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.

Intraoperative anaphylaxis to sugammadex and a protocol for intradermal skin testing.

Sugammadex is a selective binding agent for aminosteroid neuromuscular blockers whose use is increasing in anaesthetic practice. We present three cases of severe anaphylaxis coincident with sugammadex administration. Subsequent intradermal testing confirmed sugammadex as the triggering agent, with all patients having positive skin responses to a 1:100 dilution of the standard 100 mg/ml solution and two out of three having a positive response to a 1:1000 dilution. As all patients were administered sugammadex to reverse neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium, we considered that sugammadex-rocuronium complexes were a potential unique allergen. In the two patients who were additionally tested with a rocuronium-sugammadex (3.6:1 molecular ratio) mixture, the wheal-and-flare response was significantly attenuated.

Perioperative medication management: expanding the role of the preadmission clinic pharmacist in a single centre, randomised controlled trial of collaborative prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: Current evidence to support non-medical prescribing is predominantly qualitative, with little evaluation of accuracy, safety and appropriateness. Our aim was to evaluate a new model of service for the Australia healthcare system, of inpatient medication prescribing by a pharmacist in an elective surgery preadmission clinic (PAC) against usual care, using an endorsed performance framework. DESIGN: Single centre, randomised controlled, two-arm trial. SETTING: Elective surgery PAC in a Brisbane-based tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 400 adults scheduled for elective surgery were randomised to intervention or control. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist generated the inpatient medication chart to reflect the patient's regular medication, made a plan for medication perioperatively and prescribed venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. In the control arm, the medication chart was generated by the Resident Medical Officers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was frequency of omissions and prescribing errors when compared against the medication history. The clinical significance of omissions was also analysed. Secondary outcome was appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis prescribing. RESULTS: There were significantly less unintended omissions of medications: 11 of 887 (1.2%) intervention orders compared with 383 of 1217 (31.5%) control (p<0.001). There were significantly less prescribing errors involving selection of drug, dose or frequency: 2 in 857 (0.2%) intervention orders compared with 51 in 807 (6.3%) control (p<0.001). Orders with at least one component of the prescription missing, incorrect or unclear occurred in 208 of 904 (23%) intervention orders and 445 of 1034 (43%) controls (p<0.001). VTE prophylaxis on admission to the ward was appropriate in 93% of intervention patients and 90% controls (p=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Medication charts in the intervention arm contained fewer clinically significant omissions, and prescribing errors, when compared with controls. There was no difference in appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis on admission between the two groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ANZCTR-ACTR Number ACTRN12609000426280.

An epidural anaesthetic with unusual complications.

Respiratory paralysis and prolonged duration of anaesthesia followed lumbar epidural block with bupivacaine. Subdural, extra arachnoid block is postulated.