Previous article Table of Contents  Next article

CASE REPORT
Year : 2023  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 117-119

Anaphylaxis in the operating room treated with an anaphylaxis response kit: A case report


1 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Ibaraki Prefectural Central Hospital, Kasama, Ibaraki, Japan
2 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Ibaraki Clinical and Training Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Kasama, Ibaraki, Japan

Correspondence Address:
Takuo Hoshi
Koibuchi 6528, Kasama, Ibaraki, 309-1793
Japan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_631_22

Rights and Permissions
Date of Submission05-Sep-2022
Date of Decision05-Sep-2022
Date of Acceptance06-Sep-2022
Date of Web Publication02-Jan-2023
 

  Abstract 


Anaphylaxis is a rapidly fatal complication of anesthesia, and it needs to be appropriately diagnosed and treated by anesthesiologists. A 37-year-old man underwent surgery for pneumothorax under general anesthesia. Postoperatively, the train-of four count was four, and sugammadex was administered. Soon after, the patient's oxygen saturation and blood pressure decreased, and skin flushing was noted. We suspected anaphylaxis and administered adrenaline. Once the blood pressure normalized, we administered hydrocortisone, famotidine, and d-chlorpheniramine maleate. Thereafter, his condition stabilized, he recovered well, and he was discharged. Blood samples obtained after the onset of the episode indicated anaphylaxis, and a prick test performed 10 weeks postoperatively confirmed sugammadex as the causative agent. We report a case of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis, which we could properly diagnose and treat because an anaphylaxis kit was available in our department.

Keywords: Anaphylaxis, postoperative diagnosis, shock


How to cite this article:
Shu A, Hoshi T, Hagiya K. Anaphylaxis in the operating room treated with an anaphylaxis response kit: A case report. Saudi J Anaesth 2023;17:117-9

How to cite this URL:
Shu A, Hoshi T, Hagiya K. Anaphylaxis in the operating room treated with an anaphylaxis response kit: A case report. Saudi J Anaesth [serial online] 2023 [cited 2023 Feb 1];17:117-9. Available from: https://www.saudija.org/text.asp?2023/17/1/117/364879




  Introduction Top


Anaphylaxis is a hypersensitivity reaction that can cause systemic allergic symptoms because of invasion by allergens. In 2021, Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists developed a practical guide for anaphylaxis during anesthesia.[1] Drug-induced anaphylaxis can rapidly develop, with the speed depending on the severity of the anaphylaxis.[1] Therefore, the anesthesiologist should immediately begin treatment and subsequently make the diagnosis. We report a case of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis where we could respond quickly as an anaphylaxis response kit was available at our department. Written patient consent was obtained for the publication of this report, which was prepared according to the CARE guidelines.


  Case History Top


A 37-year-old man (height: 179 cm, weight: 63 kg), with no comorbidities and no history of allergies or surgery presented to our hospital with dyspnea. Left-sided pneumothorax was diagnosed and thoracic drainage was performed. However, because of persistent leakage, thoracoscopic surgery was scheduled.

Intradermal infiltration anesthesia was performed with 0.5% lidocaine to secure the peripheral venous route, and general anesthesia was induced with remifentanil (0.47 μg/kg/min), propofol (90 mg), and rocuronium (50 mg). Anesthesia was maintained with desflurane (4–5%), remifentanil (0.08–0.3 μg/kg/min), and fentanyl (500 μg). Before the surgery ended, acetaminophen (1000 mg) was administered, and an intercostal nerve block was performed by the surgeon using 20 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine. After the surgery ended, sugammadex (130 mg) was administered after confirming a train-of-four count of four by neuromuscular monitoring. Four minutes after sugammadex administration, the patient's oxygen saturation decreased to 82%, followed by a decrease in blood pressure to 51/30 mmHg. Ephedrine (15 mg) and phenylephrine (0.3 mg) were administered, but the blood pressure did not increase; it was 46/26 mmHg. The peak airway pressure increased from 18 to 28 cmH2O, conjunctival edema and skin flushing were observed, and we strongly suspected anaphylactic shock. The patient was ventilated with 100% oxygen and adrenaline (0.1 mg) was intravenously injected three times with blood pressure monitoring.

The patient's blood pressure was subsequently stabilized, and he was intravenously administered hydrocortisone (200 mg), famotidine (20 mg), and d-chlorpheniramine maleate (5 mg). Eighteen minutes after anaphylaxis onset, blood samples were drawn for plasma tryptase and histamine tests. The patient was extubated after the cufflink cuff-leak test result was negative and transferred to the critical care unit. His progress in the ward was uneventful and he was discharged 5 days postoperatively. The diagnosis of anaphylaxis was confirmed based on the plasma tryptase and histamine levels measured 18 min and 24 h after onset [Table 1]. We performed prick tests for lidocaine, propofol, ropivacaine, acetaminophen, rocuronium, sugammadex, histamine, and saline, but not for opioids, 10 weeks postoperatively. Fifteen minutes after injection, 4 × 4 mm wheals appeared for histamine and sugammadex [Figure 1], and sugammadex was diagnosed as the causative agent.
Figure 1: Skin test results. Arrows indicate the positive control histamine (1) and sugammadex 10 mg/ml (2) induced wheals. Other negative tested drugs were lidocaine 10 mg/ml, propofol 10 mg/ml, ropivacaine 10 mg/ml, acetaminophen 10 mg/ml, rocuronium 10 mg/ml, sugammadex 1 mg/ml, sugammadex 0.1 mg/ml, and saline

Click here to view
Table 1: Laboratory findings

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The frequency of perioperative anaphylaxis rate in Japan has not changed much from 2012 to 2016,[1] but the overall rate of emergency department visits for anaphylaxis in Europe has risen.[2] The causes of perioperative anaphylaxis also differ between Western countries and Japan; the most frequently reported agents in Western countries are, in order, neuromuscular blockers, latex, antibiotics, plasma substitutes, and morphine-like substances,[3] whereas those in Japan are sugammadex, rocuronium, cefazolin, and antibiotics other than cefazolin.[4] In 90% of cases, perioperative anaphylaxis occurs during anesthesia induction,[1] but it is highly likely to occur before or after extubation because of the high rate of sugammadex use in Japan.

For definitive diagnosis, it is useful to note the increase in plasma tryptase and histamine levels during the early stages of anaphylaxis.[1] As plasma histamine levels return to normal within 15–30 min of anaphylaxis onset, blood samples for hematological examinations should be collected within 5–10 min of onset to detect increased histamine levels. However, these examinations are often conducted at a subcontracted laboratory. Therefore, a system for requesting tests in advance should be established in Japan to enable prompt performance of these tests. Our hospital has an anaphylaxis response kit in the operative department, which contains vacutainer tube, test request forms, hydrocortisone, famotidine, and d-chlorpheniramine maleate along with a paper describing the diagnosis and treatment process. When the anesthesiologist in charge of the case patient called for assistance, he requested to bring this kit from the central storage area of our department, so that treatment and diagnosis could be performed promptly.

In patients with drug-induced anaphylaxis, identifying the causative agent is important for when the patient subsequently undergoes anesthesia. Skin tests such as the prick test should be performed 4–6 weeks after anaphylaxis onset to avoid false-negative reaction.[3] Performing skin testing later than the recommended can lead to false-negative results.[5] However, many patients with a history of anaphylaxis induced by muscle relaxants show positive skin tests even after several years.[6] Therefore, skin testing may be worthwhile even after the recommended period.


  Conclusion Top


When anaphylaxis occurs, the anesthesiologist must be able to quickly treat the patient and determine the diagnosis, considering future surgical procedures that the patient might undergo. The availability of an anaphylaxis response kit will enable rapid diagnosis and treatment.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Maki Fukuzono who performed skin test and Editage for English language editing.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient has given his consent for his images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patient understands that his name and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Takazawa T, Yamaura K, Hara T, Yorozu T, Mitsuhata H, Morimatsu H, et al. Practical guidelines for the response to perioperative anaphylaxis. J Anesth 2021;35:778-93.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Song TT, Worm M, Lieberman P. Anaphylaxis treatment: Current barriers to adrenaline auto-injector use. Allergy 2014;69:983-91.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Mertes PM, Malinovsky JM, Jouffroy L, Working Group of the SFAR and SFA, Aberer W, Terreehorst I, et al. Reducing the risk of anaphylaxis during anesthesia: 2011 updated guidelines for clinical practice. J InvestigAllergolClinImmunol 2011;21:442-53.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Horiuchi T, Takazawa T, Orihara M, Sakamoto S, Nagumo K, Saito S. Drug-induced anaphylaxis during general anesthesia in 14 tertiary hospitals in Japan: A retrospective, multicenter, observational study. J Anesth 2021;35:154-60.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Patriarca G, Schiavino D, Nucera E, Milani A. Positive allergological tests may turn negative with no further exposure to the specific allergen: A long-term, prospective, follow-up study in patients allergic to penicillin. J InvestigAllergolClinImmunol 1996;6:162-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Fisher MM, Baldo BA. Persistence of allergy to anaesthtic drugs. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992;20:143-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
Previous article    Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  IN THIS Article
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Case History
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed220    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded46    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal