A US-Based Multicenter Retrospective Report of Perioperative Anaphylaxis, 2010-2021.

BACKGROUND: US-based perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) studies are limited to single-center experiences. A recent report found that a serum acute tryptase (sAT) >9.8 ng/mL or mast cell activation (MCA) can predict POA causal agent identification. Urinary mast cell mediator metabolites (uMC) have not been studied in POA. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the epidemiologic data of POA, to determine if sAT or MCA can predict suspected causal agent identification, and to evaluate uMC utility in POA. METHODS: This study is a retrospective multicenter review of POA cases that were subcategorized by suspected causal agent identification status. sAT, MCA (defined as sAT >2 + 1.2 × serum baseline tryptase), and uMC (N-methylhistamine [N-MH], 11ß-prostaglandin-F2α [11ß-PGF2α], leukotriene E4 [LTE4]) were recorded. RESULTS: Of 100 patients (mean age 52 [standard deviation 17] years, 94% adult, 50% female, 90% White, and 2% Hispanic) with POA, 73% had an sAT available, 41% had MCA, 16% had uMC available, and 50% had an identifiable suspected cause. POA cases with an identifiable suspected cause had a positive MCA status (100% vs 78%; P = .01) compared with POA with an unidentifiable cause. An elevated median sAT did not predict causal agent identification. Positive uMC were not associated with suspected causal agent identification during POA. Patients with positive uMC had a higher median sAT (30 vs 6.45 ng/mL; P = .001) and MCA status (96% vs 12%; P = .001) compared with negative uMC patients. Patients with POA had an elevated acute/baseline uMC ratios: 11ß-PGF2α ratio > 1.6, N-MH ratio >1.7, and LTE4 ratio >1.8. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of MCA in POA is associated with suspected causal agent identification. Positive uMC possibly correlate with a higher sAT level and MCA status but require further study. The authors suggest applying an acute/baseline uMC ratio (11ß-PGF2α ratio >1.6, N-MH ratio >1.7, and LTE4 ratio >1.87) in patients with POA for MCA when a tryptase level is inconclusive during POA evaluations.

Paediatric perioperative hypersensitivity: the performance of the current consensus formula and the effect of uneventful anaesthesia on serum tryptase.

Background: Paired sampling of acute (aST) and basal (bST) serum tryptase has been recommended when investigating patients with a suspected perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) reaction. In the current consensus formula, an aST value exceeding (1.2×bST+2) confirms mast cell activation. The current consensus formula has been validated in adults but not in children. Methods: We prospectively included 96 children who underwent uneventful anaesthesia and sampled serum tryptase at baseline and 60-90 min after induction. Tryptase changes were then compared with those in 94 children with suspected POH who were retrospectively included from four reference centres in Belgium, France, and Denmark. Results: We observed a median decrease in serum tryptase during uneventful anaesthesia of 0.41 µg L-1 (-15.9%; P<0.001). The current consensus formula identified mast cell activation in 31.9% of paediatric POH patients. After generating receiver operating characteristic curves through 100 repeated five-fold cross-validation, aST>bST+0.71 was identified as the optimal cut-off point to identify mast cell activation. This new paediatric formula has higher sensitivity than the current consensus formula (53.2% vs 31.9%, P<0.001) with a specificity of 96.9%. Analysis in the subpopulation where a culprit was identified and in grade 3-4 reactions similarly yielded higher sensitivity for the new paediatric formula when compared with the current consensus formula (85.3% vs 61.8%; P=0.008 and 78.0% vs 48.8%; P<0.001, respectively). Internally cross-validated sensitivity and specificity were 53.3% and 93.3%, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first study suggesting the need for an adjusted formula in children to identify perioperative mast cell activation as tryptase is significantly lowered during uneventful anaesthesia. We propose a new formula (aST>bST+0.71) which performs significantly better than the current consensus formula in our multicentric paediatric population.

Perioperative hypersensitivity in children: A prospective multidisciplinary study.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in children. The diagnosis of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions may be under estimated because it is difficult to recognize the reactions. Anaphylaxis may go unnoticed because of patient unconsciousness. Urticaria may be missed due to sterile drapes. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate perioperative hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions aged 0-18 years who underwent surgery at the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, between 2019 and 2021 were investigated. Suspected reactions in the perioperative period were graded according to the Ring and Messmer scale. Patients with suspected reactions were examined 4-6 weeks after the reaction. If necessary, specific IgE and basophil activation tests were performed. Reactions of grades III-IV were considered anaphylaxis. If one test modality was strongly positive and there was a relevant time point or repeated allergic reactions, or at least two test modalities were positive, hypersensitivity was confirmed. In all patients, serum tryptase levels were analyzed at the time of the reaction, 2 h after the reaction, and 4-6 weeks after the reaction as part of the allergic evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients (8 female, 21 male) suspected of having an intraoperative reaction during the study were included in the analysis. Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions were noted in 1 patient. The incidence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions was reported to be 0.03% (n = 1/2861). While anaphylaxis was confirmed in 1 patient, 5 patients were considered possible anaphylaxis cases. CONCLUSION: Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions can be life-threatening and may recur with further administration. Collaboration between pediatric surgeons, anesthesiologists, and allergists can prevent further reactions. All suspected cases should be evaluated by an experienced allergist soon after the initial reaction.

