Early skin and challenge testing after rocuronium anaphylaxis

Neuromuscular blocking agent re-exposure in a retrospective cohort with neuromuscular blocking agent-associated anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are one of the most common causes of perioperative anaphylaxis. Although skin test positivity may help identify reactive NMBAs, it is unclear whether skin test negativity can guarantee the safety of systemically administered NMBAs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the real-world safety of alternative NMBAs screened using skin tests in patients with suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis were recruited among patients at Seoul National University Hospital from June 2009 to May 2021, and their characteristics and outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 cases (0.017%) of suspected anaphylaxis occurred in 282,707 patients who received NMBAs. Cardiovascular manifestations were observed in 95.7%, whereas cutaneous findings were observed in 59.6%. Whereas 83% had a history of undergoing general anesthesia, 17% had no history of NMBA use. In skin tests, the overall positivity to any NMBA was 94.6% (81.1% to culprit NMBAs) and the cross-reactivity was 75.7%, which is related to the chemical structural similarity among NMBAs; the cross-reactivity and chemical structure similarity of rocuronium were 85.3% and 0.814, respectively, with vecuronium; this is in contrast to 50% and 0.015 with cisatracurium and 12.5% and 0.208 with succinylcholine. There were 15 patients who underwent subsequent surgery with a skin test-negative NMBA; whereas 80.0% (12/15) safely completed surgery, 20.0% (3/15) experienced hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Similarities in chemical structure may contribute to the cross-reactivity of NMBAs in skin tests. Despite the high negative predictability of skin tests for suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis, the potential risk of recurrent anaphylaxis has not been eliminated.

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.

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.

Pediatric Patients with Previous Anaphylactic Reactions to General Anesthesia: a Review of Literature, Case Report, and Anesthetic Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is rare to see pediatric patients with previous perioperative anaphylaxis receiving future anesthesia, but it is critical to understand how to choose assessments, interpret the results, and develop a future anesthetic plan.

RECENT FINDINGS

Analysis of the results revealed that patients, at any age, regardless of sex and nationality, and the number of surgeries, have the risk of perioperative anaphylaxis while the risk of allergy increases as patients present multiple surgical events or have a previous history of atopy. 94.7% of pediatric patients with allergy testing after perioperative anaphylaxis tolerated subsequent general anesthesia without complications. Specific IgE tests, basophil activation tests, and skin tests are not available and suitable for all culprits. The early skin test could be considered a supplement for later testing. Drug challenge test is the golden standard but can only be used as the last resort. If general anesthesia is inevitable, avoidance of the culprit and use of alternative agents can help the patients prevent another potential recurrence. Full use of inhalation anesthesia without unnecessary neuromuscular blockade agents and avoidance of latex is recommended when the surgery is urgent or skin tests for children cannot be performed in time. This review summarizes characteristics of perioperative pediatric anaphylaxis, main tests for various drugs, and their sensitivities and specificities as well as recommendations as to how to implement safe anesthesia in the future.

An EAACI position paper on the investigation of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.

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.

Assessing cross-reactivity to neuromuscular blocking agents by skin and basophil activation tests in patients with neuromuscular blocking agent anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Following diagnosis of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) anaphylaxis, identifying safe alternatives for subsequent anaesthesia is critical. A patient with anaphylaxis to one NMBA can also have an allergic reaction to other NMBAs (cross-reactivity). Whilst drug provocation testing is standard for identifying or excluding allergy, there is significant risk. In vitro, after an allergen activates basophils, basophils express surface activation markers that can be measured by basophil activation testing (BAT). We compared cross-reactivity between NMBAs assessed by BAT against that by skin testing.

METHODS

All patients attending an anaesthetic allergy clinic in Sydney, Australia between May 2017 and July 2018 diagnosed with NMBA anaphylaxis qualified for this study comparing intradermal skin tests and BAT with a panel of NMBAs (rocuronium, vecuronium, pancuronium, suxamethonium, cisatracurium).

RESULTS

Of the 61 patients participating, sensitisation on skin testing and on BAT completely matched in only nine patients (15%). Sensitisation was not in agreement for pancuronium, cisatracurium and rocuronium, but was in agreement for vecuronium and suxamethonium. Nine patients with negative skin tests subsequently tolerated cisatracurium, and one false positive on BAT to cisatracurium was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of BAT in identifying safe NMBAs for subsequent anaesthesia needs further evaluation. BAT detects a different cross-reactivity profile to skin tests. Negative skin testing and BAT might increase confidence in performing drug provocation testing, but this and follow-up of subsequent anaesthesia in our cohort is necessary to determine the clinical significance of BAT sensitisation.

Neuromuscular blocking agents induced anaphylaxis: Results and trends of a French pharmacovigilance survey from 2000 to 2012

BACKGROUND

Perioperative anaphylaxis mainly involves neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) with an IgE-mediated mechanism. In France, this life-threatening condition is reported by anesthetists and allergologists, and two safety alerts concerning suxamethonium were raised in 2011 and 2012. This led to start a national survey over the 2000-2012 period which objectives were to provide a descriptive analysis, to estimate incidence rates, and to analyze the trends over this period.

METHODS

The French pharmacovigilance database was retrospectively queried for all the available NMBAs. Anaphylaxis cases with elevated tryptase and positive skin tests were qualified as "confirmed cases." Subgroup analysis compared atracurium and cisatracurium vs suxamethonium and rocuronium.

RESULTS

A total of 680 confirmed cases and 944 nonconfirmed cases were identified. Suxamethonium was the most implied NMBA (64%). Incidence rates (according to sales data) of suxamethonium and rocuronium were, respectively, 10- and 13-folds higher than those of the others NMBAs, regardless the confirmed/nonconfirmed status. Cisatracurium incidence rates remained stable over the period, while suxamethonium and atracurium increased and rocuronium first decreased but re-increased after 2006. Male patients were more frequent in the subgroup "atracurium-cisatracurium" (P = .019), whereas obesity and emergency setting were more frequent in the subgroup "rocuronium-suxamethonium." Shared characteristics were the poorly documented previous exposure to NMBA(s) and an insufficient adherence of patients to perform skin tests, showing the need to improve this procedure.

CONCLUSION

Suxamethonium and rocuronium are markedly more involved in perioperative anaphylaxis than the other available NMBAs. Patients should be more informed about their perioperative anaphylaxis and its consequences.

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 .

Neuronal Effects of Sugammadex in combination with Rocuronium or Vecuronium

Rocuronium (ROC) and Vecuronium (VEC) are the most currently used steroidal non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking (MNB) agents. Sugammadex (SUG) rapidly reverses steroidal NMB agents after anaesthesia. The present study was conducted in order to evaluate neuronal effects of SUG alone and in combination with both ROC and VEC. Using MTT, CASP-3 activity and Western-blot we determined the toxicity of SUG, ROC or VEC in neurons in primary culture. SUG induces apoptosis/necrosis in neurons in primary culture and increases cytochrome C (CytC), apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF), Smac/Diablo and Caspase 3 (CASP-3) protein expression. Our results also demonstrated that both ROC and VEC prevent these SUG effects. The protective role of both ROC and VEC could be explained by the fact that SUG encapsulates NMB drugs. In BBB impaired conditions it would be desirable to control SUG doses to prevent the excess of free SUG in plasma that may induce neuronal damage. A balance between SUG, ROC or VEC would be necessary to prevent the risk of cell damage.