Search

Background: Ketamine is used in intravenous anesthesia for the maintenance in the general anesthesia. It has characteristics to prevent the difficult of breathing due to bronchospasm, as well as the delivery of histamine associated with asthmatic attack. These effects come from the direct action in the bronchial muscle, as well as from the potentiation of its catecholamines, which is why its use is very controversial, given that there are not enough trials to back it up. Moreover, the effect of ketamine on bronchospasm due to anaphylactic reaction has not been studied. The election treatment is epinephrine and there are factors associated with its use. The objective was to present the case of a patient with a history of allergic reaction to midazolam, who presented bronchospasm due to the administration of this drug, and who received unconventional treatment with positive outcomes., Clinical Case: We present the case of a young female with a history of allergies to medicines, specifically to benzodiazepines, who presented bronchospasm and oxygen saturation drop after receiving a dose of midazolam into her eye while she was working. The use of ketamine was proposed after adrenaline, a beta-agonist, inhaled anticholinergics, a steroid and antihistamine drugs were used., Conclusion: Trials are needed in order to demonstrate the efficacy of ketamine in this particular context; however, the outcome in this case was positive., (© 2022 Revista Medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.)

Rationale: Cis-atracurium as an intermediate-acting non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocker is widely used clinically with less causing cyclic fluctuations and less histamine release. As the use rate increases, allergic reactions and anaphylactoid reactions caused by cis-atracurium increase., Patient Concerns: A 23-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Airway spasm occurred after anesthesia induction and the operation was suspended. After adjustment, the anesthesia was performed with the same anesthetic scheme again. After induction, skin flushing and airway resistance increased, then the symptoms were relieved. When the cis-atracurium was given again, the symptoms of airway spasm reappeared immediately, and after communicating with the family, the operation was successfully completed with rocuronium., Diagnoses: Serious bronchospasm induced by cisatracurium besylate., Interventions: The patient was undergone assisted ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and aminophylline 250 mg, methylprednisolone 80 mg were given intravenously., Outcomes: There was no any obvious discomfort in the patient's self-report during the next day's visit. The patient was discharged 7 days later. No abnormalities were observed during following 4 weeks., Lessons: Although the anaphylactoid reactions caused by cis-atracurium are rare, the bronchospasm and anaphylactic shock caused by it greatly increase the risk of anesthesia, which should be taken seriously by clinicians. Increased vigilance in diagnosis, and treatment are essential to prevent aggravation and further complication., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Bronchospasm represents the clinical manifestation of bronchial muscles contraction resulting in reduced alveolar air flow. Non-allergic mechanisms or anaphylaxis underlie the genesis of perioperative bronchospasm, a potential anaesthetic disaster. Early recognition and treatment are crucial. We report a rare incident of anaphylactic bronchospasm without hypotension during general anaesthesia. Urticaria appeared in chest and abdomen suggesting anaphylaxis. After the event resolved with bronchodilators, surgery continued uneventfully. Vecuronium was the most probable culprit but confirmation was not possible as the patient was lost to follow up. Rarely, perioperative anaphylaxis presents only with bronchospasm that requires prompt attention to avoid adverse outcome. Keywords: allergy; anaphylaxis; bronchial spasm; general anesthesia.

Serious anaphylactic reactions to systemic glucocorticoids are rare and have previously mainly been reported in patients with asthma or aspirin allergy. We report a case of severe anaphylactic reaction to an intravenous (IV) glucocorticoid in a patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A 61-year-old male developed severe bronchospasm within seconds after IV injection of methylprednisolone sodium succinate. The condition was immediately treated with adrenaline and the patient recovered quickly. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of anaphylactic reactions to glucocorticoids.

Minor and major allergic reactions occur during oral and maxillofacial treatment. Immediate diagnosis and pharmacologic intervention are imperative. Signs and symptoms may be variable. The early administration of epinephrine is critical., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A French team investigated hypersensitivity reactions that occurred during locoregional or general anaesthesia over an 8-year period. They estimated that the incidence of anaphylactic reactions was about 1 per 10 000 anaesthetic procedures. Among the 1816 reports of anaphylactic reactions, the most commonly implicated drugs were neuromuscular blocking agents (1067 cases), latex (361 cases), and antibiotics (236 cases). Some anaphylactic reactions to neuromuscular blocking agents occurred in patients who had never previously been anaesthetised, suggesting cross-reactivity with other, poorly known, substances. Most reactions in children were due to latex, followed by neuromuscular blocking agents and antibiotics. In practice, exposure to latex devices should be minimised, or simply avoided when possible. A history of sensitization to substances sharing allergenic sites with neuromuscular blocking agents should be investigated, and measures should be taken to protect patients.