[¿Anafilaxia perioperatoria? Serie de casos].

Objective: Identify the causative agent of POH, to avoid re-exposure and assess the use of alternative treatment. Methods: 10 cases of immediate POH are described, in all of them a history of previous surgical procedures, carrying out a 3-step protocol: 1st documenting the surgical record to identify exposures, 2nd performing skin and/or epicutaneous tests and 3rd searching for an alternative treatment. treatment if a new surgical procedure is required and in selected cases challenge tests. Results: Of a total of 10 patients with immediate POH, tests were performed according to the case: neuromuscular blockers, anesthetics, opioids, NSAIDs, anti- biotics, diuretics, latex, isodine, and chlorhexidine; finding positive tests in 7 (70%) patients: in 4 (40%) neuromuscular blockers, one of them also positive for latex, in 2 (20%) anesthetics and finally finding a pharmacological alternative in 2 (2%) and recommending free operating room latex in 2 cases (20%), the rest (30%) were classified as related to the surgical procedure and medication management. Conclusions: The study of POH is focused on ensuring safety in subsequent exposures, so in addition to identifying the causative agent, the role of the allergist also leads to a search for a safe alternative in patient management.

Objetivo: Identificar agente causal de POH, para evitar reexposición y valorar uso de alternativa de tratamiento. Métodos: Se describen 10 casos de POH inmediata, en todos antecedente de procedimientos quirúrgicos previos, realizándose protocolo de 3 pasos: 1°docu- mentar registro quirúrgico para identificar exposiciones, 2° realización de pruebas cutáneas y/o epicutáneas y 3° búsqueda de alternativa de tratamiento en caso de requerir nuevo procedimiento quirúrgico y en casos seleccionados pruebas de reto. Resultados: De un total de 10 pacientes con POH inmediata, se realizaron pruebas según el caso: bloqueadores neuromusculares, anestésicos, opioides, AINE, antibióticos, diuréticos, látex, isodine y clorhexidina; encontrando pruebas positivas en 7 pacientes (70%): en 4 (40%) bloqueadores neuromusculares, uno de ellos también positivo para látex, en 2 (20%) anestésicos y finalmente encontrando alternativa farmacológica en 2 (2%) y recomendando quirófano libre de látex en 2 casos (20%), el resto (30%) fueron catalogados como relacionados con procedimiento quirúrgico y manejo de medicamentos. Conclusiones: El estudio de las POH está enfocado en asegurar seguridad en exposiciones posteriores, por lo que además de la identificación de agente causal, el papel del alergólogo también conlleva a una búsqueda de alternativa segura en el manejo del paciente.

Treatment of perioperative anaphylaxis: room for improvement?

Perioperative anaphylaxis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Prompt and appropriate treatment is required for optimal outcome. Despite general knowledge of this condition, delays occur in the administration of epinephrine and in particular the use of i.v. route of administration in the perioperative setting. Barriers should be addressed to allow prompt utilisation of i.v. epinephrine in perioperative anaphylaxis.

A quarter of a century fundamental and translational research in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis at the Antwerp university hospital, a Belgian Centre of Excellence of the World Allergy Organization.

Perioperative hypersensitivity constitutes an important health issue, with potential dramatic consequences of diagnostic mistakes. However, safe and correct diagnosis is not always straightforward, mainly because of the application of incorrect nomenclature, absence of easy accessible in-vitro/ex-vivo tests and uncertainties associated with the non-irritating skin test concentrations. In this editorial we summarize the time line, seminal findings, and major realizations of 25 years of research on the mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of perioperative hypersensitivity.

Perioperative Hypersensitivity Evaluation and Management: A Practical Approach.

Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening event. Identification of POH can be difficult given the lack of familiarity, physiological effects of anesthesia, draping of the patient during surgery, and potential nonimmunological factors contributing to signs and symptoms. Given the unique nature and large number of medications administered in the perioperative setting, evaluation of POH can be challenging. In this paper, we present a practical approach to management with an emphasis on understanding what happens in the operating room, the overlap of signs and symptoms between nonimmunological and immunological reactions, acute management, and subsequent evaluation. In addition, we provide a strategy for further review of an initially negative evaluation and emphasize the importance of establishing management plans for the patient as well as providing recommendations to the medical, anesthesia, and surgical teams for future surgeries. A critical factor for successful management at all points in the process is a close collaboration between the anesthesia and the allergy teams.

