Anaphylaxis during induction of general anesthesia: subsequent evaluation and management

Perioperative approach of allergic patients

Perioperative allergic reactions are rare, yet important complications of anesthesia. Severe, generalized allergic reactions called anaphylaxis are estimated to have a mortality of 3.5-4.8%. Adequate recognition and handling of a severe perioperative anaphylactic reaction result in better outcomes, including less hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and death. The diagnosis of a perioperative allergic reaction can be difficult as the list of possible culprits of a perioperative allergic reaction is extensive. Making an informed guess on the causative agent and avoiding this agent in future anesthesia procedures is undesirable and unsafe. Therefore, to ensure future patient safety, a thorough investigation following a perioperative allergic reaction is mandatory. A collaborate approach by allergists and anesthesiologists is advised. In this article, we discuss the basic approach of the allergic patient and of patients with a suspected allergy to perioperatively administered medication.

Epidemiology, Mechanisms, and Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, life-threatening, multisystem syndrome resulting from the sudden release of mediators by mast cells and basophils. Although anaphylaxis is often under-communicated and thus underestimated, its incidence appears to have risen over recent decades. Drugs are among the most common triggers in adults, being analgesics and antibiotics the most common causal agents. Anaphylaxis can be caused by immunologic or non-immunologic mechanisms. Immunologic anaphylaxis can be mediated by IgE-dependent or -independent pathways. The former involves activation of Th2 cells and the cross-linking of two or more specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies on the surface of mast cells or basophils. The IgE-independent mechanism can be mediated by IgG, involving the release of platelet-activating factor, and/or complement activation. Non-immunological anaphylaxis can occur through the direct stimulation of mast cell degranulation by some drugs, inducing histamine release and leading to anaphylactic symptoms. Work-up of a suspected drug-induced anaphylaxis should include clinical history; however, this can be unreliable, and skin tests should also be used if available and validated. Drug provocation testing is not recommended due to the risk of inducing a harmful reaction. In vitro testing can help to confirm anaphylaxis by analyzing the release of mediators such as tryptase or histamine by mast cells. When immunologic mechanisms are suspected, serum-sIgE quantification or the use of the basophil activation test can help confirm the culprit drug. In this review, we will discuss multiple aspects of drug-induced anaphylaxis, including epidemiology, mechanisms, and diagnosis.

Approach to the evaluation of adverse antibiotic reactions in patients with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to antibiotics in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) are common and often mislabeled as allergies. The labeling of an antibiotic reaction as an allergy can lead to the use of antibiotics that are less efficacious, are more expensive, or have a greater risk of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To establish a safe approach for the evaluation of ADRs to antibiotics in patients with CF to help clarify future use of these medications.

METHODS

Patients with CF whose antibiotic allergies were causing difficulty in their medical management were referred for an allergy evaluation that consisted of a thorough drug allergy history and antibiotic testing if appropriate. If the history was not consistent with a true hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) and test results were negative, the patient underwent a challenge to the offending agent(s) to rule out an HSR. Challenges were only performed if the medication was indicated for future use.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients (mean age, 32.4 years) underwent a thorough allergy evaluation. A total of 17 antibiotic challenges were performed in 11 patients without a reaction consistent with an HSR or severe delayed reaction. Only 2 medications had a history consist with an HSR, and it was recommended that they undergo a desensitization procedure if the drug was required.

CONCLUSION

If treatment with appropriate antibiotics becomes difficult in patients with CF because of drug allergies, then referral to an allergist can help safely identify treatment options. Our findings suggest that a thorough evaluation by an allergy specialist can lead to more appropriate treatment options in patients with CF.

Predictive value of allergy tests for neuromuscular blocking agents: tackling an unmet need

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are a predominant cause of perioperative anaphylaxis in Europe. Diagnosis of NMBA allergy relies upon the careful review of the anaesthetic report complemented with skin tests. Additional diagnostic tests are quantification of specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) and basophil activation test (BAT). However, data on the predictive value of the skin tests, the BAT and the sIgE assays (drug-specific and substituted ammonium structures) are limited or not available, mainly because such exploration requires dangerous NMBA provocation tests.

METHODS

In this study, the predictive value of skin test, BAT and measurement of sIgE to substituted ammonium structures is gathered from a review of anaesthetic records of subsequent surgical procedures with NMBA administration and/or occurrence of perioperative incidents.

RESULTS

We investigated a series of 272 patients with perioperative anaphylaxis, of whom 100 had undergone second general anaesthesia. Negative skin test and negative BAT assisted the selection of alternative NMBA, which were well tolerated in all cases. Five patients with a positive sIgE to rocuronium but with negative skin testing and BAT safely received rocuronium during second anaesthesia. Twelve patients with sIgE reactivity to morphine, but negative skin test and BAT to benzylisoquinolines, tolerated administration of cisatracurium or atracurium. Alternatively, benzylisoquinoline allergy went undetected in the morphine solid-phase assay.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin test and BAT have an excellent negative predictive value in our series. The uneventful re-exposure of rocuronium in patients with an isolated positive sIgE result to rocuronium calls into question the predictive value of this assay and suggests sIgE serology to be less clinically predictive than the functional investigations relying upon activation of mast cells or basophils. The presence of a positive sIgE to substituted ammonium structures such as morphine does not preclude further use of benzylisoquinolines.

Drug allergy: an updated practice parameter

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) result in major health problems in the United States in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. ADRs are broadly categorized into predictable (type A and unpredictable (type B) reactions. Predictable reactions are usually dose dependent, are related to the known pharmacologic actions of the drug, and occur in otherwise healthy individuals, They are estimated to comprise approximately 80% of all ADRs. Unpredictable are generally dose independent, are unrelated to the pharmacologic actions of the drug, and occur only in susceptible individuals. Unpredictable reactions are subdivided into drug intolerance, drug idiosyncrasy, drug allergy, and pseudoallergic reactions. Both type A and B reactions may be influenced by genetic predisposition of the patient

The diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis practice parameter: 2010 update

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The Diagnosis and Management of Anaphylaxis Practice Parameter: 2010 Update." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, or the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

General anesthetic allergy testing

Anaphylaxis in the setting of general anesthesia is a rare but potentially lethal event. The investigation of severe reactions is important for confirming the clinical diagnosis and identifying likely causative agents and safe agents that may be used in the future. Many comprehensive reports have described the testing protocol of individual specialized units, whereas there has been no standardization of testing techniques or formal assessment of these tests' diagnostic accuracy. We review the literature with reference to the recently published standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD) and make recommendations for future studies of diagnostic accuracy in the field.

Peri-anesthetic Anaphylaxis

General anesthesia and anaphylaxis cause profound physiologic changes. When both occur simultaneously, it is often difficult to recognize and identify the medication or product responsible for the latter. Following such an event, the proper assessment, diagnosis, and recommendations are essential to prevent future reactions. This article reviews the more common causes of anaphylaxis during anesthesia.

Delayed Allergic Reaction to Suxamethonium Driven by Oligoclonal Th1-Skewed CD4+CCR4+IFN-γ+ Memory T Cells

BACKGROUND

Muscle relaxants represent the drugs most frequently involved in intraoperative anaphylaxis during surgical procedures. Our aim was to report the case of a delayed reaction to suxamethonium and analyze specific T cell lines with regard to their specificity, phenotype and cytokine profile.

METHODS

We generated a drug-specific T cell line from a biopsy at the site of positive intradermal reactions and analyzed the immunophenotype, T cell receptor Vbeta domain expression and cytokine profile.

RESULTS

T cells isolated from positive intradermal test reactions to suxamethonium showed a strict dose-dependent proliferation in response to drug-pulsed autologous antigen-presenting cells. The drug-specific CD4+ T cells were oligoclonal memory CD3+CD4+ T cells and expressed the skin homing receptors cutaneous lymphocyte antigen (CLA) and CCR4. Furthermore CD4+ suxamethonium-reactive T cell lines were IFN-gamma-positive and synthesized high levels of IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha.

CONCLUSION

The study describes a delayed hypersensitivity to suxamethonium, driven by an oligoclonal T helper cell 1-skewed CD4+ memory T cell population, expressing the skin homing receptors CLA and CCR4.

