The Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis, a prospective nationwide study: clinical signs, severity, and therapeutic agents.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is difficult because of its non-specific and variable signs and symptoms. Therapeutic agents used to treat anaphylaxis and anaesthesiologist responses also vary depending on the case, which might affect outcomes; however, only a few studies have focused on these factors. METHODS: This prospective study of perioperative anaphylaxis, a part of the Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis, investigated the clinical signs, its severity, therapeutic drugs, epinephrine administration, and anaesthesiologist responses in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis to assess trends and variability. Shock index was used to assess severity of cardiovascular collapse. RESULTS: In 43 patients analysed in this study, cardiovascular signs (88.4%) were the most frequent, followed by skin (81.4%) and respiratory signs (60.5%). The presence of signs increased during the clinical course. The median time from the first signs to diagnosis of anaphylaxis was 10 (5.0-17.8) min. The rates of epinephrine use were 30.2% (unused), 48.8% (i.v.), and 20.9% (i.m.). The median time from diagnosis of anaphylaxis to epinephrine administration was 7 (inter-quartile range: 1.5-8.0) min. Antihistamines and corticosteroids were each used in 69.8% of cases. The worst shock index was higher in patients who received i.v. epinephrine (2.77 [0.90] mean [standard deviation]) than in both no epinephrine use cases (1.35 [0.41]) and i.m. epinephrine cases (1.89 [0.77] (P<0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical signs and treatments of perioperative anaphylaxis are variable, and the choice regarding epinephrine administration is based on symptom severity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000035350.

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

BACKGROUND: There are few cases of anaphylaxis after local application of fibrin sealant diagnosed by skin tests. CASE PRESENTATION: A 49-year-old woman underwent partial lung resection under general anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced uneventfully. Shortly after applying absorbable suture reinforcement felt that contained fibrin sealant, her systolic blood pressure fell to approximately 70 mmHg, along with facial flushing. Anaphylaxis was diagnosed based on the clinical symptoms and high serum tryptase levels. Three months after the event, skin tests were performed with all agents and were positive only for fibrin sealant vial no. 2, whose main component is aprotinin. Subsequently, basophil activation tests using fibrin sealant vial no. 2 and pure aprotinin demonstrated that the causative agent was likely aprotinin. CONCLUSIONS: We diagnosed aprotinin-induced anaphylaxis using skin tests and basophil activation tests. The occurrence of anaphylaxis should be considered when changes in vital signs are observed after the use of fibrin sealant.

Possible immunoglobulin-E-dependent sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis caused by an epitope other than γ-cyclodextrin: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex is a synthetic γ-cyclodextrin derivative designed to selectively bind to steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents and reverse their effects. Although many cases of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis have been reported, few studies have investigated the underlying mechanism. CASE PRESENTATION: A 55-year-old Japanese man underwent a laryngectomy under general anesthesia. One month before laryngectomy, he had undergone laryngoscopy under general anesthesia and received sugammadex administration without causing hypersensitivity. He had no history of allergies. The operation was finished without complications. Shortly after sugammadex administration, his blood pressure dropped to approximately 70 mmHg, and his heart rate increased to 110 beats/minute with systemic erythema. Suspecting anaphylaxis, he was treated with the intravenous injection of phenylephrine, D-chlorpheniramine, and hydrocortisone. After these treatments, his cardiovascular condition stabilized. Eight months after the event, skin prick tests and intradermal tests with all agents used during general anesthesia were performed. Intradermal tests showed positive results only for sugammadex. Subsequently, basophil activation tests with CD203c were performed using sugammadex, γ-cyclodextrin, and positive controls (anti-immunoglobulin-E and formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine). In addition to both controls, sugammadex, but not γ-cyclodextrin, induced significant upregulation of CD203c expression. We performed additional basophil activation tests with wortmannin, an inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase, to investigate the mechanism underlying sugammadex-induced basophil activation. The inhibitory effect of wortmannin on basophil activation due to sugammadex was similar to that of anti-immunoglobulin-E, suggesting an immunoglobulin-E-dependent mechanism. Although the patient showed no hypersensitivity after the first exposure of sugammadex, anaphylaxis appeared after the second administration. Because most cases of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis reportedly appeared after first administration, this seems to be a rare case. CONCLUSIONS: In the present case, sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis might have occurred through an immunoglobulin-E-dependent mechanism and not involve γ-cyclodextrin as an epitope. Physicians should pay attention to the occurrence of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis even when the patient has a history of safe administration of sugammadex.