CLINICAL AND LABORATORY CHARACTERISTICS AND TREATMENT OUTCOMES OF PATIENTS WITH PERIOPERATIVE ANAPHYLAXIS
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the clinical and laboratory characteristics and evaluate the treatment outcomes of patients with perioperative anaphylaxis (PA). Methods: A retrospective, descriptive study was conducted on 64 patients diagnosed with perioperative anaphylaxis between January 2020 and June 2025 at 108 Military Central Hospital. Data, including demographics, onset timing, suspected agents, clinical manifestations, laboratory tests, SOFA score, management interventions, and outcomes, were collected. Descriptive analysis and mortality prediction using ROC curves were performed. Results: The mean age was 57.4 ± 6.6 years; 60.9% were male. PA occurred predominantly during surgery (45.3%) or at induction of anesthesia (41.2%). Grade III and grade IV anaphylaxis accounted for 75% and 12.5% of cases, respectively. Suspected agents were antibiotics (51.6%) and neuromuscular blocking agents (31.3%). Cardiovascular and respiratory manifestations were the most frequent (occurring in 85.9% and 76.6%, respectively). The overall mortality was 3.13% (2/64), with both deaths in grade IV. Lactate levels and SOFA score showed the highest predictive value for mortality (AUC lactate = 0.937, p = 0.004; AUC SOFA = 0.888, p = 0.010). Conclusion: Perioperative anaphylaxis is most commonly associated with antibiotics and neuromuscular blocking agents, occurring predominantly during anesthesia induction or surgery. Initial elevations in lactate levels and SOFA scores at baseline are closely associated with poor prognosis. Early detection, timely adrenaline administration, adequate fluid resuscitation, and monitoring of lactate levels and SOFA scores are highly recommended.
Keywords
Perioperative anaphylaxis, Lactate levels, SOFA score, Adrenaline, Antibiotics, Neuromuscular blocking agents
Article Details
References
2. Admass BA, Hassen AE, Agegnehu AF, Temesgen MM, Gebeyehu NA, Ferede YA, et al. Management of perioperative anaphylaxis: Systematic review. International Journal of Surgery Open. 2023; 52:100595.
3. Guerci P, Tacquard C, Chenard L, Millard D, Soufir L, Malinovsky JM, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of patients admitted to intensive care after anaphylaxis in France: A retrospective multicentre study. Br J Anaesth. 2020; 125(6):1025-1033.
4. Tacquard C, Serrier J, Viville S, Chiriac AM, Franchina S, Gouel-Cheron A, et al. Epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France in 2017-2018: The 11th GERAP survey. Br J Anaesth. 2024; 132(6):1230-1237.
5. Gibbs NM, Sadleir PH, Clarke RC, Platt PR. Survival from perioperative anaphylaxis in Western Australia 2000-2009. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111(4):589-593.
6. Au EYL, Lau CS, Lam K, Chan E. Perioperative anaphylaxis and investigations: A local study in Hong Kong. Singapore Med J. 2020; 61(4):200-205.
7. Takazawa T, Horiuchi T, Nagumo K, Sugiyama Y, Akune T, Amano Y, et al. The Japanese epidemiologic study for perioperative anaphylaxis, a prospective nationwide study: Allergen exposure, epidemiology, and diagnosis of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2023; 131(1):159-169.
8. Singh SP. Distributive shock in cardiac intensive care unit patients. Indian Heart Journal. 2025.
9. Liu Z, Meng Z, Li Y, Zhao J, Wu S, Gou S, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the serum lactate level, the SOFA score and the qSOFA score for mortality among adults with Sepsis. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. 2019; 27(1):51.