The Nonirritating Concentrations of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents and Related Compounds.

BACKGROUND: Skin testing (ST) concentrations of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), NMBA-reversal agents, and the sugammadex-rocuronium inclusion complex (S-R-Cx) vary widely among reports. OBJECTIVE: To determine maximal ST nonirritant concentrations (NICs) of NMBAs (cisatracurium, rocuronium, succinylcholine, and vecuronium), NMBA-reversal agents (neostigmine and sugammadex), and S-R-Cx in NMBA-tolerant and NMBA-naïve participants. METHODS: A single-center, prospective study between October 2019 and November 2021 of adult participants with or without a planned surgical procedure. The reference standard was tolerance of medication tested during a procedure (NMBA-tolerant group) before ST. Participants received skin prick testing (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) injections at 5-7 increasing concentrations of 1 or more medications. All medications were reconstituted according to package insert instructions and diluted with 0.9% saline. A concentration was considered irritant when more than 5% of participants had a positive test per ST positivity criteria (wheal ≥3 mm than initial wheal and associated erythema of the same size or greater than wheal). We also compared our results with current guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 187 participants (78% NMBA-tolerant) underwent 7812 skin tests. All undiluted SPT concentrations were nonirritant. We found the following maximal IDT NICs (mg/mL): cisatracurium (0.02), rocuronium (0.05), succinylcholine (0.8), vecuronium (0.01), neostigmine (0.2), sugammadex (50), and S-R-Cx (sugammadex 7.14 + rocuronium 2). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that SPT may be performed with undiluted stock concentrations. We confirm maximal IDT NICs for cisatracurium and rocuronium. We also propose that currently recommended maximal IDT NICs of succinylcholine, neostigmine, sugammadex, and S-R-Cx could be increased, whereas the maximal IDT NIC of vecuronium could be decreased compared with current guidelines and prior reports.

Diagnostic value of a medical algorithm for investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is challenging, and accurate screening tools are needed to optimize the diagnostic process. We aimed to assess and validate the diagnostic value of a published algorithm (using tryptase and clinical presentation) to identify appropriate individuals for further testing for IgE-mediated POH. METHODS: We analysed the clinical presentation (tryptase elevation, cardiovascular, respiratory, skin involvement) of patients proceeding to testing for possible IgE-mediated POH at a single tertiary referral centre, relative to subsequent skin testing and specific IgE results. Clinical presentations by drug class were also determined. RESULTS: In 293 consecutive patients, the use of a published algorithm based on one or more of; (i) defined increase in serum tryptase, (ii) involvement of at least two-organ systems, or (iii) presentation with new urticaria and/or angioedema; was highly sensitive [98.8% (CI95: 95.7-99.9%)] but less specific [34.6% (CI95: 25.7-44.4%)] in identifying patients testing positive on skin testing and/or specific IgE. Presentation with cardiovascular symptoms was also sensitive [89.8%(CI95: 84.2-94.0%)], while the combination of respiratory symptoms and increased tryptase was most specific [85.9%(CI95:76.6-92.5%)]. Respiratory involvement was more common in neuromuscular blocking agent allergy, while urticaria/angioedema was more common in antibiotic allergy. CONCLUSION: The published algorithm (of tryptase rise, two-organ involvement or new urticaria/angioedema) is highly sensitive, and appropriate as a screening tool to identify patients suitable for testing for IgE-mediated POH.

Diagnostic performance of serial serum total tryptase measurement to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing among patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Serum total tryptase has been shown to increase during acute allergic reactions (acute tryptase, TA ); however, few studies have investigated the values of TA or a combination of TA and baseline tryptase (TB ) to discriminate positive from negative testing in perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (POH) allergy work-up. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of TA in order to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH and analyse the diagnostic performance of serial tryptase levels using several formulas. METHODS: All patients from the University hospital of Montpellier and Strasbourg, France, who presented with suspected POH and underwent complete drug allergy work-up between March 2011 and December 2019 with available TA and TB were included. Four formulas, including a change in TA  > 11 (F1), or >2 + 1.2 × TB (F2), or >3 + TB (F3), or >120%TB (F4), were applied. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-two patients were included, and 131 of them (80.8%) had Grade III or IV reactions. Ninety patients had positive allergy testing. The optimal cut-off value of TA to distinguish positive from negative allergy testing patients was 9.8 µg/L with an AUC of 0.817 (95% CI: 0.752-0.882, p < .001). The 93% PPV threshold for TA was 33 µg/L (95.8% specificity). Paired tryptase levels according to formulas F2 and F3 yielded the highest Youden index (0.54 and 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: The optimal cut-off point for TA for distinguishing positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH was 9.8 µg/L. TA value of 33 µg/L was required to achieve >90% PPV.

