Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Br J Anaesth ; 131(1): 159-169, 2023 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36990827

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is often challenging. This study describes the utility of a newly developed tool for identifying patients with a high possibility of anaphylaxis, and aimed to investigate the frequency of anaphylaxis with each drug during the perioperative period in Japan. METHODS: This study included patients with anaphylaxis of Grade 2 or higher severity during general anaesthesia at 42 facilities across Japan in 2019 and 2020. We developed and adopted a unique objective evaluation tool yielding a composite score for diagnosing anaphylaxis, which includes the results of skin tests and basophil activation tests, and clinical scores for perioperative anaphylaxis. The number of cases using each drug and the total number of anaphylaxis cases were investigated to calculate the frequency of anaphylaxis. RESULTS: General anaesthesia was performed in 218 936 cases, which included 55 patients with suspected perioperative anaphylaxis. The developed composite score diagnosed 43 of them with a high probability of anaphylaxis. The causative agent was identified in 32 cases. Plasma histamine levels showed high diagnostic accuracy for anaphylaxis. The top causative agents were rocuronium (10 cases in 210 852 patients, 0.005%), sugammadex (7 cases in 150 629 patients, 0.005%), and cefazolin (7 cases in 106 005 patients, 0.007%). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a composite tool to diagnose anaphylaxis, and found that the combination of tryptase levels, skin testing, and basophil activation testing results and clinical score improved the certainty of anaphylaxis diagnosis. The incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis in our study was 1 in about 5000 general anaesthesia cases. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000035350.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas , Humanos , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Pueblos del Este de Asia , Anestesia General/efectos adversos , Alérgenos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/epidemiología
2.
J Anesth ; 37(3): 474-481, 2023 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37120585

RESUMEN

Chlorhexidine is a common cause of perioperative anaphylaxis, and global regulatory authorities have issued warnings about anaphylaxis due to chlorhexidine-containing central venous catheters (CVC) and its mucosal absorption. We present a case of life-threatening anaphylaxis after CVC insertion caused by chlorhexidine used for skin preparation. The onset of anaphylaxis was rapid and very severe, resulting in pulseless electrical activity. The patient was successfully resuscitated by emergency veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Our case suggests that even skin preparation before chlorhexidine-free CVC insertion can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. We reviewed the literature on chlorhexidine anaphylaxis cases and categorized all potential routes of chlorhexidine exposure to assess the risk following skin preparation. Our results showed that skin preparation before CVC insertion was the third most common cause of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis after transurethral exposure and chlorhexidine-containing CVCs. However, skin preparation with chlorhexidine before CVC insertion was sometimes overlooked as a cause of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis, and its risk might be underestimated. Further, no previous reports have described life-threatening anaphylaxis solely due to chlorhexidine skin preparation before CVC insertion. CVC insertion might cause the chlorhexidine used for skin preparation to reach the vascular system and should be recognized as a potential cause of life-threatening chlorhexidine anaphylaxis.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Cateterismo Venoso Central , Catéteres Venosos Centrales , Humanos , Clorhexidina/efectos adversos , Catéteres Venosos Centrales/efectos adversos , Anafilaxia/inducido químicamente , Cateterismo Venoso Central/efectos adversos
3.
J Anesth ; 36(3): 390-398, 2022 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35416534

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Intraoperative anaphylaxis caused by blood products is uncommon, but it is unclear whether the rarity of this reaction is attributable to the difficulty of diagnosis, underreporting, or both. We investigated the incidence of intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis and its reporting to the hemovigilance system. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed cases wherein general anesthesia was used at a single hospital during a 12-year period. Cases of intraoperative anaphylaxis were extracted using an electronic search strategy and determined using the recently developed grading and clinical scoring system. The causative blood products were determined by the onset duration based on literature regarding intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis cases. RESULTS: Among the 62,146 general anesthesia cases, 22 cases of intraoperative anaphylaxis were identified, and 11 of the 22 cases received transfusions before the onset of anaphylaxis. Intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis was defined as occurring within 30 min of transfusion. Finally, nine cases of intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis were analyzed. The overall incidence of intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis was 1/3,994, with the highest incidence noted for fresh frozen plasma (1/2146; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1/6610-1/920), platelet concentrate (1/2348; 95% CI 1/92,742-1/422), and red blood cells (1/22,867; 95% CI 1/903,199-1/4,105). No evidence indicated that these cases were reported to the Japanese hemovigilance system, although all intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis cases were diagnosed by anesthesiologists. CONCLUSION: The incidence of intraoperative anaphylaxis caused by blood products was higher than that reported and may be underreported to the Japanese hemovigilance system. Further research, particularly multicenter studies, is needed to confirm our results.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/etiología , Transfusión Sanguínea , Humanos , Incidencia , Plasma , Estudios Retrospectivos
4.
Anesthesiol Res Pract ; 2021: 8144794, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34512750

RESUMEN

Since the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in Japan in January 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a significant change in people's lives. Although the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to have had an impact on the work of anesthesiologists, the specific impact has been largely unreported. We hypothesized that the number of general anesthesia (GA) cases has decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a retrospective survey at 34 facilities in Japan as a part of the Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis. The results showed that the number of GA cases had significantly decreased, particularly in May 2020, under the government's declaration of a state of emergency. The decline in GA caseload had not fully recovered by July 2020. Furthermore, there were regional differences in the decline in the number of GA cases. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of anesthesiologists was greater in prefectures where there were more COVID-19 patients and where the state of emergency was declared earlier. Our study suggested a region-dependent decrease in the number of GA cases due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA