Background: Although cases of anaphylaxis caused by sugammadex have been reported, its incidence remains uncertain. Conversely, no studies have evaluated the incidence of anaphylaxis to neostigmine. Methods: This was a retrospective multicentre observational study of patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia between 2012 and 2016 to compare the incidence of anaphylaxis with sugammadex with that of neostigmine at four tertiary hospitals in Japan. To ensure the quality of diagnosis, only cases with a clinical history suggestive of anaphylaxis, along with positive results from in vitro or in vivo testing, were assessed. Results: From a total of 49 532 patients who received general anaesthesia included in this study, 18 cases of anaphylaxis were reported, of which six were attributable to sugammadex and none to neostigmine. There were no fatalities attributable to anaphylaxis. The incidence of anaphylaxis caused by all drugs or by sugammadex was calculated as 0.036% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.022e0.057%) and 0.02% (of the number of sugammadex cases) (95% CI: 0.007e0.044%), respectively. Conclusions: The results suggest that neostigmine might be safer than sugammadex when assessing only the incidence of anaphylaxis. We believe that there is room for reconsideration of the choice of reversal agent for neuromuscular blocking agents by all anaesthetists. Clinical trial registration: UMIN000022365; UMIN000033561.

BackgroundSugammadex has a unique mechanism of action and is widely used because of its safety and efficacy. A few recent reports have described allergic reactions to clinical doses of sugammadex. We hereby describe another series of cases of possible anaphylaxis to sugammadex.Case presentationWe present three suspected cases of sugammadex-induced anaphylactic shock, including a 13-year-old boy who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, a 75-year-old woman who underwent left knee arthroplasty, and a 34-year-old man who underwent left pansinectomy for sinobronchitis. All three patients received general anesthesia with rocuronium and their tracheas were intubated. Shortly after injection of sugammadex for reversal of rocuronium, all of them experienced a decrease in blood pressure along with mucocutaneous erythema. In the most severe case, reintubation after extubation was required due to difficulty in manual ventilation. All patients recovered with anti-allergic therapy. On later investigation, all three patients had a positive skin reaction to sugammadex.ConclusionOur results suggest that physicians using sugammadex should be aware of the possibility of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis.

No abstract

Background: Staining of exteriorized basophil granule matrix by fluorescent avidin might be a reliable technique to monitor basophil degranulation. This study compares the avidin-based technique with the upregulation of CD203c and appearance of CD63 in response to various stimuli. Methods: Fourteen individuals responsive to anti-IgE, nine healthy controls, and five birch pollen-allergic patients, and five nonresponders were studied. Activation experiments included anti-IgE, fMLP, interleukin-(IL)-3, and birch pollen allergen. Basophil activation/degranulation was analyzed by flow cytometry and microscopy using anti-CD63, anti-CD203c, and avidin. Results: Stimulation with anti-IgE, fMLP, and relevant allergen results in upregulation of CD203c, CD63 appearance, and an increase in avidin binding. In response to anti-IgE and allergen, upregulation of CD203c peaks within 10 min, CD63 and avidin binding reach a plateau after 10-20 min. CD63 staining leads to a bimodal distribution, avidin staining causes a unimodal shift with a less clear discrimination between degranulating and nondegranulating cells. In response to fMLP, upregulation of CD203c and CD63 and avidin binding are maximal after 2.5 min. Following incubation with anti-IgE and fMLP, percentages of CD203c+ cells are higher than those of CD63+ and avidin+ cells, pointing to a dissociation between activation and degranulation. Percentages of CD63+ cells are systemically higher than those of avidin+ cells. Incubated with IL-3 only upregulates CD203c, while no CD63 or avidin binding is observed. Conclusions: Staining of exteriorized proteoglycans by avidin is a reliable technique to quantify basophil degranulation but offers no added value when compared to traditional assays that use CD63 as a readout.

Intraocular pressure (IOP) has been shown to change with body position. Several studies have shown that the lateral decubitus position (LDP) is associated with a significant increase in IOP in the dependent eye. However, whether anesthetic agents alter IOP in the LDP remains unclear. This study investigated the effect of sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia on IOP in the LDP. A total of 28 patients undergoing surgery in the LDP were included. Patients were randomly allocated to sevoflurane or propofol groups. IOP in both eyes was recorded and compared between groups at five time points: after anesthesia induction, after endotracheal intubation, at 5 min and 1 h after a positional change to the LDP, and 5 min after returning to the supine position. In the sevoflurane group, IOP was significantly increased in both dependent and non-dependent eyes 1 h after changing to the LDP. In the propofol group, IOP decreased in both dependent and non-dependent eyes after tracheal intubation, but did not increase after changing to the LDP. The number of patients in whom IOP increased to ≥28 mmHg was greater in the sevoflurane group than in the propofol group. Propofol may be better than sevoflurane for the maintenance of anesthesia in the LDP. Monitoring of IOP in the LDP might help avoid ophthalmic complications.

No abstract

The BAT seems to have comparable accuracy to skin tests for the diagnosis of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. For this purpose, both CD203c and CD63 can be used to detect activated basophils.

Since perioperative anaphylaxis occurs suddenly, and it can be life-threatening, anesthesiologists need to have sufficient knowledge of the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis and appropriate coping strategies to deal with it. Recent studies conducted in Western countries reported the characteristics of perioperative anaphylaxis in each country. However, there are few studies of perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan. To bridge the gap between Japan and other countries, the data of 46 anaphylaxis patients at Gunma University Hospital and 13 neighboring hospitals between 2012 and 2018 were collected and analyzed. The recently developed clinical scoring system was combined with a skin test to include only cases with a definite diagnosis. The most common causative agents were sugammadex, followed by rocuronium, cefazolin, and antibiotics other than cefazolin. Furthermore, the characteristics of anaphylaxis for each causative drug were identified. Time from drug administration to appearance of the first symptom was the longest in the cefazolin group. The incidence of canceled operation was the highest in the rocuronium group. Although it is unclear whether the results of this study can apply to Japan as a whole, the information about the agents responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis and the characteristics of anaphylaxis due to each agent would be helpful to anesthesiologists.