Recognizing drug allergy. How to differentiate true allergy from other adverse drug reactions

Proper diagnosis of adverse drug reactions, although often complicated and difficult, is important for the patient and the physician. Often the question of whether it is safe to readminister a medication is an important clinical judgment that needs to be made. Alternative medications may be less effective or have greater toxicities or cost, or both. Areas of ongoing research to improve diagnostic precision for allergic drug reactions include further understanding of the immunochemistry of allergenic medications, improvement of the reproducibility and sensitivity of relevant in vitro assays, and further validation of computer-assisted evaluation of adverse drug events. The positive and negative predictive values for these diagnostic tests need to be better defined whenever possible. At present, the primary diagnostic tool for properly assessing immunologic drug reactions remains a meticulous and detailed history obtained by an astute, knowledgeable, and motivated physician.

Anaphylaxis during surgical and interventional procedures

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current evidence-based knowledge of the causes, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of patients with anaphylaxis associated with surgical and interventional procedures.

DATA SOURCES

Articles published between 1966 and 2003 were identified in MEDLINE using the keywords anaphylactoid, anaphylaxis, anesthetics, antibiotics, cephalosporins, contrast media, colloids, flow cytometry, hypersensitivity, latex, neuromuscular depolarizing agents, neuromuscular nondepolarizing agents, penicillins, radioallergosorbent test, skin test, and vancomycin. Additional studies were identified from article reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Relevant, peer-reviewed original research articles and reviews.

RESULTS

Neuromuscular blocking agents, natural rubber latex, antibiotics, and induction agents are the most common causes of anaphylaxis during surgical and interventional procedures. Colloids, opioids, and radiocontrast media probably account for less than 10% of all reactions. Newer agents implicated in anaphylaxis include isosulphan blue and chlorhexidine. Skin tests are useful for evaluating allergic reactions to anesthetic agents and penicillins and for selecting alternative agents. Skin testing and specific IgE measurements for latex vary in allergen standardization and sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Flow cytometric allergen stimulation tests show promise in differentiating allergic from idiosyncratic ("pseudoallergic") reactions. Drug desensitization has been shown to be useful for penicillin anaphylaxis. Premedication with histamine receptor antagonists and corticosteroids helps prevent or attenuate radiocontrast media reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaphylaxis during surgical and interventional procedures may be difficult to evaluate because of the rapid, successive use of multiple drugs or diagnostic agents. Careful analysis of anesthetic records and diagnostic tests for all the putative agents are necessary to ensure a complete evaluation.

Prevention of anaphylactic reactions to anaesthetic drugs

Although screening tests to prevent anaphylaxis during anaesthesia have been advocated, such tests are unlikely to have significant impact on reducing the incidence of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia. This is due to the low prevalence of the disease, the diversity of drugs used in anaesthesia and the incidence of false positive and negative tests. The suggested risk factors of allergy, i.e. atopy, asthma, family history, female sex, previous exposure, vasectomy, use of zinc protamine sulfate insulin and allergy to cosmetics, eggs, fish and non-anaesthetic drugs are not valid. Although all have theoretical or real associations with anaphylaxis during anaesthesia the majority of patients with such a history undergo uneventful anaesthesia. Fruit allergy, anaphylaxis to cephalosporins and penicillin, barbiturate allergy, gelatin allergy and allergy to metabisulphite and eggs require consideration in avoiding particular drugs. The incidence of anaesthetic anaphylaxis can be reduced by avoiding latex exposure in patients with spina bifida or latex allergy, and preventing second reactions in patients with a history of anaphylaxis, or major undiagnosed or undocumented adverse events during anaesthesia. Determining the cause of an adverse event and the drug responsible, and adequately communicating those findings can reduce second reactions. Avoiding neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs) in patients who have reacted to an NMBD, and use of non-intravenous techniques should also reduce the incidence of second reactions. Desensitisation, and blocking with monovalent quaternary ammonium compounds may allow improved safety of NMBDs and pretreatment with antihistamines and corticosteroids may block or ameliorate the severity of reactions, but there is currently little evidence to support their routine use.