Background: Anaphylactic reaction induced bronchospasm as wheezing and severe elevation of airway pressure was observed in a succession of patients during general anesthesia at our institute in November 2007. The aim of this survey was to investigate the suspected causes and risk factors of these anaphylactic reactions and the degree of correlation., Methods: All patients who received general anesthesia between November 1 and November 10, 2007 were enrolled. Underlying diseases, substances including intravenous and inhalational anesthetics, antibiotics, and the degree of increase in airway pressure were recorded. Enrolled patients were divided into a significant-airway-pressure-elevation group (Group P) and a no-airway-pressure-elevation group (Group N)., Results: A new brand of cephalexin (Roles) used as a prophylactic antibiotic was identified as the most likely causative substance of this succession of suspected anaphylactic reactions (28 in 185 patients, 15.14%), and rapid administration was a contributor to these anaphylactic reactions., Conclusion: In this study, we found that rapid administration of Roles was the main cause of suspected anaphylactic reaction presenting as bronchospasm with severe elevated airway pressure. Using Roles as the prophylactic antibiotic is not recommended in patients receiving general anesthesia., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to ascertain whether anaesthetic induction-related anaphylactic bronchospasm could be distinguished from other types of bronchospasm by clinical features and response to treatment. Such features could then be used to identify a group of patients in whom skin testing is indicated., Methods: We retrospectively studied data from 183 patients referred to an anaesthetic allergy clinic because of bronchospasm during induction. For the analysis, the patients were divided into two groups depending on whether there was evidence suggesting immunological anaphylaxis., Results: When the patients in whom intradermal tests were positive were compared with those in whom intradermal tests were negative, the skin test-positive patients had significantly more severe reactions, and they were more commonly associated with other clinical signs. Mast cell tryptase (MCT) was an excellent discriminator between reactions likely to be allergic and those unlikely to be allergic., Conclusions: Anaphylactic bronchospasm related to induction of anaesthesia is more likely to be severe than bronchospasm due to non-immune causes. An allergic cause is more likely if there are associated features of anaphylaxis (skin changes, hypotension, angioedema) or elevated MCT. Patients with any of these features should undergo immuno-allergolical investigation.

Muscle relaxant drugs are the most frequent cause of anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions during anaesthesia. We report a case of a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction during induction of anaesthesia with severe bronchospasm as the first clinical symptom. Mechanical ventilation was nearly impossible. The patient required a multimodal antiallergic therapy and a high-dose catecholamine therapy for stabilization. Rocuronium was identified as the allergic agent using intradermal testing.

Hypersensitivity reactions are a feared complication of hemodialysis considering their potential for a serious and eventually fatal course. This association could reflect a number of different exposures, including concomitant medications. Like this, systemic steroid-induced hypersensitivity reactions do occur, althought their incidence is extremely rare. A few reactions related to metylprednisolone have been reported in renal transplantation. The diagnosis could be confirmed by the patient history and performing skin testing, oral or parenteral challenge or by the evidence of specific IgE. We report on a 39-year-old woman undergoing dialysis therapy in whom severe bronchospasm was induced by corticosteroids. She has a positive systemic reaction on the oral steroid challenge test. A successful desensitization regimen for safe administration was achieved. The recognition of high-risk subjects and alternative therapeutic approach are critical, mainly in the management of patients while receiving corticosteroids or a renal allograft.

We report a case of a young man with an allergy to latex who developed anaphylactic shock during anaesthesia for renal transplantation. All anaesthetic agents used before the episode were tested as potential allergens and only latex was shown to be positive. It appears that latex contamination in the graft was the cause since no materials containing latex were used during the operation. We feel it essential that donor organs should be removed in a totally latex-free environment. Such conditions will remove the risk of anaphylactic shock at the point of reperfusion of the transplant.

