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.

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.

No abstract

No abstract