ABSTRACT
A anafilaxia perioperatória é manifestação importante no contexto de eventos adversos relacionados à cirurgia. Embora frequentemente relacionada à indução anestésica, pode ocorrer por outros agentes administrados por outras vias. A anafilaxia pode se apresentar como colapso cardiovascular, obstrução da via aérea e/ou insuficiência respiratória com ou sem manifestação cutânea, com consequências fatais em muito casos. Apesar de considerada inevitável em alguns casos, a sua incidência poderia (e deveria) ser reduzida através da busca por fármacos mais seguros. A avaliação abrangente de um episódio é um dos elementos primordiais para tornar a exposição subsequente mais segura, com orientações derivadas dessa investigação. Entretanto, representa um desafio estatístico por ser reação rara, randômica e muitas vezes independente de exposições sucessivas dos pacientes a procedimentos de baixo risco. Neste documento são revisados os mecanismos fisiopatológicos, agentes desencadeantes (adultos e crianças), assim como a abordagem diagnóstica durante a crise e após o episódio. Uma avaliação abrangente, a identificação das medicações, antissépticos e outras substâncias usadas em cada região, registros detalhados e nomenclatura padronizada são pontos fundamentais para a obtenção de dados epidemiológicos mais fidedignos sobre a anafilaxia perioperatória.
Perioperative anaphylaxis is an important manifestation in the context of surgery-related adverse events. Although often related to anesthetic induction, it may be caused by other agents administered by other routes. Anaphylaxis may manifest as cardiovascular collapse, airway obstruction and/or respiratory failure with or without skin manifestation, resulting often in death. Although this reaction is considered inevitable in some cases, its incidence could (and should) be reduced by the search for safer drugs. Comprehensive assessment of an allergic reaction is a key element to make subsequent exposure safer, with guidance derived from this investigation. However, surveillance of perioperative anaphylaxis represents a statistical challenge because this is a rare, random reaction and often independent of successive patient exposures to low-risk procedures. This paper reviews pathophysiological mechanisms, triggering agents (adults and children), as well as therapeutic and diagnostic approach during and after an allergic reaction. Comprehensive assessment, identification of medications/antiseptics used in each region and detailed records with standardized terminology are key points for obtaining more reliable epidemiological data on perioperative anaphylaxis.
Subject(s)
Humans , Societies, Medical , Drug Hypersensitivity , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Perioperative Period , Anaphylaxis , Anesthetics , Patients , Respiratory Insufficiency , Skin Manifestations , Therapeutics , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Epinephrine , Risk , Diagnosis , Allergy and ImmunologyABSTRACT
A anafilaxia perioperatória é manifestação importante no contexto de eventos adversos relacionados à cirurgia. Embora frequentemente relacionada à indução anestésica, pode ocorrer por outros agentes administrados por outras vias. A anafilaxia pode se apresentar como colapso cardiovascular, obstrução da via aérea e/ou insuficiência respiratória com ou sem manifestação cutânea, com consequências fatais em muito casos. Apesar de considerada inevitável em alguns casos, a sua incidência poderia (e deveria) ser reduzida através da busca por fármacos mais seguros. A avaliação abrangente de um episódio é um dos elementos primordiais para tornar a exposição subsequente mais segura, com orientações derivadas dessa investigação. Entretanto, representa um desafio estatístico por ser reação rara, randômica e muitas vezes independente de exposições sucessivas dos pacientes a procedimentos de baixo risco. Neste documento são revisados os mecanismos fisiopatológicos, agentes desencadeantes (adultos e crianças), assim como a abordagem diagnóstica durante a crise e após o episódio. Uma avaliação abrangente, a identificação das medicações, antissépticos e outras substâncias usadas em cada região, registros detalhados e nomenclatura padronizada são pontos fundamentais para a obtenção de dados epidemiológicos mais fidedignos sobre a anafilaxia perioperatória.
Perioperative anaphylaxis is an important manifestation in the context of surgery-related adverse events. Although often related to anesthetic induction, it may be caused by other agents administered by other routes. Anaphylaxis may manifest as cardiovascular collapse, airway obstruction and/or respiratory failure with or without skin manifestation, resulting often in death. Although this reaction is considered inevitable in some cases, its incidence could (and should) be reduced by the search for safer drugs. Comprehensive assessment of an allergic reaction is a key element to make subsequent exposure safer, with guidance derived from this investigation. However, surveillance of perioperative anaphylaxis represents a statistical challenge because this is a rare, random reaction and often independent of successive patient exposures to low-risk procedures. This paper reviews pathophysiological mechanisms, triggering agents (adults and children), as well as therapeutic and diagnostic approach during and after an allergic reaction. Comprehensive assessment, identification of medications/antiseptics used in each region and detailed records with standardized terminology are key points for obtaining more reliable epidemiological data on perioperative anaphylaxis.