We report a grade III allergic hypersensitivity reaction occurring in a 72-year-old patient immediately after anaesthesia induction. Anaphylaxis to cisatracurium was diagnosed on clinical symptoms, biological tests and positivity of the cutaneous tests to this neuromuscular blocking agent. Five days after this allergological assessment, rocuronium, a muscle relaxant for which skin tests appeared negative was used during surgery without adverse effects. The authors underline the value of a detailed allergological assessment to identify the pathophysiologic mechanism, the culprit drug and to propose a safer alternate drug that might be used.

A 6-year-old boy presented for surgery for phimosis. The anaesthetic technique included intravenous induction with thiopentone and neuromuscular blockade with cisatracurium. Severe persistent bronchospasm and central cyanosis followed the administration of these drugs. A continuous i.v. infusion of epinephrine at 0.2 microg. kg(-1) x min(-1) was necessary to break the severe refractory bronchial hyperresponsiveness. There was no previous exposure to anaesthetic drugs and no definite family history of allergy. Through increased serum eosinophil cationic protein, tryptase and histamine levels and IgE levels specific to cisatracurium, we demonstrated an IgE-mediated anaphylactic reaction to cisatracurium in the child's first exposure to this new neuromuscular blocking agent. Anaphylactic reactions to new anaesthetic drugs may be challenging to recognize and treat during general anaesthesia in children. The pathogenesis, diagnosis and management of life threatening persistent allergic reactions to intravenous anaesthetics are discussed.

The allergic history to anaesthetics in general and especially to synthetic myorelaxants, poses few etiological diagnostic problems in practice, because of on one hand the excellent collaboration between Anesthetists and Allergologists in the CHU at Angers and on the other because of the great sensitivity of skin testing. Why then have a predictive history for myorelaxants? The results of a study at the CHU at Angers on 15 patients showed sensitivity to anaesthetics in general (myorelaxants 86%, Diprivan) and/or an antibiotic, latex were very encouraging. One 15 new general anaesthetics a single minor incident was seen: the 15 patients had benefited from a predictive history.

A 14-year-old male without any history of allergic disorders developed severe bronchospasm with skin rash 15 min. after the administration of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) during thoratic epidural anesthesia supplemented with N2O-sevoflurane-O2 anesthesia. Aminophylline, hydrocortisone, and epinephrine were administered. These treatments were effective, and the airway pressure was restored to normal ranges within 3 hrs. After the operation, the patient was extubated, because the results of the arterial blood gas examinations recovered to normal ranges. Plasma histamine and complement levels were almost within normal limits, but IgE levels were approximately 5 times higher than normal. Subsequent immediate skin test with hydroxyethyl starch showed an immunologically positive response. These results demonstrate evidence that an anaphylactic reactions could occur just after the start of HES infusion. Severe adverse reactions to HES are very rare, but it is important to keep the possibility always in mind.

Case report of six patients who experienced symptoms of severe anaphylactic shock, after tourniquet release at the end of minor orthopaedic surgery of the limbs under regional anaesthesia. The immunological mechanism of the shock was confirmed by prick tests. The causative agent was rifamycin SV used for cleaning the surgical wound prior to its closure. In case of repetitive surgery and/or in allergic patients the use of another antibiotic or the simple cleaning of the wound with normal saline should be considered. In case of surgery using a tourniquet, an iv access should be maintained for 1 hour after tourniquet release and the patient closely monitored in the recovery room. The allergologic assessment should take place 3 to 6 weeks later and include all drugs administered during the 10 minutes preceding the occurrence of shock.

We studied the effects of a nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibitor, N omega-nitro-L-arginine-methyl ester (L-NAME), on cardiac depression and bronchospasm provoked by systemic anaphylaxis in vivo in rabbits. Animals pretreated with L-NAME showed lower survival rates than control animals pretreated with normal saline. The survival rate in L-NAME-pretreated animals was increased by the administration of L-arginine after initiation of anaphylaxis. Cardiac output fell significantly in animals pretreated with L-NAME compared with controls, although venous return was increased. In animals pretreated with L-NAME, pulmonary resistance was significantly increased, and administration of arginine attenuated the bronchospasm. In conclusion, these results, along with the low survival rates in the L-NAME-treated animals, suggest that NO production may be beneficial to cardiac depression and bronchospasm in anaphylaxis in vivo.

Many anaesthetic drugs and adjuvants can cause the release of histamine by chemical (anaphylactoid) or immunologic (anaphylactic) mechanisms. While both types of reactions can be clinically indistinguishable, they are mechanistically different. In anaphylactoid reactions, only preformed mediators are released, of which histamine may be the most clinically important. In true immunologic reactions, mast cell degranulation occurs, and many vasoactive substances (including histamine) are released. Clinical signs and symptoms of both classes of reactions include hypotension (most common), tachycardia, bronchospasm, or cutaneous manifestations. Anaphylactoid reactions may occur commonly under anaesthesia in response to many drugs, including induction agents, some opiates, plasma expanders, and curariform relaxants. Anaphylactic reactions are far less common than anaphylactoid reactions, but they nevertheless represent more than half of the life-threatening reactions that occur in anaesthetic practice. Muscle relaxants are the most frequently implicated class of drugs; suxamethonium is the most common agent implicated in anaphylactic reactions during anaesthesia, but even drugs without apparent chemical histamine release (i.e., vecuronium) are frequently implicated in anaphylactic reactions.

We describe four cases of anaphylaxis to paracetamol without co-existing aspirin intolerance and review the Australian experience in paracetamol anaphylaxis. Paracetamol sensitivity may differ in the mechanism from sensitivity to aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as previously believed.

Anaphylactoid reaction to cyclophosphamide administration in a 85-year old woman is described. Symptomatology was restricted to bronchospasm, which regressed within one hour. This incomplete and rapidly regressive symptomatology might be explained by previous administration of methylprednisolone. No anaphylactoid symptoms were observed following continuation of therapy with ifosfamide.

The occurrence of adverse reactions is decreasing since the introduction of non-ionic contrast media. Anaphylactoid reactions during general anaesthesia are rare and hitherto only documented with the administration of ionic compounds. We report an episode of hypotension, tachycardia, bronchospasm and urticaria following application of a non-ionic contrast medium (Iopamidol) during isoflurane anaesthesia. We conclude that a combinent use of anaesthesia and non-ionic contrast media does not guaranty protection from anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated radiopaque compounds.

The antigen non-specific release of histamine by synthetic neuromuscular blocking agents is well known, though our review of thirty-two cases reported in the literature of anaphylactoid reactions to succinylcholine, shows that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the signs are due to anaphylactic or to anaphylactoid reactions. We have examined thirteen cases in whom evidence of anaphylactic sensitization was examined by direct skin tests (in eleven cases) Prausnitz--Küstner tests (in five), rabbit basophil degranulation, Shelley test (in twelve) and human basophil degranulation (in seven). These tests were done on two to four occasions, and the optimal period for the first test ascertained to be 6 to 12 weeks after the episode. All eleven patients examined by direct skin tests showed evidence of anaphylactic sensitivity, and in three of five cases the sensitivity could be transferred by the Prausnitz--Küstner procedure. In one of these P--K tests there was evidence of both IgE and of IgG S-TS antibodies (heat-stable antibody conferring sensitivity for 2 hr). Particular susceptibilities to adverse reactions of this drug appear to be prior drug allergy (in 50% of cases), several previous anaesthetics, and atopy.

Eighteen grave anaphylactic accidents arising during induction or during anaesthesia, are analysed. By order of frequency, the clinical signs are cutaneous manifestations (70 p. 100 of the cases), bronchospasm (65 p. 100), cardiovascular collapse (45 p. 100). In four cases, cardiac arrest occurred. The course was always favourable, with no after-effects. Immuno-allergic tests enabled one to make the diagnosis of true anaphylaxis in eight cases (seven shocks due to succinylcholine, one due to propanidide), of non specific histamine-liberation in five cases; in the other cases, it was impossible to express an opinion.

1-methyl-3-isobutylxanthine (MIBX), a potent antiphosphodiesterase drug, inhibited the anaphylactic reactions both in vitro and in vivo: anaphylactic histamine release from the isolated mast cells of rats, anaphylactic contracture of the isolated trachea of guinea pigs, passive cutaneous anaphylaxis (PCA) in mice and anaphylactic bronchial constriction (ABC) in guinea pigs. MIBX inhibited the anaphylactic reaction of the trachea, PCA and ABC more than the corresponding reactions induced by histamine.