Reliability of Early and Late Testing for Suspected Perioperative Hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of diagnostic testing for perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) remains unknown. It has been recommended that investigation is best carried out at least 4 to 6 weeks after the event. On the other hand, guidelines discourage the use of in vitro tests later than 3 years after the index reaction. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to assess the reliability of early and late skin tests (STs). It also attempted to verify whether discouraging late ex vivo and in vitro tests is substantiated. METHODS: For the first aim, patients were stratified over three epochs: an early timing group, with investigations performed within 6 weeks; a recommended timing group, with tests performed between 6 weeks and 6 months; and a late timing group, tested later than 6 months after the event. For the second study purpose, we studied the reliability of specific IgE quantification and basophil activation test rocuronium within 6 weeks and after 3 years in patients who experienced an ST-proven POH to rocuronium. RESULTS: A total of 677 patients were included. Based on a positive ST result, a causative agent was found in 74.2% of the early timing group, 62.6% of the recommended timing group, and 50% of the late timing group. A positive specific IgE for rocuronium or morphine was found in 80% of patients tested within 6 weeks, 63% of patients tested between 6 weeks and 3 years, and 50% of patients tested more than 3 years after the event. A positive basophil activation test was found in 83.3%, 51%, and 20%, respectively, of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that evaluation of drug allergy for suspected POH can be performed before 6 weeks after the event, and there is no maximal upper time limit disclosing ex vivo and in vitro testing.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management.

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

Mast Cell Activation During Suspected Perioperative Hypersensitivity: A Need for Paired Samples Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) reactions constitute a significant clinical and diagnostic challenge. A transient increase in serum tryptase during POH reflects mast cell activation (MCA) and helps to recognize an underlying hypersensitivity mechanism. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic performance of different tryptase decision thresholds based on single and paired measurements to document MCA in suspected POH. METHODS: Acute serum tryptase (aST) and baseline serum tryptase (bST) samples were obtained from patients referred to our outpatients clinic because of clinical POH. Tryptase samples from controls were obtained before induction (Tt0) and 1.5 hours after induction (Tt1) in uneventful anesthesia. Different cutoff points for tryptase increase over bST and the percentage increase in tryptase (%T) were calculated and compared with existing thresholds: aST > [1.2 × (bST) + 2] (consensus formula), aST higher than 11.4 ng/mL, and aST higher than 14 ng/mL. RESULTS: Patients with POH had higher bST and aST levels compared with controls (respectively 5.15 vs 2.28 ng/mL for bST and 20.30 vs 1.92 ng/mL for aST). The consensus formula and a tryptase increase over bST of greater than or equal to 3.2 ng/mL held the highest accuracies to document MCA in POH (respectively 81% and 82%). A bST of higher than 8 ng/mL was present in 4% of controls, 5% of patients with grade 1 POH, 24% of patients with grade 2 POH, 15% of patients with grade 3 POH, and 17% of patients with grade 4 POH. CONCLUSIONS: Our data endorse the consensus formula for detection of MCA in POH. Furthermore, it shows that a bST of higher than 8 ng/mL was associated with occurrence of anaphylaxis.

Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood and outcomes of subsequent anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare, and possibly life-threatening. Identification of precise etiology is crucial to circumvent future re-exposures. AIMS: We aim to evaluate the clinical features and triggers of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in children, and determine the outcomes of subsequent general anesthesia. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed with patients who underwent skin testing for general anesthesia between 2007 and 2019. We noted demographic features and skin tests (neuromuscular blocking agents, induction agents, and antibiotics). We also recorded specific immunoglobulin Es or provocation results of drugs or substances (latex, chlorhexidine, and ethylene oxide) that patients were exposed to antecedent to the reaction. Telephone interviews were performed to determine the current status of the participants and reconsider subsequent anesthesia. RESULTS: We enrolled 50 children (58% male) with a suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reaction. The median age was 6.67 (4.4-11.5) years, and the median time between the reaction, and skin tests was 4 (1-36) months. The most common potential causative agents were neuromuscular blocking agents (n = 8), midazolam (n = 3), ketamine (n = 2), and propofol (n = 1). Three children exhibited hypersensitivity to more than one general anesthetics, and three patients were allergic to latex. Thirty-one patients received subsequent anesthesia, and only one patient had a hypersensitivity reaction. A previous history multiple of general anesthesia administration (≥2) increased the risk of reaction to neuromuscular blocking agents. CONCLUSION: Data on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood are rare due to limited diagnostic procedures. Different preference of general anesthetics may change the causative agent. Meticulous evaluation is necessary to safely administer subsequent anesthesia.

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.