Division of Clinical Immunology, Department of Pathology Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong.
Division of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023 Jun;130(6):752-759.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2023.02.017. Epub 2023 Feb 25.
Studies on perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) in Asia are lacking. Furthermore, allergy workup for PA has largely been limited to the "silver standard" of skin tests (ST). Using in vitro tests as an adjunct to ST may improve and overcome these diagnostic challenges.
To evaluate the clinical characteristics and diagnostic tests of patients with suspected PA through the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong cohort.
Patients with a diagnosis of PA over a 10-year period were recruited into the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong. We reviewed the medical records, tryptase elevation, and diagnostic tests including ST, specific immunoglobulin E, and basophil activation tests (BAT).
In 151 patients with PA, diagnosis was reached in three-fourths of the cases (113/151, 74.8%). The most common culprits identified were neuromuscular blocking agents (25.8%), β lactams (17.2%) and chlorhexidine (13.9%). Severe anaphylaxis was associated with female sex, older age, elevated acute tryptase levels, and more cardiovascular manifestations during induction. Skin tests remained the most sensitive diagnostic modality overall (66.2%). BAT showed better performance for chlorhexidine and gelofusine anaphylaxis, with sensitivity of 80.0% and 79.6%, respectively. Specific Immunoglobulin E indicated even higher sensitivity (95.2%) than did ST (85.0%) and BAT (80.0%) for chlorhexidine anaphylaxis but performed poorly for other drugs.
Neuromuscular blocking agents remain the most common culprit in PA. There was a higher prevalence of gelofusine anaphylaxis in our cohort than was seen in the literature. Skin tests remain the most sensitive testing modality. In vitro tests for chlorhexidine and gelofusine showed promising results, but more studies to further elucidate its use are warranted.
亚洲围手术期过敏反应(PA)的研究较为缺乏。此外,PA 的过敏检测工作在很大程度上仅限于皮肤测试(ST)的“金标准”。将体外检测作为 ST 的辅助手段可能会改善和克服这些诊断挑战。
通过香港围手术期过敏反应研究评估疑似 PA 患者的临床特征和诊断检测。
在过去 10 年中,我们招募了诊断为 PA 的患者,纳入香港围手术期过敏反应研究。我们回顾了病历、类胰蛋白酶升高情况以及包括皮肤测试、特异性免疫球蛋白 E 和嗜碱性粒细胞活化试验(BAT)在内的诊断检测。
在 151 例 PA 患者中,有四分之三(113/151,74.8%)的患者明确了诊断。确定的最常见罪魁祸首是神经肌肉阻滞剂(25.8%)、β内酰胺类抗生素(17.2%)和洗必泰(13.9%)。严重过敏反应与女性、年龄较大、急性类胰蛋白酶水平升高以及诱导期心血管表现更多有关。皮肤测试总体上仍是最敏感的诊断方法(66.2%)。BAT 对洗必泰和凝胶蛋白过敏的检测性能更好,其敏感性分别为 80.0%和 79.6%。特异性免疫球蛋白 E 对洗必泰的敏感性(95.2%)甚至高于皮肤测试(85.0%)和 BAT(80.0%),但对其他药物的检测效果较差。
神经肌肉阻滞剂仍然是 PA 最常见的罪魁祸首。我们的队列中凝胶蛋白过敏的发生率高于文献报道。皮肤测试仍然是最敏感的检测方法。针对洗必泰和凝胶蛋白的体外检测显示出有前景的结果,但需要进一步研究以阐明其用途。