File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Perioperative anaphylaxis and investigations: a local study in Hong Kong

TitlePerioperative anaphylaxis and investigations: a local study in Hong Kong
Authors
Keywordsbasophil activation test
Hong Kong
intraoperative anaphylaxis
skin test
specific IgE
Issue Date2020
PublisherSingapore Medical Association. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/smjcurrent.html
Citation
Singapore Medical Journal, 2020, v. 61 n. 4, p. 200-205 How to Cite?
AbstractINTRODUCTION: Data on local intraoperative anaphylaxis in Hong Kong is scarce, with few reviews available. We aimed to study the characteristics, presentations and workup results of cases referred to a local allergy clinic. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patient referrals and workup results for suspected intraoperative anaphylaxis at Queen Mary Hospital drug allergy clinic in 2012–2016. RESULTS: Tryptase was checked in only 81.7% (49/60) of the cases, most of which showed elevation (71.4%, 35/49). Among the 59 patients who received a workup, 47 (79.7%) showed positive findings, with a particularly high yield in the tryptase-positive subgroup (88.6%, 31/35). Among the 54 patients who consented to skin tests (the most sensitive investigation), 43 (79.6%) cases were positive. Overall, neuromuscular blockers were the commonest cause (25.0%, 15/60) of intraoperative anaphylaxis, while antibiotics ranked second (23.3%, 14/60). The timing of reactions was an important indication of potential allergens. For example, the majority of the neuromuscular blocker allergies occurred during the induction phase, while all gelofusine allergic events were in the maintenance phase of anaesthesia. 13 (21.7%) out of 60 cases received subsequent general anaesthesia procedures, with no recurrence of allergic reactions. CONCLUSION: Proper workup after an intraoperative anaphylactic event has a fairly good chance of identifying the causative allergen. These results are useful for patient management and the planning of subsequent anaesthetic procedures.
DescriptionBronze open access
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/293817
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 3.331
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.452
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAu, EYL-
dc.contributor.authorLau, CS-
dc.contributor.authorLam, K-
dc.contributor.authorChan, E-
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-23T08:22:13Z-
dc.date.available2020-11-23T08:22:13Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationSingapore Medical Journal, 2020, v. 61 n. 4, p. 200-205-
dc.identifier.issn0037-5675-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/293817-
dc.descriptionBronze open access-
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: Data on local intraoperative anaphylaxis in Hong Kong is scarce, with few reviews available. We aimed to study the characteristics, presentations and workup results of cases referred to a local allergy clinic. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patient referrals and workup results for suspected intraoperative anaphylaxis at Queen Mary Hospital drug allergy clinic in 2012–2016. RESULTS: Tryptase was checked in only 81.7% (49/60) of the cases, most of which showed elevation (71.4%, 35/49). Among the 59 patients who received a workup, 47 (79.7%) showed positive findings, with a particularly high yield in the tryptase-positive subgroup (88.6%, 31/35). Among the 54 patients who consented to skin tests (the most sensitive investigation), 43 (79.6%) cases were positive. Overall, neuromuscular blockers were the commonest cause (25.0%, 15/60) of intraoperative anaphylaxis, while antibiotics ranked second (23.3%, 14/60). The timing of reactions was an important indication of potential allergens. For example, the majority of the neuromuscular blocker allergies occurred during the induction phase, while all gelofusine allergic events were in the maintenance phase of anaesthesia. 13 (21.7%) out of 60 cases received subsequent general anaesthesia procedures, with no recurrence of allergic reactions. CONCLUSION: Proper workup after an intraoperative anaphylactic event has a fairly good chance of identifying the causative allergen. These results are useful for patient management and the planning of subsequent anaesthetic procedures. -
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSingapore Medical Association. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/smjcurrent.html-
dc.relation.ispartofSingapore Medical Journal-
dc.subjectbasophil activation test-
dc.subjectHong Kong-
dc.subjectintraoperative anaphylaxis-
dc.subjectskin test-
dc.subjectspecific IgE-
dc.titlePerioperative anaphylaxis and investigations: a local study in Hong Kong-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailAu, EYL: auyle@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLau, CS: cslau@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChan, E: eytchan@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLau, CS=rp01348-
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.11622/smedj.2019156-
dc.identifier.pmid31788702-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC7905132-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85083710058-
dc.identifier.hkuros319846-
dc.identifier.volume61-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage200-
dc.identifier.epage205-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000530098700007-
dc.publisher.placeSingapore-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats