Emergency treatment of peri-operative anaphylaxis: Resuscitation Council UK algorithm for anaesthetists.

Peri-operative anaphylaxis is a rare but potentially catastrophic event which must be considered whenever unexpected and significant cardiovascular or respiratory compromise occurs during anaesthesia. The Resuscitation Council UK algorithm for peri-operative anaphylaxis highlights the importance of early intravenous adrenaline and fluid resuscitation and provides guidance on the treatment of refractory anaphylaxis and immediate follow-up. This algorithm is endorsed by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, Association of Anaesthetists, British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and Clinical Immunology Professional Network of the British Society for Immunology. This document was produced by the Perioperative Allergy Network steering committee in collaboration with the Resuscitation Council UK.

Hepatocellular carcinoma tumor thrombus entering the right atrium treated with combining percutaneous and intravenous high-dose-rate brachytherapy: a case report.

The presented report describes a case of a Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumor thrombus (TT) infiltrating the inferior vena cava (IVC) and the right atrium (RA) in a 66-year old male patient who initially presented with TT related symptoms. CT-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) was performed for both, the intraparenchymal primary and the TT. A marked improvement of the tumor-related symptoms and shrinkage of the tumor mass were achieved six months after treatment initiation. The combination of intravascular and percutaneous HDRBT demonstrating a promising approach to palliate tumor-related symptoms in advanced HCC with macrovascular invasion.

Corrigendum to 'Allergy and anaesthesia: managing the risk' [BJA Education 20 (2020) 298-304].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.bjae.2020.04.005.].

Effects of tracheal intubation and tracheal tube position on regional lung ventilation: an observational study.

Anaesthesia and positive pressure ventilation cause ventral redistribution of regional ventilation, potentially caused by the tracheal tube. We used electrical impedance tomography to map regional ventilation during anaesthesia in 10 patients with and without a tracheal tube. We recorded impedance data in subjects who were awake, during bag-mask ventilation, with the tracheal tube positioned normally, rotated 90° to each side and advanced until in an endobronchial position. We recorded the following measurements: ventilation of the right lung (proportion, %); centre of ventilation (100% = entirely ventral); global inhomogeneity (0% = homogenous); and regional ventilation delay, an index of temporal heterogeneity. We compared the results using Student's t-tests. Relative to subjects who were awake, anaesthesia with bag-mask ventilation reduced right-sided ventilation by 5.6% (p = 0.002), reduced regional ventilation delay by 1.6% (p = 0.025), and moved the centre of ventilation ventrally from 51.4% to 58.2% (p = 0.0001). Tracheal tube ventilation caused a further centre of ventilation increase of 1.3% (p = 0.009). With the tube near the carina, right-sided ventilation increased by 3.2% (p = 0.031) and regional ventilation delay by 2.8% (p = 0.049). Tube rotation caused a 1.6% increase in right-sided ventilation compared with normal position (p = 0.043 left and p = 0.031 right). Global inhomogeneity remained mostly unchanged. Ventral ventilation with positive pressure ventilation occurred with bag-mask ventilation, but was exacerbated by a tracheal tube. Tube position influenced ventilation of the right and left lungs, while ventilation overall remained homogenous. Tube rotation in either direction resulted in ventilation patterns being closer to when awake than either bag-mask ventilation or a normally positioned tube. These results suggest that even ideal tube positioning cannot avoid the ventral shift in ventilation.

Consensus clinical scoring for suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions.

BACKGROUND: Grading schemes for severity of suspected allergic reactions have been applied to the perioperative setting, but there is no scoring system that estimates the likelihood that the reaction is an immediate hypersensitivity reaction. Such a score would be useful in evaluating current and proposed tests for the diagnosis of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions and culprit agents. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi consensus process involving a panel of 25 international multidisciplinary experts in suspected perioperative allergy. Items were ranked according to appropriateness (on a scale of 1-9) and consensus, which informed development of a clinical scoring system. The scoring system was assessed by comparing scores generated for a series of clinical scenarios against ratings of panel members. Supplementary scores for mast cell tryptase were generated. RESULTS: Two rounds of the Delphi process achieved stopping criteria for all statements. From an initial 60 statements, 43 were rated appropriate (median score 7 or more) and met agreement criteria (disagreement index <0.5); these were used in the clinical scoring system. The rating of clinical scenarios supported the validity of the scoring system. Although there was variability in the interpretation of changes in mast cell tryptase by the panel, we were able to include supplementary scores for mast cell tryptase. CONCLUSION: We used a robust consensus development process to devise a clinical scoring system for suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions. This will enable objectivity and uniformity in the assessment of the sensitivity of diagnostic tests.

Penicillin allergy de-labelling ahead of elective surgery: feasibility and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Around 10-15% of the in-patient population carry unsubstantiated 'penicillin allergy' labels, the majority incorrect when tested. These labels are associated with harm from use of broad-spectrum non-penicillin antibiotics. Current testing guidelines incorporate both skin and challenge tests; this is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to deliver on a large scale. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid access de-labelling pathway for surgical patients, using direct oral challenge. METHODS: 'Penicillin allergic' patients, recruited from a surgical pre-assessment clinic, were risk-stratified using a screening questionnaire. Patients at low risk of true, immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergy were offered direct oral challenge using incremental amoxicillin to a total dose of 500 mg. A 3-day course was completed at home. De-labelled patients were followed up to determine antibiotic use in surgery, and attitudes towards de-labelling were explored. RESULTS: Of 219 patients screened, 74 were eligible for inclusion and offered testing. We subsequently tested 56 patients; 55 were de-labelled. None had a serious reaction to the supervised challenge, or thereafter. On follow-up, 17 of 19 patients received appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis during surgery. Only three of 33 de-labelled patients would have been happy for the label to be removed without prior specialist testing. CONCLUSION: Rapid access de-labelling, using direct oral challenge in appropriately risk-stratified patients, can be incorporated into the existing surgical care pathway. This provides immediate and potential long-term benefit for patients. Interest in testing is high among patients, and clinicians appear to follow clinic recommendations. Patients are unlikely to accept removal of their allergy label on the basis of history alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: AN17/92982.

