Failure to prevent an anaphylactic reaction to a second neuromuscular blocking drug during anaesthesia

Successful identification of culprit drugs of perioperative anaphylaxis by repeated skin testing after negative first skin tests in a patient with a long distant history of perioperative anaphylaxis

Background

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a severe immediate hypersensitivity reaction to drugs administered in immediate temporal association to surgical procedures. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommends allergologic tests be performed within the golden period of between 1 and 4 months after the date of the event to avoid false negatives. Nonetheless, many obstacles prevent patients from receiving diagnostic tests within the recommended time frame.

Case presentation

A 39-year-old male with congenital glaucoma had a history of multiple episodes of perioperative anaphylaxis since the age of 1 year including generalized urticaria, bronchospasm, cyanosis, and hypotension. Because the sequence of events was unclear due to incomplete documentation of operations and the destruction of medical records, the allergists tested different perioperative drugs on the patient. Although the first test results were all negative, repeated tests at 6 weeks were positive for morphine and ketamine. We identified more than one causative drug at the second round of skin tests. Using recommended skin test concentrations, negative skin tests in 5 control subjects could support the validity of the second test. The patient underwent sinus surgery in the next 3 months after the second skin test using propofol, midazolam, sevoflurane, chlorhexidine, and cefazolin without any anaphylactic reactions.

Conclusions

Repeated skin tests after negative results of the first tests may identify the causative drugs, thus providing optimal patient safety, and should be considered under the physician's discretion together with consideration of the severity of the allergic symptoms, time interval from last reactions, and the patient's consent.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are heterogeneous in their pathomechanisms, clinical presentation, severity, and outcomes. Novel DHR mechanisms, phenotypes, and endotypes have been described. The key to prevention from further exposure to the culprit drugs involves correct identification of the putative drug through a combination of in vitro and/or in vivo tests, accurate drug allergy labeling and reporting, and electronic decision support systems within electronic medical records to prevent future accidental prescribing. Prescreening and premedication, the focus of this review, may be a useful adjunct to preventive measures in certain situations. After an index immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction, prescreening may be useful in perioperative anaphylaxis, and iodinated (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media (GCM) where the culprit and potential alternative agents are skin tested. In certain nonimmediate DHR, pharmacogenomic prescreening may be used before prescribing high-risk drugs (eg, carbamazepine and allopurinol) where specific human-leukocyte antigen genotypes are associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Premedication with antihistamine and systemic corticosteroids is another therapeutic strategy to prevent infusion reactions for certain biologicals and chemotherapeutic agents, in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, ICM and GCM DHR, and clonal mast cell disorders. Rapid drug desensitization may also be used to induce temporary tolerance in situations where there are limited alternative drugs.

Severe Bronchoconstriction Caused by Administration of Rocuronium in a 3-Month-Old Infant: Case Report

We present the case of a 3-month-old infant with severe, persistent bronchoconstriction following administration of rocuronium. This observation raises awareness of a rare but potentially life-threatening reaction to neuromuscular blocking agents.

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.

Skin Testing to Identify Safe Drugs for Patients with Rocuronium-Induced Anaphylaxis

Among patients who develop anaphylaxis during anesthesia, anaphylaxis caused by a neuromuscular blocking agent has the highest incidence. In patients who developed IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, and cross-reactivity among NMBAs is a concern in subsequent anesthetic procedures. We present a patient who developed rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis in whom the skin prick test (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) could identify a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure. A 32-year-old female developed anaphylactic shock at the induction of general anesthesia. She recovered by administration of hydrocortisone and epinephrine. Skin tests including the SPT followed by the IDT revealed rocuronium as the drug that caused anaphylaxis and vecuronium as a safe drug to use for the subsequent general anesthesia. She safely underwent surgery with general anesthesia using vecuronium one month after the skin testing. There are not many reports on the effectiveness of the SPT followed by IDT in identifying the causative drug as well as a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure following anaphylaxis during anesthesia. The usefulness of the SPT should be re-evaluated.