Skin Sensitivity to Rocuronium and Vecuronium: A Randomized Controlled Prick-Testing Study in Healthy Volunteers

Prick tests are frequently used for the authentication of neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs) as causative drugs for anaphylactic reactions during anesthesia. Unfortunately, the actual threshold concentration for skin testing remains debatable for most NMBDs. We studied the flare and wheal responses to prick tests with rocuronium and vecuronium. Thirty healthy, nonatopic, anesthesia-naive male and female volunteers (14 men and 16 women) from 18 to 40 yr of age were assigned randomly to receive a total of 10 prick tests-4 ascending dilutions (1:1000, 1:100, 1:10, and 1) of rocuronium and vecuronium and 2 controls-on both forearms. An assessor blinded to the assignment monitored systemic and skin responses to NMBDs and measured wheal and flare surfaces immediately after and 15 min after prick tests. None of the volunteers experienced any immediate systemic or cutaneous responses to rocuronium or vecuronium. Although a dilution of 1:1000 of both NMBDs failed to promote any skin response at 15 min, 50% and 40% of the subjects had a positive skin reaction to undiluted rocuronium and vecuronium, respectively. We demonstrated a sex effect related to smaller threshold concentration-induced cutaneous reactions in female volunteers to both muscle relaxants. Our observation questions the reliability of prick testing with undiluted solutions of rocuronium and vecuronium for the diagnosis of allergy.

IMPLICATIONS

Building concentration-skin response curves to prick tests with rocuronium and vecuronium in healthy, nonatopic, anesthesia-naive male and female volunteers demonstrated that the nonreactive concentration for both muscle relaxants is the 1:1000 dilution of the stock solutions. Our observation calls into question the past practice of prick-testing skin for sensitivity to neuromuscular blocking drugs by using undiluted solutions.

Allergic reactions occurring during anaesthesia: diagnostic approach

Anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions to anaesthetic and associated agents used during the perioperative period have been increasingly reported during the last 3 decades. The frequency of life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions occurring during anaesthesia has been estimated to vary between 1/1.000 and 1/25.0000 procedures, with muscle relaxants being involved in almost three quarters of the cases. The mortality from these reactions is in the range of 3-6%. Nowadays, natural rubber latex also accounts for a significant number of perioperative anaphylaxis, particularly in children. Clinical manifestations do not allow to differentiate between IgE-mediated anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions resulting from non-specific mediator release. Successful management of these patients requires multidisciplinary approach and includes prompt recognition and stabilisation of the acute event by the attending anaesthetist, determination of the responsible agent(s) with avoidance of subsequent administration of incriminated compound(s). The latter is based upon correct identification of the responsible drug and potentially cross-reactive compounds by the allergist and requires a detailed review of the anaesthetic report as well as appropriate in vitro and in vivo allergy tests. At present, the overall performance of skin tests makes them the "gold standard" for diagnosis of muscle relaxant-induced perioperative hypersensitivity reactions. In addition, given their good negative predictive value, skin tests have been proven to be a useful tool to tailor the appropriate therapeutic alternative. For other compounds diagnosis is more difficult but newer techniques such as analysis of in vitro activated basophils can be helpful.

Anaphylaxis during the perioperative period

Anesthesiologists use a myriad of drugs during the provision of an anesthetic. Many of these drugs have side effects that are dose related, and some lead to severe immune-mediated adverse reactions. Anaphylaxis is the most severe immune-mediated reaction; it generally occurs on reexposure to a specific antigen and requires the release of proinflammatory mediators. Anaphylactoid reactions occur through a direct non-immunoglobulin E-mediated release of mediators from mast cells or from complement activation. Muscle relaxants and latex account for most cases of anaphylaxis during the perioperative period. Symptoms may include all organ systems and present with bronchospasm and cardiovascular collapse in the most severe cases. Management of anaphylaxis includes discontinuation of the presumptive drug (or latex) and anesthetic, aggressive pulmonary and cardiovascular support, and epinephrine. Although a serum tryptase confirms the diagnosis of an anaphylactic reaction, the offending drug can be identified by skin-prick, intradermal testing, or serologic testing. Prevention of recurrences is critical to avoid mortality and morbidity.

