Tatsuo Horiuchi1, Akihiko Yokohama2, Masaki Orihara1, Yukinari Tomita3, Akihiro Tomioka4, Nagahide Yoshida5, Kenichiro Takahashi6, Shigeru Saito1, Tomonori Takazawa7. 1. From the Department of Anesthesiology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan. 2. Division of Blood Transfusion Service, Faculty of Medicine, Gunma University Hospital, Maebashi, Japan. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Isesaki Municipal Hospital, Isesaki, Japan. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Gunma Central Hospital, Maebashi, Japan. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Saiseikai Maebashi Hospital, Maebashi, Japan. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, Ashikaga Red Cross Hospital, Ashikaga, Japan. 7. Intensive Care Unit, Gunma University Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sugammadex is used to reverse the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents in many cases of general anesthesia. However, there are several reports of anaphylaxis after its use. Skin testing is the gold standard for detecting the causative agent of anaphylaxis. However, due to the lack of validated protocols for skin testing with sugammadex, the diagnostic accuracy might be inadequate. Recently, the basophil activation test (BAT) has been established as a tool to detect the causative agent of anaphylaxis with high sensitivity and specificity. However, few studies have investigated the utility of the BAT for sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. METHODS: Eight patients who presented with immediate hypersensitivity to sugammadex during general anesthesia were included in this study. We conducted skin tests to confirm the diagnosis of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. Twenty-one sugammadex-naive individuals who had a negative skin test for allergy to this drug were enrolled as controls. Basophils were selected on a CD3/CRTH2 gate and labeled with CD63 and CD203c. RESULTS: The ratios of activated basophils in the patients were much higher than those in controls: the median values of areas under the curves in the patients and controls for CD203c were 1,265,985 (95% confidence interval [CI], 77,580-5,040,270) and 116,325 (95% CI, -268,605 to 232,690), respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .01), and the areas under the curves in the patients and controls for CD63 were 788,647 (95% CI, 120,285-3,523,410) and 220,005 (95% CI, -50,346 to 404,680), respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .01). The patients, but not controls, demonstrated clear dose-dependent CD203c upregulation. This was also true for CD63. In the case of CD203c, the sensitivity of the BAT for sugammadex was 88% (95% CI, 47%-100%), and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%), while sensitivity and specificity for CD63 were 75% (95% CI, 35%-97%) and 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND:Sugammadex is used to reverse the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents in many cases of general anesthesia. However, there are several reports of anaphylaxis after its use. Skin testing is the gold standard for detecting the causative agent of anaphylaxis. However, due to the lack of validated protocols for skin testing with sugammadex, the diagnostic accuracy might be inadequate. Recently, the basophil activation test (BAT) has been established as a tool to detect the causative agent of anaphylaxis with high sensitivity and specificity. However, few studies have investigated the utility of the BAT for sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. METHODS: Eight patients who presented with immediate hypersensitivity to sugammadex during general anesthesia were included in this study. We conducted skin tests to confirm the diagnosis of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. Twenty-one sugammadex-naive individuals who had a negative skin test for allergy to this drug were enrolled as controls. Basophils were selected on a CD3/CRTH2 gate and labeled with CD63 and CD203c. RESULTS: The ratios of activated basophils in the patients were much higher than those in controls: the median values of areas under the curves in the patients and controls for CD203c were 1,265,985 (95% confidence interval [CI], 77,580-5,040,270) and 116,325 (95% CI, -268,605 to 232,690), respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .01), and the areas under the curves in the patients and controls for CD63 were 788,647 (95% CI, 120,285-3,523,410) and 220,005 (95% CI, -50,346 to 404,680), respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .01). The patients, but not controls, demonstrated clear dose-dependent CD203c upregulation. This was also true for CD63. In the case of CD203c, the sensitivity of the BAT for sugammadex was 88% (95% CI, 47%-100%), and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%), while sensitivity and specificity for CD63 were 75% (95% CI, 35%-97%) and 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 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.