Peri-Operative Anaphylaxis-An Investigational Challenge

Patients with suspected peri-operative anaphylaxis (POP) require thorough investigation to identify underlying trigger(s) and enable safe anesthesia for subsequent surgery. The changing epidemiology of POP has been striking. Previous estimates of the incidence of POP have ranged between 1:6,000 and1:20,000 anesthetics, but more recent data from France and the United Kingdom suggest an estimated incidence of 1:10,000. Other important changes include a change in the hierarchy of well-recognized triggers, with antibiotics (beta-lactams) supplanting neuromuscular blockers (NMB) as the leading cause of POP. The emergence of chlorhexidine, patent blue dye, and teicoplanin as important triggers have also been noteworthy findings. The mainstay of investigation revolves around critical analysis of the time-line of events leading up to anaphylaxis coupled with judicious skin testing. Skin tests have limitations with respect to unknown predictive values for most drugs/agents and therefore, knowledge of background positivity in healthy controls, test characteristics of individual drugs and the use of non-irritant concentrations is essential to avoid both false-positive and false-negative results. Specific IgE assays for individual drugs are available only for a limited number of agents and are not a substitute for skin testing. Acute serum total tryptase has a high specificity and positive predictive value in IgE-mediated POP anaphylaxis but is limited by its moderate sensitivity and negative predictive value. Planning for safe anesthesia in this group of patients is particularly challenging and consequently anesthetists need to be alert to the possibility of repeat episodes of anaphylaxis. Because of the limitations of current investigations for POP, collecting systematic data on the outcome of repeat anesthesia is valuable in validating current investigatory approaches. This paper reviews the changing epidemiology of POP with reference to the main triggers, and the investigation and outcome of subsequent anesthesia.

Anaesthetic management of patients with pre-existing allergic conditions: a narrative review

This narrative review seeks to distinguish the clinical patterns of pre-existing allergic conditions from other confounding non-allergic clinical entities, and to identify the potential related risks and facilitate their perioperative management. Follow-up investigation should be performed after a perioperative immediate hypersensitivity to establish a diagnosis and provide advice for subsequent anaesthetics, the main risk factor for perioperative immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylaxis being a previous uninvestigated perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction. The concept of cross-reactivity between drugs used in the perioperative setting and food is often quoted, but usually not supported by evidence. There is no reason to avoid propofol in egg, soy, or peanut allergy. The allergenic determinants have been characterised for fish, shellfish, and povidone iodine, but remain unknown for iodinated contrast agents. Iodinated drugs may be used in seafood allergy. Evidence supporting the risk for protamine allergy in fish allergy and in neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin use is lacking. Conversely, cross-reactivity to gelatin-based colloid may occur in α-gal syndrome. Atopy and allergic asthma along with other non-allergic conditions, such as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease, chronic urticaria, mastocytosis, and hereditary or acquired angioedema, are not risk factors for IgE-mediated drug allergy, but there is a perioperative risk associated with the potential for exacerbation of the various conditions.

Anaphylaxis to Cisatracurium following Negative Skin Testing

General anaesthesia for the patient with a history of anaesthesia-related anaphylaxis is challenging. Precautions against anaphylaxis and the use of skin test negative drugs can reduce but not eliminate the risk. In the majority of such cases, subsequent anaesthesia is uneventful. However, the absence of a clearly identified triggering agent increases the difficulties facing the anaesthetist. We present a case of anaphylaxis to cisatracurium following a negative skin test.

Morphine and pholcodine-specific IgE have limited utility in the diagnosis of anaphylaxis to benzylisoquinolines

BACKGROUND

Investigation of immediate hypersensitivity reactions in the perioperative setting involves skin testing and measurement of specific IgE (sIgE) as standard practice. In the case of the neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), the main allergenic epitopes have been shown to be substituted ammonium groups. Commercial assays are available for detection of sIgE to these epitopes using morphine and pholcodine substrates but questions have been raised about the effectiveness of these assays in the diagnosis of benzylisoquinoline anaphylaxis. This study was therefore undertaken to assess the effectiveness of these assays in the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to this group of NMBAs.

METHODS

Analysis was carried out on all available results for patients assessed at the Royal North Shore Hospital Anaesthetic Allergy Clinic during the period June 2009 to June 2016. Standardised intradermal skin tests were performed with a panel of NMBAs. Measurement of sIgE to morphine and pholcodine was performed via the Phadia ImmunoCAP^® system.

RESULTS

For all patients with positive skin test results to NMBAs which included a benzylisoquinoline NMBA (n = 24), 75% exhibited negative sIgE to both morphine and pholcodine. Where patients were reactive to benzylisoquinoline NMBAs alone (n = 12), 100% exhibited negative sIgE results, indicating 0% sensitivity of the assays relative to skin testing, in this subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Use of sIgE testing to morphine and pholcodine in the assessment of NMBA immediate hypersensitivity is a valuable tool particularly in the case of reactions to the aminosteroid NMBAs. However, these assays are unreliable in detecting sensitisation to benzylisoquinoline NMBAs.

Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group Perioperative Anaphylaxis Investigation Guidelines

These guidelines are a consensus document developed by a working party of the Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group (ANZAAG) to provide an approach to the investigation of perioperative anaphylaxis. They focus primarily on the use of skin testing as it is the investigation with the greatest clinical utility for the identification of the likely causative agent and potentially safer alternatives. The practicalities and process of skin testing, its limitations, and the place of other tests are discussed. These guidelines also address the roles of graded challenge and in vitro testing. The implications of anaphylaxis associated with neuromuscular blocking agents, beta-lactam antibiotics, local anaesthetic agents and chlorhexidine are discussed. Evidence for the recommendations is derived from literature searches using the words skin test, allergy, anaphylaxis, anaesthesia, and each of the individual agents listed in these guidelines. The individual articles were then reviewed for suitability for inclusion in these guidelines. Where evidence was not strong, as is the situation for many perioperative agents, expert consensus from the ANZAAG working party was used. These guidelines are intended for use by specialists involved in the investigation of perioperative allergy. They have been approved following peer review by members of ANZAAG and are available on the ANZAAG website: http://www.anzaag.com/anaphylaxis-management/testing-guidelines.pdf .

Dilemmas in Anesthetic Management of a Patient with History of Anaphylaxis to Vecuronium

Anaphylaxis during anesthesia is a life-threatening situation that occurs uncommonly. A 60-year-old woman with a history of anaphylaxis during previous anesthesia is scheduled to undergo elective open cholecystectomy. Her skin tests revealed sensitivity to vecuronium and nonsensitivity to injections of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol. Due to high incidence of cross sensitivity among neuromuscular drugs, it was thought best to avoid general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was planned for the patient. The patient refused to give consent for spinal anesthesia, and she had to be taken up for surgery under general anesthesia. The only alternate neuromuscular blocking drug available to us was atracurium, which was tested for sensitivity by intradermal test. Atracurium was found to be not sensitive on intradermal test. We report here the dilemma and the challenges faced during management of general anesthesia in a patient with history of anaphylaxis to vecuronium.

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.

Sugammadex and rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a life-threatening clinical condition that is typically the result of drugs or substances used for anesthesia or surgery. The most common cause of anaphylaxis during anesthesia is reportedly neuromuscular blocking agents. Of the many muscle relaxants that are clinically available, rocuronium is becoming popular in many countries. Recent studies have demonstrated that succinylcholine (but also rocuronium use) is associated with a relatively high rate of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis compared with other muscle relaxant agents. Sugammadex is widely used for reversal of the effects of steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents, such as rocuronium and vecuronium. Confirmed cases of allergic reactions to clinical doses of sugammadex have also been recently reported. Given these circumstances, the number of cases of hypersensitivity to either sugammadex or rocuronium is likely to increase. Thus, anesthesiologists should be familiar with the epidemiology, mechanisms, and clinical presentations of anaphylaxis induced by these drugs. In this review, we focus on the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis to sugammadex and neuromuscular blocking agents. Moreover, we discuss recent studies in this field, including the diagnostic utility of flow cytometry and improvement of rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis with the use of sugammadex.

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.

Perioperative anaphylactic reactions: Review and procedure protocol in paediatrics

Perioperative anaphylactic reactions are immediate, hypersensitive reactions that are potentially life-threatening resulting from a sudden release of mediators from mast cells and basophiles, due to either immune (IgE or non-IgE mediated) or non-immune mechanisms. The most frequent causing agents are neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), latex and antibiotics, with latex being the first cause in paediatrics. With regard to perioperative anaphylactic reactions, the usual early signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction could be overlooked or erroneously interpreted and non-severe anaphylaxis could go undetected, with a risk of more severe reactions in the future. Using the data registered on the anaesthesia sheet, it is essential to establish a chronological relationship between drugs and/or substances administered and the reaction observed. An elevated level of tryptase confirms an anaphylactic reaction, but this does not usually increase in the absence of compromised circulation. An allergy study should be carried out preferably between 4 and 6 weeks after the reaction, using a combination of specific IgE, skin and controlled exposure tests (if indicated). Test sensitivity is good for NMBAs, latex, antibiotics, chlorhexidine, gelatine and povidone, and poor for barbiturates, opiates (these can give false positives since they are histamine releasers) and benzodiazepines. Special preventive measures should be taken, especially in the case of latex. We present the maximum concentrations recommended for skin tests, the recommended dosage to treat anaphylactic reactions in paediatrics and a procedure algorithm for the allergological study of these reactions.

Histamine-releasing and allergenic properties of opioid analgesic drugs: resolving the two

Opioid analgesics are amongst the most commonly administered drugs in hospitals. Whether natural or synthetic, they show some common structural features, morphine-like pharmacological action and binding specificity for complementary opioid receptors. Tramadol differs from the other opioid analgesics in possessing monoaminergic activity in addition to its affinity for the µ opioid receptor. Many opioids are potent histamine releasers producing a variety of haemodynamic changes and anaphylactoid reactions, but the relationship of the appearance of these effects to the histamine plasma concentration is complex and there is no direct and invariable relationship between the two. Studies of the histamine-releasing effects, chiefly centred on morphine, reveal variable findings and conclusions often due to a range of factors including differences in technical measurements, dose, mode of administration, site of injection, the anatomical distribution of histamine receptors and heterogeneity of patient responses. Morphine itself has multiple direct effects on the vasculature and other haemodynamically-active mediators released along with histamine contribute to the variable responses to opioid drug administration. Despite their heavy use and occasional apparent anaphylactic-like side-effects, immunoglobulin E antibody-mediated immediate hypersensitivity reactions to the drugs are not often encountered. Uncertainties associated with skin testing with these known histamine-releasers, and the general unavailability of opioid drug-specific immunoglobulin E antibody tests contribute to the frequent failure to adequately investigate and establish underlying mechanisms of reactions by distinguishing anaphylactoid from true anaphylactic reactions. Clinical implications for diagnosis of reactions and some speculations on the rarity of true Type 1 allergies to these drugs are presented.

A case of anaphylactic shock attributed to latex allergy during gastric cancer surgery

Latex allergy is a known cause of allergic contact dermatitis. It produces mild symptoms, including skin rash and itching, which usually subside in a few days. However, latex allergy can also induce anaphylaxis, a severe type I hypersensitivity reaction that can cause urticaria, angioedema, hypotension, tachycardia, and bronchospasm. We report a case of anaphylactic shock during gastric cancer surgery in a patient with no previous allergic history. Surgery was suspended when hypotension, tachycardia, and wheezing developed. A thorough workup revealed that the patient had a latex allergy. The patient subsequently underwent curative gastrectomy performed with latex-free procedures.

Perioperative anaphylaxis

The incidence of immune-mediated anaphylaxis during anesthesia ranges from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 20,000. Neuromuscular blocking agents are most frequently incriminated, followed by latex and antibiotics, although any drug or substance used may be a culprit. Diagnosis relies on tryptase measurements at the time of the reaction and skin tests, specific immunoglobulin E, or basophil activation assays. Treatment consists of rapid volume expansion and epinephrine administration titrated to symptom severity.