Anaphylactic reactions during surgical and medical procedures

The most common agents that are responsible for intraoperative anaphylaxis are muscle relaxants. However, latex accounts for a significant number of these reactions, and the incidence of intraoperative anaphylaxis caused by latex is increasing. It is now probably the second most important cause of intraoperative anaphylaxis. Following muscle relaxants and latex are probably antibiotics and anesthesia induction agents. Other agents that are responsible include colloids, opioids, and radiocontrast material. However, they account for less than 10% of all reactions. The clinical manifestations of intraoperative reactions differ from those of anaphylactic reactions outside of anesthesia. Cutaneous manifestations are far less common; cardiovascular collapse may be more common. The diagnosis can be made more difficult because patients cannot express symptoms. There is a paucity of cutaneous findings; the patient is draped, and concomitantly administered drugs may alter the manifestations. These additional drugs can also complicate therapy. There are populations who are at-risk for anaphylaxis to latex during surgical procedures: individuals with a genetic predisposition (atopic individuals), individuals with increased previous exposure to latex (eg, anyone who requires chronic bladder care with repeated insertion of latex catheters or chronic indwelling catheters), health care workers who are exposed to latex mainly by inhalation, and possibly patients who have undergone multiple surgical procedures and therefore have been exposed to latex intravascularly and by catheterization on a number of occasions. It has been shown that pretreatment with antihistamines and corticosteroids that are used successfully for the prevention of reactions to radiocontrast material are not as effective in the prevention of anaphylactic reactions to latex. Therefore, the major emphasis has been on prevention. The key elements of prevention include an adequate history, testing for latex allergy in high-risk patients, preadmission measures, and the establishment of a "latex-free environment" while the individual is hospitalized. This is particularly important in the operating and recovery rooms.

Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre - preliminary results

BACKGROUND

Anaphylactoid reactions in anaesthesia are rare and should ideally be investigated in specialist centres. At Gentofte University Hospital, we established such a centre in 1998 as a joint venture between the Departments of Anaesthesiology and Dermatology. We present the methodology, diagnostic algorithm and preliminary results from our centre.

METHODS

We are open for referral of patients from all of Denmark. Reactions are classified using a three-grade severity scale and all reactions ranging from mild to severe are investigated. Investigations follow a standard step-by-step protocol of in vitro testing and skin testing. Blood samples for tryptase analysis are taken at the time of reaction and a control sample is taken together with samples for specific IgE analysis 2-4 weeks after the reaction. Subsequent skin testing comprises both prick tests and intradermal tests in most cases. Patients are tested with all substances they were exposed to, including antibiotics, colloids, latex and chlorhexidine.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients have been referred to date (July 2001) and 36 have completed investigations. Positive test results were mainly seen in patients with more severe reactions, and there were more men than women in the group with the most severe reactions. Six patients had positive specific IgE, three for penicillin, two for latex and one for thiopental. In all, 21 patients had positive skin tests to various substances, of whom four men with anaphylactic shock tested positive for chlorhexidine. Only one patient has tested positive to a neuromuscular blocking drug (NMBD) so far.

DISCUSSION

Our preliminary results appear to differ in two ways from results usually found in this field. Firstly, only one patient has tested positive for a NMBD and secondly, we have had four patients with anaphylactic shock who have tested positive for chlorhexidine. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed.

[Substances responsible for peranesthetic anaphylactic shock. A third French multicenter study (1992-94)]