Management of a surgical patient with a label of penicillin allergy: narrative review and consensus recommendations.

Unsubstantiated penicillin-allergy labels are common in surgical patients, and can lead to significant harm through avoidance of best first-line prophylaxis of surgical site infections and increased infection with resistant bacterial strains. Up to 98% of penicillin-allergy labels are incorrect when tested. Because of the scarcity of trained allergists in all healthcare systems, only a minority of surgical patients have the opportunity to undergo testing and de-labelling before surgery. Testing pathways can be modified and shortened in selected patients. A variety of healthcare professionals can, with appropriate training and in collaboration with allergists, provide testing for selected patients. We review how patients might be assessed, the appropriate testing strategies that can be used, and the minimum standards of safe testing.

Chlorhexidine allergy in four specialist allergy centres in the United Kingdom, 2009-13: clinical features and diagnostic tests.

We describe an observational survey of diagnostic pathways in 104 patients attending four specialist allergy clinics in the United Kingdom following perioperative hypersensitivity reactions to chlorhexidine reactions. The majority were life-threatening. Men undergoing urological or cardiothoracic surgery predominated. Skin prick testing and specific immunoglobulin (sIg)E testing were the most common tests used for diagnosis. Fifty-three per cent of diagnoses were made on the basis of a single positive test. Where multiple tests were performed the sensitivity of intradermal, basophil activation and skin prick testing was 68% (50-86%), 50% (10-90%) and 35% (17-55%), respectively. Seven per cent were negative on screening tests initially, and 12 cases were only positive for a single test despite multiple testing. Intradermal tests appeared most sensitive in this context. Additional sensitization to other substances used perioperatively, particularly neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA), was found in 28 patients, emphasizing the need to test for possible allergy to all drugs to which the patient was exposed even where chlorhexidine is positive.

Irreversible Electroporation in Interventional Oncology: Where We Stand and Where We Go.

UNLABELLED: Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is the latest in the series of image-guided locoregional tumor ablation therapies. IRE is performed in a nearly non-thermal fashion that circumvents the "heat sink effect" and allows for IRE application in proximity to critical structures such as bile ducts or neurovascular bundles, where other techniques are unsuitable. IRE appears generally feasible and initial reported results for tumor ablation in the liver, pancreas and prostate are promising. Additionally, IRE demonstrates a favorable safety profile. However, site-specific complications include bile leaking or vein thrombosis and may be more severe after pancreatic IRE compared to liver or prostate ablation. There is limited clinical evidence in support of the use of IRE in the kidney. In contrast, pulmonary IRE has so far failed to demonstrate efficacy due to practicability limitations. Hence, this review will provide a state-of-the-art update on available clinical evidence of IRE regarding feasibility, safety and oncologic efficacy. The future role of IRE in the minimally invasive treatment of solid tumors will be discussed. KEY POINTS: • Preclinical findings of IRE have been successfully translated into clinical settings.• Non-thermal ablation is able to prevent the "heat sink effect" and collateral damage.• IRE should primarily be applied to tumors adjacent to sensitive structures (e. g. bile ducts).IRE efficacy appears promising in the liver, pancreas and prostate with tolerable morbidity.• In contrast, there are no evidential benefits of IRE in the lung parenchyma. Citation Format: • Savic LJ, Chapiro J, Hamm B et al. Irreversible Electroporation in Interventional Oncology: Where We Stand and Where We Go. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 735 - 745.

Teicoplanin allergy - an emerging problem in the anaesthetic allergy clinic.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis to teicoplanin appears to be extremely rare, with only one confirmed case report worldwide. Two anaesthetic allergy clinics in the UK have received a number of suspected cases referred for investigation, and we present here the first case series of teicoplanin allergy. METHODS: We investigated 20 cases of suspected teicoplanin allergy, identified from the two clinics over a period of two years. We devised a set of five criteria to categorize the certainty of their diagnosis. These included: (1) reaction within 15 min of administration of teicoplanin, (2) ≥2 features of anaphylaxis present, (3) positive skin testing or challenge testing, (4) raised serum mast cell tryptase (MCT), (5) alternative diagnosis excluded. Based on these criteria we defined the likelihood of IgE-mediated allergy to teicoplanin as: definite-met all criteria; probable-met criteria 1.2 and 5, plus 3 or 4; uncertain-met criteria 1.2 and 5; excluded- any others. RESULTS: We identified 7 'definite', 7 'probable' and 2 'uncertain' cases of teicoplanin allergy. Four cases were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: IgE-mediated anaphylaxis to teicoplanin appears to be more common than previously thought. This is true even if only definitive cases are considered. Investigation of teicoplanin allergy is hampered by the lack of standardized skin test concentrations. In some cases, there was a severe clinical reaction, but without any skin test evidence of histamine release. The mechanism of reaction in these cases is not known and requires further study.