BSACI guidelines for the investigation of suspected anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia

Investigation of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia requires an accurate record of events including information on timing of drug administration provided by the anaesthetist, as well as timed acute tryptase measurements. Referrals should be made to a centre with the experience and ability to investigate reactions to a range of drug classes/substances including neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetics, antibiotics, opioid analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local anaesthetics, colloids, latex and other agents. About a third of cases are due to allergy to NMBAs. Therefore, investigation should be carried out in a dedicated drug allergy clinic to allow seamless investigation of all suspected drug classes as a single day-case. This will often require skin prick tests, intra-dermal testing and/or drug challenge. Investigation must cover the agents administered, but should also include most other commonly used NMBAs and i.v. anaesthetics. The outcome should be to identify the cause and a range of drugs/agents likely to be safe for future use. The allergist is responsible for a detailed report to the referring anaesthetist and to the patient's GP as well as the surgeon/obstetrician. A shorter report should be provided to the patient, adding an allergy alert to the case notes and providing an application form for an alert-bracelet indicating the wording to be inscribed. The MHRA should be notified. Investigation of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia should be focussed in major allergy centres with a high throughput of cases and with experience and ability as described above. We suggest this focus since there is a distinct lack of validated data for testing, thus requiring experience in interpreting tests and because of the serious consequences of diagnostic error.

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.

Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia: diagnostic approach

Correct management of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia requires a multidisciplinary approach with prompt recognition and treatment of the acute event by the attending anaesthesiologist, and subsequent determination of the responsible agent(s) with strict avoidance of subsequent administration of all incriminated and/or cross-reacting compounds. However, correct identification of the causative compound(s) and safe alternatives is not always straightforward and, too often, not done. This review is not intended to discuss acute management of anaesthesia-related anaphylaxis but summarizes the major causes of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia and the diagnostic approach of this rare but potentially life-threatening complication. Apart from general principles about the diagnostic approach, history taking and importance of tryptase quantification, more specific confirmatory diagnostic procedures are organized on the basis of the major causes of perioperative anaphylactic reactions.

Crisis management during anaesthesia: anaphylaxis and allergy

BACKGROUND

Anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions during anaesthesia are a major cause for concern for anaesthetists. However, as individual practitioners encounter such events so rarely, the rapidity with which the diagnosis is made and appropriate management instituted varies considerably.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the role of a previously described core algorithm "COVER ABCD-A SWIFT CHECK", supplemented by a specific sub-algorithm for anaphylaxis, in the management of severe allergic reactions occurring in association with anaesthesia.

METHODS

The potential performance of this structured approach for each of the relevant incidents among the first 4000 reported to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS) was compared with the actual performance as reported by the anaesthetists involved.

RESULTS

There were 148 allergic reactions among the first 4000 incidents reported to AIMS. It was considered that, properly applied, the structured approach would have led to a quicker and/or better resolution of the problem in 30% of cases, and would not have caused harm had it been applied in all of them.

CONCLUSION

An increased awareness of the diverse clinical manifestations of allergy seen in anaesthetic practice, together with the adoption of a structured approach to management should improve and standardise the treatment and improve follow up of patients suspected of having suffered a significant allergic reaction under anaesthesia.

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.

Screening for mast cell tryptase and serum IgE antibodies in 18 patients with anaphylactic shock during general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

In the perioperative setting multiple agents can cause anaphylaxis. Often the reactions are dramatic, and due to their lifethreatening potential it is crucial that the responsible agent is identified in order to avoid future adverse reactions. The aim of the present study was to measure the concentration of serum mast cell tryptase (MCT), to investigate the prevalence of serum IgE antibodies against ammonium groups, choline, morphine, suxamethonium, thiopentone and latex and to perform skin prick tests (SPTs) in 18 patients experiencing an anaphylactic reaction during induction of general anaesthesia.

METHODS

Serum samples from 18 patients with an anaphylactic reaction during general anaesthesia were analyzed for MCT and specific IgE against ammonium groups, choline, morphine, suxamethonium, thiopentone and latex. Skin prick tests were performed in 11 out of 18 patients.

RESULTS

Ten patients had elevated MCT levels and specific IgE against ammonium ion, morphine and (with the exception of patient nos 3, 9 and 10) suxamethonium. Seven of these patients had positive SPTs to suxamethonium. One of the patients tested positive to latex in addition to suxamethonium. Two patients showed elevated MCT, while specific IgE against the drugs tested was not detected. Three patients tested positive to ammonium ion, morphine and suxamethonium, but negative to MCT. Three patients tested negative to both MCT and specific IgE.

