BJA Advance Access originally published online on August 12, 2005
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2005 95(4):468-471; doi:10.1093/bja/aei198
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CLINICAL PRACTICE |
Allergic reactions in anaesthesia: are suspected causes confirmed on subsequent testing?
1 Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre, Department of Anaesthesia and Operating Theatre Services, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, and 2 Department of Dermatology, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
* Corresponding author: Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre, Department of Anaesthesia, Section 4231, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail: daac{at}rh.dk
Background. The aim of this retrospective survey of possible allergic reactions during anaesthesia was to investigate whether the cause suspected by anaesthetists involved corresponded with the cause found on subsequent investigation in the Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre (DAAC).
Methods. Case notes and anaesthetic charts from 111 reactions in 107 patients investigated in the DAAC were scrutinized for either suspicions of or warnings against specific substances stated to be the cause of the supposed allergic reaction.
Results. In 67 cases, one or more substances were suspected. In 49 of these (73%) the suspected cause did not match the results of subsequent investigation, either a different substance being the cause or no cause being found. Only five cases (7%) showed a complete match between suspected cause and investigation result. In the remaining 13 cases (19%) there was a partial match, the right substance being suspected, but investigations showed an additional allergen or several substances, including the right substance being suspected.
Conclusions. An informed guess is not a reliable way of determining the cause of a supposed allergic reaction during anaesthesia and may put a significant number of patients at unnecessary risk. Some patients may be labelled with a wrong allergy, leading to unnecessary warnings against harmless substances, and some patients may be put at risk of subsequent re-exposure to the real allergen. Patients with suspected allergic reactions during anaesthesia should be referred for investigation in specialist centres whenever possible.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. M. Mertes, A. B. Guttormsen, T. Harboe, S. G. O. Johansson, E. Florvaag, B. Husum, L. H. Garvey, M. Kroigaard, L. Gramstad, K. T. Kvande, et al. Can Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting Systems Really Be Used to Compare Rates of Adverse Events Between Drugs? Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2007; 104(2): 471 - 472. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. D. MacPherson, C. Willcox, C. Chow, and A. Wang Anaesthetist's responses to patients' self-reported drug allergies Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2006; 97(5): 634 - 639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. G. Ebo, G. Verheecke, C. H. Bridts, C. H. Mertens, and W. J. Stevens Perioperative anaphylaxis from locally applied rifamycin SV and latex. Br. J. Anaesth., June 1, 2006; 96(6): 738 - 741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Minerva BMJ, October 8, 2005; 331(7520): 854 - 854. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
E-letters:
Read all E-letters
- RANITIDINE ANAPHYLAXIS
- HASHER P KADAVIL
- British Journal of Anaesthesia, 14 Nov 2005 [Full text]