The author reports an inquiry concerning 66 patients who all had an anaphylactoid reaction. The hour of onset, the type of reaction, (skin, bronchial or systemic), their association, the drugs responsible, and the diagnostic difficulties are reviewed. In this respect, in relation to the results of the above inquiry and the data in the literature, the skin and bronchial reactions are described, and the signs of anaphylactic shock recalled. The substances possible are then reviewed with the possible correlation between the type of accident and the drug responsible. Finally the role of macromolecules is discussed.

In this paper we report an inhibitory effect of (-)-baclofen on many models of bronchial hyperreactivity both in vivo and in vitro. (-)-Baclofen protects guinea-pigs from the anaphylactic bronchospasm induced in sensitized animals by an ovalbumin aerosol and from that induced by aerosols of histamine and PGF2 alpha. Moreover (-)-baclofen reduces the TXA2 and TXB2 output induced by ovalbumin from isolated sensitized guinea-pig lungs. On the other hand (-)-baclofen does not show antihistaminic, anticholinergic or antiprostaglandinic action on isolated tracheal preparations. It is concluded that baclofen can provide protection from bronchial hyperreactivity possibly through a modulation of autonomic nervous system activity.

1. The rate of onset and magnitude of the effect of levocabastine, a potent H1-receptor antagonist, in reversing histamine-induced bronchoconstriction were determined in a double-blind cross-over trial against saline placebo. Histamine was administered by nebuliser so that forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was reduced to 80-75% of baseline FEV1 in 10 men with mildly or moderately responsive airways and the effects of intravenous injection of saline or saline + 200 micrograms levocabastine were studied. 2. The maximum rate of recovery of FEV1 was 7[2-10]% min-1 (median [range]) in the first 5 min after levocabastine injection, but only 4[1-7]% min-1 after saline alone (P less than 0.05). 3. The median area under the recovery curve of FEV1 from 0 to 30 min after injection was 405 [228-498]% basal FEV1 X min after levocabastine and 301[98-502]% basal FEV1 X min after saline alone (P less than 0.002). 4. FEV1 returned to 90% of baseline within 30 min in all subjects after levocabastine, but not after saline alone (P less than 0.002). 5. Histamine-induced bronchoconstriction was relieved more quickly by levocabastine than saline alone. This model may have application to the study of drugs used in the treatment of anaphylaxis.

In a running clinical prospective study on the incidence of adverse reactions to colloidal polysaccharides (randomised, single blind, n = 300) a bronchospasm followed by cardiac arrest occurred during dextran infusion although the necessary hapten blockage with monovalent dextran-1 had been effected. Resuscitation was successful. Directly after this, surgery was carried out as planned under general anaesthesia. The 69-year-old patient was discharged without noticeable sequelae. For the first time in the literature on dextran the studied sample allows a generalisation: The event occurred with an incidence of about 0.9% (of 116 patients who had received dextran infusion). This incidence corresponds to a confidence interval ranging from 0.02 to 4.96%. If the study would be continued as planned, the upper limit of this interval signals the probability of another case of severe intolerance. The diagnosis "dextran adverse reaction" can be made in this case by clinical symptoms. Since no previous or concomitant medication had been administered as provided in the protocol to confirm the diagnosis as an adverse reaction to dextran by determination of the titer of dextran antibodies prior to infusion is not required and it may be concluded that dextran was the causative agent.

Following two cases of anaphylactoid reactions during anaesthesia, immunoallergological investigations showed up the responsibility of droperidol, which probably acted by way of an anaphylactic mechanism. In both cases, there were no cardiovascular signs, the main clinical symptom being bronchospasm. The exceptional nature of allergic accidents due to neuroleptic drugs, as opposed to extrapyramidal phenomena, must be underlined. However, these reactions should cast doubts on the safety and usefulness of neuroleptanalgesia.

Two patients with asthma developed an anaphylactic reaction after the intravenous administration of hydrocortisone. In both cases, the reaction included the rapid development of airflow obstruction. Previous reports have suggested that the allergenic component may be hydrocortisone itself, rather than the diluents or preservatives. When administering hydrocortisone, one should be aware of the possibility of such a reaction, even though it is uncommon. Although potentially life-threatening, particularly in an asthma sufferer, this reaction should be reversible with prompt recognition and appropriate management.