CONCLUSIONS

Fifteen out of 18 sera tested positive for MCT and/or specific IgE against neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs). Ten of the 18 patients experienced an IgE-mediated anaphylactic reaction to NMBDs during anaesthesia, verified by detection of specific IgE and elevated levels of MCT.

[Allergy investigations after two cases of adverse reactions to a neuromuscular blocking agent and management for subsequent general anaesthesia]

We report two cases of severe anaphylactic reactions to rocuronium. Diagnosis was confirmed by skin tests and specific IgE assay. Cross-reactivity to all neuromuscular blocking agents was investigated by intradermal tests and leucocyte histamine release test. Intradermal tests and leukocyte histamine release were negative for cisatracurium. The two patients had undergone a subsequent general anaesthesia using cisatracurium and did not present any adverse reaction.

Rocuronium: high risk for anaphylaxis?

Patients suspected of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia have been referred to the senior author's clinic since 1974 for investigation. Since release of rocuronium on to the worldwide market, concern has been expressed about its propensity to cause anaphylaxis. We identified 24 patients who met clinical and laboratory (intradermal, mast cell tryptase and morphine radioimmunoassay) criteria for anaphylaxis to rocuronium. The incidence of rocuronium allergy in New South Wales, Australia has risen in parallel with sales, while there has been an associated fall in reactions to other neuromuscular blocking drugs. Data from intradermal testing suggested that rocuronium is intermediate in its propensity to cause allergy in known relaxant reactors compared with low-risk agents (e.g. pancuronium, vecuronium) and higher-risk agents (e.g. alcuronium, succinylcholine).

Remifentanil and propofol without muscle relaxants or with different doses of rocuronium for tracheal intubation in outpatient anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

The use of muscle relaxants in outpatient anaesthesia is controversial; some authors recommend an induction regimen including propofol and opioids without muscle relaxants. This study evaluated the requirements for rocuronium after remifentanil/propofol.

METHODS

We examined in four groups of ASA I-II patients (n= 30 for each) the intubating conditions three minutes after induction of anaesthesia with remifentanil 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1), propofol 2 mg kg(-1) without muscle relaxants or with different doses of rocuronium (0.6 mg kg(-1), 0.45 mg kg(-1), 0.3 mg kg(-1)) applying the criteria proposed by the Copenhagen Consensus Conference. In the second part of the study the time course of neuromuscular block was determined by electromyography using train-of-four (TOF) stimulation. To this end, another 60 ASA I-II patients were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1), propofol 2 mg kg(-1) and either rocuronium 0.6 mg kg(-1), 0.45 mg kg(-1), 0.3 mg kg(-1), or 0.3 mg kg(-1) followed by neostigmine 40 microg kg(-1) and atropine 20 microg kg(-1) at a T1 recovery of 10% (n=15 for each).

RESULTS

Intubating conditions were good or excellent in 30 patients after rocuronium 0.6 mg kg(-1) and in 18 patients when rocuronium was omitted (P<0.01). After 0.45 mg kg(-1) and 0.3 mg kg(-1) rocuronium the numbers were 29 and 30 patients, respectively. Reducing rocuronium from 0.6 mg kg(-1) to 0.45 mg kg(-1) or 0.3 mg kg(-1) increased the onset time from 136 (35) s to 199 (34) s and 249 (52) s (mean (SD)), (P<0.01); the clinical duration decreased from 38 (10) min to 24 (8) min and 16 (5) min, respectively (P<0.01); and the duration to a TOF-ratio of 0.8 decreased from 60 (11) min to 45 (9) min and 34 (7) min (P<0.01). After rocuronium 0.3 mg kg(-1) this time interval further decreased to 22 (3) min when neostigmine was given at a T1 of 10% (P<0.01 compared with spontaneous recovery after rocuronium 0.3 mg kg(-1)).

CONCLUSION

After remifentanil/propofol intubation conditions were poor in 40% of patients without muscle relaxants; adding reduced doses of rocuronium to this regimen improved the intubation conditions significantly. In addition, reducing the initial dose of rocuronium markedly shortened its time course of action.