09 June 2026
: Case report
[In Press] Perioperative Anaphylactic Shock Induced by Cisatracurium: A Case Demonstrating the Diagnostic and Clinical Value of Early Skin Testing
Unusual clinical course, Challenging differential diagnosis, Unusual or unexpected effect of treatment, Diagnostic / therapeutic accidents, Unexpected drug reaction, Clinical situation which can not be reproduced for ethical reasons
Yu Ying1ABCEF, Shenglan Tian2ABCDEFG, Jingli Chen3CD, Keding Wang4DF, Shenghua Li3ACDEFDOI: 10.12659/AJCR.952854
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.952854
Available online: 2026-06-09, In Press, Corrected Proof
Publication in the "In-Press" formula aims at speeding up the public availability of the pending manuscript while waiting for the final publication. The assigned DOI number is active and citable. The availability of the article in the Medline, PubMed and PMC databases as well as Web of Science will be obtained after the final publication according to the journal schedule
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Perioperative anaphylaxis is a life-threatening anesthetic emergency most commonly triggered by neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs). Although international guidelines recommend performing skin testing 4 to 6 weeks after the event, this delay is often impractical for patients requiring semi-urgent surgery. Delaying surgery can risk disease progression, while unguided re-exposure poses life-threatening allergic recurrence. This case report illustrates the diagnostic utility and clinical relevance of early skin testing in guiding anesthetic management when timely reoperation is necessary.
CASE REPORT
A 36-year-old man scheduled for laparoscopic resection of a splenic lesion experienced immediate cardiovascular collapse following administration of cisatracurium (15 mg) during anesthesia induction. He developed profound hypotension (62/34 mm Hg), tachycardia (139 bpm), and a diffuse erythematous maculopapular rash over the chest. Rapid intravenous epinephrine administration led to prompt hemodynamic stabilization. Considering the need for timely surgical completion, skin prick testing was conducted on postoperative day 6, which revealed a positive reaction to cisatracurium and a negative response to rocuronium, indicating absence of cross-reactivity. Rocuronium was subsequently used for reinduction on postoperative day 7, allowing successful completion of surgery without further adverse reactions.
CONCLUSIONS
This case report shows that early skin testing following perioperative anaphylaxis can be both feasible and clinically informative in urgent surgical settings. It offers a time-efficient diagnostic solution to balance safety and surgical urgency in high-risk patients. Prompt identification of the causative NMBA enables safe substitution, minimizes surgical delay, and facilitates evidence-based anesthetic management decisions.
Keywords: Anaphylaxis; Perioperative Period; Skin Tests
In Press
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.949976
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950290
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950607
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950985
Most Viewed Current Articles
07 Dec 2021 : Case report
17,691,734
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.934347
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e934347
06 Dec 2021 : Case report
164,491
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.934406
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e934406
21 Jun 2024 : Case report
113,090
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.944371
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944371
07 Mar 2024 : Case report
59,175
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.943133
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e943133