Since 1989, the epidemiological survey of anaphylactoid reactions occurring during anaesthesia is obtained in France with repeated inquiries by the Perioperative Anaphylactic Reactions Study Group. The members of this group collect during the study period the cases of patients having suffered from an anaphylactoid reaction and tested in their allergo-anaesthetic outpatient clinic, their characteristics (age, gender), the results of the allergological tests (mechanism, agents responsible for the reactions). The two previous surveys published in the Annales françaises d'anesthesie et de réanimation in 1990 and 1993 included 1,240 and 1,585 patients respectively. The current survey concerned 1,750 patients tested in 27 diagnostic centres, from January 1992 to June 1994. The reactions occurred at all ages, predominantly between 10 and 50 years, the sex-ratio (F/M) was 2.4. Allergological tests carried out to diagnose an immune mechanism for the shock were cutaneous tests in all centres (prick-tests in 21 centres, intradermal tests in 27 centres) using the same dilutions for the tested agents and the same threshold for positivity. Specific IgE antibodies against muscle relaxants, thiopentone and propofol, were measured by radio immunoassays in 20 centres. The leucocyte histamine release test was used in 10 centres. The immune origin of the shock--IgE dependent anaphylaxis--was diagnosed in 1,000 patients (57.8%) and due to 1,030 agents muscle relaxants (59.2%), latex (19%), hypnotics (5.9%), benzodiazepines (2.1%), opioids (3.5%), plasma substitutes (5%), antibiotics (3.1%) and other drugs given during anaesthesia such as aprotinine and protamine (2.2%). Suxamethonium was responsible for 39.3% of muscle relaxant anaphylaxis, vecuronium for 36%, atracurium for 14.5%, pancuronium for 4.8%, gallamine for 3.1% and alcuronium for 2.3%. The latter has been withdrawn from the French market in 1993. These differences in the incidence of reactions are correlated with the clinical use of muscle relaxants in France for vecuronium and atracurium, however not for suxamethonium, responsible for 39% of the reactions but representing only 5% of the muscle relaxants sold in France. The comparison with the two previous surveys confirms that the mechanism of more than half of the anaphylactoid reactions occurring during anaesthesia is of immune origin, due to specific IgE antibodies. It is therefore essential to systematically carry out an allergologic assessment several weeks after the reaction, in order to discard for the subsequent anaesthetics the agent(s) responsible for anaphylaxis. If the muscle relaxants remain the first drugs involved in shock occurring at induction, there is a significant increase in latex shock, as demonstrated by the three epidemiological surveys (0.5%, 12.5% and now 19%). The incidence of other anaesthetic agents, antibiotics and plasma substitutes remains unchanged.

Clinical management of latex-allergic children

Latex allergy in children with myelodysplasia and urological anomalies is well recognized. We anesthetized 162 children with latex allergy who underwent 267 anesthetics according to a latex-safe protocol. Medication for allergy prophylaxis was not administered. Our patients were 11.6 +/- 5.8 yr old (range 1-31 yr). Primary diagnoses were myelodysplasia, extrophy of the bladder, and cloacal extrophy. These children had many allergies to medications and foods as well as environmental sensitivities. One patient of 162 (1 procedure of 267) had an allergic reaction after injection of an epidural catheter with bupivacaine and fentanyl. No other patient manifested allergy signs or symptoms. Latex-allergic children can be safely anesthetized using a latex-safe protocol without allergy chemoprophylaxis. These patients require avoidance of latex products or the use of latex products that have been thoroughly washed.

IMPLICATIONS

This audit of the medical histories and treatment of 162 children with latex allergy who underwent 267 anesthetics indicates that latex-allergic children can be safely anesthetized if exposure to latex in the medical environment is avoided, and that administration of prophylactic medications to decrease the allergic response is unnecessary.

Severe bronchospasm during cardiopulmonary bypass

PURPOSE

To describe the rare problem of severe bronchospasm occurring during cardiopulmonary bypass in a six-year-old-child.

CLINICAL FEATURES

Severe bronchospasm became apparent on attempting to resume controlled ventilation prior to weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass. The patient had a previous history of asthma but was asymptomatic preoperatively. Aggressive therapy with multiple bronchodilating agents was necessary before cardiopulmonary bypass could be discontinued. The bronchospasm resolved over the first 24 hr after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Severe bronchospasm during cardiopulmonary bypass is rare. It should only be diagnosed after ruling out other reasons for failure to ventilate. Treatment with intravenous bronchodilators is required. The cause is unknown.

Effect of lidocaine on histamine release and Ca2+ mobilization from mast cells and basophils

BACKGROUND

Various anesthetic drugs have been known to induce allergic reactions, which have been caused by histamine release from mast cells/basophils. Although lidocaine is reported to suppress allergic reactions, there have been no reports about lidocaine's direct effects to inhibit histamine release from mast cells/basophils.

