used to Identify the Suspected Agent

This is a case report of anaphylaxis in which the basophil activation test (BAT) was used to identify the etiological agent. Although skin tests are considered the most effective methods for identifying anaphylactic triggers, the test itself presents a risk of inducing anaphylaxis. The BAT is advantageous because of its inherent lack of risk, high sensitivity and specificity to identify the suspected anaphylactic agents, and diagnostic accuracy comparable to conventional skin testing. Therefore, in the future, the BAT is likely to become the preferred test for the detection of allergens over conventional skin tests.

Basophil Activation as Marker of Clinically Relevant Allergy and Therapy Outcome

For some years now the basophil activation test (BAT) using flow cytometry has emerged as a powerful tool and sensitive marker that can be used to detect clinically relevant allergies, provide information on the severity of an allergic reaction, and monitor therapies. Compared to other in vitro diagnostic tests, BAT seems to have a better informative value in terms of clinical relevance. In general, the BAT can be used for the diagnosis of the most common forms of IgE-mediated allergy such as hymenoptera venom allergy, inhalant allergy, food allergy, and drug allergy. Various basophil markers and parameters have been established which, depending on the trigger of the respective allergy, can provide information on the clinical relevance of sensitization, on the development of natural tolerance, on trigger thresholds, and on the severity of the allergic reaction. The BAT also serves as a suitable follow-up instrument for various therapeutic approaches such as specific immunotherapy, desensitization protocols, or use of anti-IgE-antibodies for the various diseases. Quality controls for routine use, standardization, and automatization are expected to expand the range of applications for the above-mentioned indications.

Early Skin Test after Anaphylaxis during Induction of Anesthesia: A Case Report

Background: It is recommended that a skin test be performed 4–6 weeks after anaphylaxis. However, there is little evidence about the timing of the skin test when there is a need to identify the cause within 4–6 weeks. Case report: A 57-year-old woman was scheduled to undergo surgery via a sphenoidal approach to remove a pituitary macroadenoma. Immediately after the administration of rocuronium, pulse rate increased to 120 beats/min and blood pressure dropped to 77/36 mmHg. At the same time, generalized urticaria and tongue edema were observed. Epinephrine was administered and the surgery was postponed. Reoperation was planned two weeks after the event. Four days after the anaphylactic episode, rocuronium was confirmed to be the cause by the skin prick test. Cisatracurium, which showed a negative reaction, was selected as an alternative agent for future procedures. Two weeks later, the patient underwent reoperation without any adverse events. Conclusions: The early skin test can be performed if there is a need even earlier than 4–6 weeks after anaphylaxis.

[Severe noncardiogenic pulmonary edema due to permeability disorder after i.v. administration of CT contrast medium with subsequent venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation]

Hypersensitivity reactions are one of the most feared side effects associated with the use of CT contrast agents. Bronchospasm and lung edema are known manifestations, whereby the latter occurs much less often. In anaphylaxis, numerous mechanisms can lead to cardiac failure with subsequent lung edema. In contrast, the cardiac function is not impaired in noncardiogenic pulmonary edema (NCPE), which is a rare phenomenon but with potentially fatal outcome. The exact pathophysiology of NCPE remains unknown and characteristically response to conventional anaphylaxis treatment is poor. This article presents the case of a 48-year-old man with NCPE who underwent elective coronary CT as part of the evaluation of recurrent syncope. After administration of iodinated contrast medium the patient developed a fulminant lung edema, which led to severe hypoxemia with cardiac arrest despite immediate treatment by the medical emergency team, including assisted ventilation, prednisolone, dimetindene and adrenaline. An early echocardiographic assessment after ROSC and intubation showed an intact cardiac function and no signs of valvular pathologies. Arterial blood gas analysis revealed a severe global respiratory failure (Horowitz quotient 73), profound acidosis (pH 7.06), elevated lactate and hemoglobin levels (8.9 mmol/l and 23.7 g/dl, respectively). A chest X‑ray revealed bilateral inhomogeneous opacities. Nitrous oxide was administered to improve the ventilation-perfusion mismatch. In addition, intravenous hydrocortisone was started to address the severe capillary leak syndrome. Follow-up echocardiography showed consistently stable cardiac function at all times. As the lung function deteriorated despite aggressive countermeasures, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was initiated 6 h after the initial event. With the aid of ECMO support the invasiveness of mechanical ventilation could be reduced and volume substitution intensified. In the further course, microcirculatory dysfunction and respiratory function gradually improved and ECMO support could be discontinued after 70 h. The patient was extubated on day 9 and discharged to the normal ward on day 13 without any neurological impairments.

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.

Anaphylaxis caused by butylscopolamine bromide: a case report

Background

There have been only few reports on butylscopolamine-induced anaphylaxis despite its global usage as an anticholinergic agent for approximately 70 years. We present a case of anaphylaxis caused by butylscopolamine.

Case presentation

A 63-year-old woman underwent gastrointestinal endoscopic examination. She developed facial cyanosis and hypoxia after intravenous administration of butylscopolamine 10 mg, and her blood pressure was unmeasurable. Her hemodynamic condition recovered after a total of 0.6 mg adrenaline and bolus administration of 100 mg hydrocortisone. One hour after the onset of hypotension, both plasma histamine and serum tryptase were remarkably elevated to 271.7 nmol/L and 174 μg/L, respectively. Skin tests performed 47 days after anaphylaxis showed a positive result only for butylscopolamine among the exposed agents, which was confirmed by basophil activation tests using CD203c and CD63 as markers.

Conclusion

Butylscopolamine has the potential to cause severe anaphylaxis; hence, identification of the causative agent is important to prevent recurrence of anaphylaxis.

Mepivacaine-induced anaphylactic shock in a pregnant woman undergoing combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a case report

Background

Anaphylactic shock during pregnancy is a rare but life-threatening event for both the mother and the newborn.

Case presentation

A 42-year-old woman, who was pregnant with twins, was scheduled for cesarean delivery under combined spinal and epidural anesthesia. An epidural catheter was placed uneventfully. After spinal anesthesia, the patient exhibited skin symptoms and severe hypotension. The patient was diagnosed with anaphylaxis, and subsequently, treatment was started. Fetal heart rate monitoring revealed sustained bradycardia, and it was decided to proceed with cesarean delivery. After delivery, the mother’s vital signs recovered. Both infants were intubated due to birth asphyxia. Currently, the twins are 4 years old and exhibit no developmental problems. Clinical examination identified mepivacaine as the causative agent of anaphylaxis.

Conclusions

This case report highlights that upon occurrence of anaphylaxis during pregnancy, maternal treatment and fetal assessment should be started immediately. Indication for immediate cesarean delivery should be considered and a definite identification of the causative factor pursued.