Subject(s)
Humans , Societies, Medical , Drug Hypersensitivity , Perioperative Period , Anaphylaxis , Anesthetics , Patients , Research , Respiratory Insufficiency , Therapeutics , Mastocytosis , Immunoglobulin E , Skin Tests , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Epinephrine , Diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Allergy and Immunology , Tryptases , Hypersensitivity , AngioedemaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are a leading cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. However, the performance of systematic screening skin tests to detect reactions for NMBAs prior to general anesthesia is not recommended. We retrospectively examined intradermal tests (IDTs) for rocuronium and cisatracurium in patients with a history of allergy. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients who underwent IDTs for NMBAs between January 1 and December 31, 2016. We analyzed the patients’ allergy histories and skin test results for NMBAs. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of positive IDTs was 5.8% (26/451), and there was no significant difference in prevalence among allergy types (P = 0.655). In logistic regression analysis, there was no allergy history that had a significant effect on positive IDT for NMBAs. CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between allergy history and positive skin test for NMBAs. Therefore, a systematic screening test for NMBAs or other anesthetic agents before anesthesia is not considered necessary even in patients with an allergy history.
Subject(s)
Humans , Anaphylaxis , Anesthesia , Anesthesia, General , Anesthetics , Hypersensitivity , Intradermal Tests , Logistic Models , Mass Screening , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Skin Tests , SkinABSTRACT
Las reacciones anafilácticas intraoperatorias son impredecibles, infrecuentes y pueden poner en riesgo al paciente. Tienen una incidencia de 1/10 000 a 1/20 000 produciéndose en la mayoría de los casos por bloqueantes musculares, látex y antibióticos. No hay estadística de las reacciones alérgicas sistémicas durante otros procedimientos médicos. El estudio diagnóstico posterior a una reacción es complejo debiendo incluir toda la medicación utilizada en el procedimiento. En este estudio retrospectivo describimos 15 pacientes, de los cuales 10 tuvieron reacciones anafilácticas en un procedimiento quirúrgico, 2 en endoscopías y 1 en una ecografía transvaginal. Los dos pacientes restantes presentaron una reacción alérgica sistémica durante una ecografía transvaginal y un procedimiento odontológico. Estudiamos los pacientes con toda la medicación utilizada, incluimos látex y, eventualmente, los detergentes y desinfectantes, de haber sido empleados. Tres de las 10 cirugías no pudieron realizarse por desarrollarse la reacción durante la inducción anestésica, en cinco casos debieron interrumpirse y solo en dos se terminaron. Las reacciones posteriores a endoscopías fueron severas, requiriendo internación en terapia intensiva; las reacciones en ecografías transvaginales y procedimientos odontológicos fueron asistidas en emergencias. Los agentes causales en las cirugías incluyeron bloqueantes musculares, látex, cefalosporina, azul patente y ranitidina; en endoscopías el agente causal fue el orto-ftalaldehído (OPA), en las ecografías transvaginales el látex y en el procedimiento odontológico la amoxicilina. El objetivo de este artículo es describir la etiología de las reacciones alérgicas sistémicas y anafilácticas intraoperatorias y en procedimientos médicos, recalcando su gravedad y la necesidad de su identificación.
Anaphylaxis during anesthesia is an unpredictable, severe, and rare reaction. It has an incidence of 1/10 000 to 1/20 000 surgeries. In most series, the responsible drugs include neuromuscular blocking agents, latex, or antibiotics. The frequency and etiology of systemic allergic reactions in other medical procedures are largely unknown. The identification of responsible drugs of anaphylaxis is a complex task, requiring testing of all medications and substances used during surgery. We describe our experience in a retrospective study of 15 patients. Ten subjects developed anaphylaxis during surgery, two in endoscopic studies and one in a trans-vaginal ultrasound. The remaining two subjects, one in a trans-vaginal ultrasound and another during a dental procedure had a systemic allergic reaction. We studied all patients with all medications administered during the procedures, including latex and detergents and disinfectants. Three surgeries had to be suspended at induction of anesthesia, five were stopped incomplete and two were completed. Both patients that presented a reaction during endoscopy required intensive care unit admission and the rest were observed in a Hospital. The responsible drugs during surgery anaphylaxis were neuromuscular blocking agents, latex, patent blue, and ranitidine. Ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) was identified during endoscopic studies; latex was responsible in transvaginal ultrasounds; and amoxicillin in the dental procedure. The aim of the present article is to review our experience studying allergic systemic reactions and anaphylaxis during general anesthesia and medical procedures, emphasizing the severity of these reactions and the need for causative drug identification.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Echocardiography, Transesophageal/adverse effects , Endosonography/adverse effects , Endoscopy/adverse effects , Hypersensitivity/etiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Intraoperative Complications/etiology , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Abstract: Anaphylaxis in the operating room although infrequent can be potentially fatal.1 The diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is complex due to a multitude of factors. Firstly, patients under anesthesia cannot verbalize their complaints, the anesthetic agents themselves can alter vital parameters (e.g. heart rate and blood pressure) and cutaneous signs in a completely draped patient may be missed.2 Secondly, the differential diagnosis of intraoperative anaphylaxis is wide. Conditions such as asthma exacerbation, arrhythmia, hemorrhage, angioedema, mastocytosis, acute myocardial infarction, drug overdose, pericardial tamponade, pulmonary edema, pulmonary embolus, sepsis, tension pneumothorax, vasovagal reaction, venous air embolism, laryngospasm, blood transfusion reaction and malignant hyperthermia need to be considered.3 Thirdly, the diagnostic workup is challenging due to the multiple medications administered and other exposures encountered such as latex and chlorhexidene. However, through a timely allergy consultation and a systematic approach, identification of the culprit agent and safe alternatives can be established to prevent future occurrences as illustrated in the case below.