METHODS

We examined the effect of lidocaine on histamine release in vitro from freshly extracted as well as cultured mast cells and basophils. Additionally, the effects of lidocaine on intracellular calcium concentration were monitored by assessing Fura-2 signals in cultured cells.

RESULTS

Lidocaine (10(-3)-10(-2) M: approximately 234-2340 micrograms/ ml) inhibited both the IgE-dependent and IgE-independent histamine release from all mast cells/basophils in a dose-dependent manner. However, lidocaine inhibited the IgE-dependent response more than the IgE-independent response (P < 0.01). Lidocaine also inhibited increases in intracellular Ca2+ to a greater extent after IgE-dependent stimulation as compared with IgE-independent stimulation. The degree of the inhibition of histamine release by lidocaine appeared to parallel decreases in Ca2+ mobilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that lidocaine directly inhibits histamine release from both rodent mast cells and human basophils in vitro at concentrations from 10(-3) to 10(-2) M (234 to 2340 micrograms/ml). That may be influenced by Ca2+ mobilization. Although these results are not immediately relevant to clinical practice, allergic reaction caused by direct effect of lidocaine seems to be impossible.

Management of drug eruptions: Part II. Diagnosis and treatment

In this second of two articles on adverse cutaneous drug reactions, the management of drug eruptions is reviewed. This necessitates, above all, a full history and may involve observation of the effects of drug elimination. Skin testing may be helpful in some circumstances, but is hampered by false positive and negative results, and lack of knowledge of the significant antigenic determinants for most drugs. In vitro tests are for the most part unreliable and are research tools. Challenge tests are safe in fixed drug eruption, but are absolutely contraindicated in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. The approach to the treatment of the more serious adverse cutaneous drug reactions, including angioedema/anaphylaxis, exfoliative dermatitis erythroderma and toxic epidermal necrolysis is reviewed. For those patients who develop reactions to an essential medication for which there is no alternative, desensitization is possible.

Mechanisms of unpredictable adverse drug reactions

Adverse drug reactions are common problems associated with therapy, and are major sources of morbidity and mortality. There are numerous types of drug reactions, including predictable drug reactions such as side effects, toxicity, drug interactions and secondary effects that can be anticipated when planning therapy. There are also a number of unpredicted adverse effects, which are unexpected consequences of therapy. The least severe unpredicted adverse drug reaction is intolerance, which appears to be an exaggeration of pharmacological or toxic effects of the drug among vulnerable subsets of patients. Some of the most severe and life-threatening adverse drug reactions are allergic. These adverse effects can be mediated by a number of mechanisms, including the development of drug-specific IgE, serum-sickness-like reactions in response to drug-antibody complexes, direct release of inflammatory mediators, or involvement of the immune system by mechanisms that are poorly understood. Idiosyncratic adverse drug reactions are a heterogeneous group of adverse effects that are not predictable from the pharmacological actions of the drug. Many of these reactions occur as a consequence of pharmacogenetic variations in drug bioactivation and drug or metabolite detoxification or clearance. The physician must be vigilant for the possibility of unpredictable adverse drug reactions during or after therapy. Research currently underway may afford the opportunity to predict, and hopefully prevent, some of these adverse reactions in the future.

Latex glove reactions found in a dental school

When a survey was distributed to students, faculty and staff of a dental school to determine the incidence of latex glove reactions, 15 percent reported adverse reactions to glove use. The most frequently reported symptom was dermatitis, followed by urticaria, sweating, conjunctivitis and rhinitis.

Hemodynamic instability of myelomeningocele patients during anterior spinal surgery

Surgery for spinal fusion for patients with myelomeningocele is accompanied by a high rate of complications. The authors report six cases of sudden intra-operative hemodynamic instability which occurred during anterior spinal fusion; the procedures had to be aborted. All children were successfully resuscitated and four patients subsequently underwent successful anterior and posterior spinal fusion. Four of the children had positive skin and serum allergy tests to latex.