• Br J Anaesth · Jul 2019

    Integrating basophil activation tests into evaluation of perioperative anaphylaxis to neuromuscular blocking agents.

    • Jamma Li, Oliver G Best, Michael A Rose, Sarah L Green, Richard B Fulton, and Suran L Fernando.
    • Department of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Medicine (Immunology & Infectious Diseases), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Medicine (Immunology & Infectious Diseases), NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: jamma.li@health.nsw.gov.au.
    • Br J Anaesth. 2019 Jul 1; 123 (1): e135-e143.

    BackgroundNeuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) remain the leading cause of perioperative anaphylaxis in Australia. Standard evaluation comprises history, skin tests, and in vitro specific immunoglobulin E tests. Drug provocation tests to suspected NMBA culprits are associated with a significant risk. Basophil activation testing (BAT) is a potentially useful in vitro test that is not commercially available in Australia or as part of standard evaluation.MethodsAll patients attending the Anaesthetic Allergy Clinic in Sydney, Australia between May 2017 and July 2018 exposed to an NMBA before the onset of anaphylaxis during their anaesthetic qualified for the study. We recruited 120 patients sequentially who received standard evaluation plus BAT using CD63, CD203c, and CD300a as surface activation markers.ResultsBAT results were expressed as % upregulation above the negative control and stimulation index (mean fluorescence index of stimulated sample divided by the negative control). We calculated cut-offs of 4.45% and 1.44 for CD63, and 8.80% and 1.49 for CD203c, respectively. Sensitivity was 77% with specificity of 76%. A subgroup of 10 patients with NMBA anaphylaxis had no sensitisation on skin tests. BAT using CD63 and CD203c showed sensitisation in six of these 10, and adding CD300a identified sensitisation in nine patients. BAT was positive in seven of nine patients with anaphylaxis of unknown aetiology.ConclusionsBAT may be a useful supplement to the standard evaluation in diagnosing NMBA anaphylaxis in patients with suggestive histories, but no sensitisation on skin tests. Ongoing study of this specific group of patients is required to clarify its utility in clinical practice.Copyright © 2019 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    This article appears in the collection: What is the significance of Pholcodine for anesthesia?.


    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..