Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 1226  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    




 
 Table of Contents    
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 62  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 400-402  

Anaesthetic management and the role of sugammadex in a patient with Churg-Strauss syndrome


Department of Anaesthesia, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg Victoria 3084, Australia

Date of Web Publication10-May-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ping Han Chia
Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Hospital, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg Victoria 3084
Australia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_19_18

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Chia PH. Anaesthetic management and the role of sugammadex in a patient with Churg-Strauss syndrome. Indian J Anaesth 2018;62:400-2

How to cite this URL:
Chia PH. Anaesthetic management and the role of sugammadex in a patient with Churg-Strauss syndrome. Indian J Anaesth [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 19];62:400-2. Available from: http://www.ijaweb.org/text.asp?2018/62/5/400/232211



Sir,

Churg-Strauss syndrome (CSS) is a rare vasculitic disorder affecting multiple organs, characterised by asthma, hypereosinophilia and necrotising vasculitis.[1] Patients are generally aged 20–40 years with no gender predominance. Scarce information is available in the anaesthetic literature, and the role of sugammadex for this group has not been reported. We describe our management of a patient with CSS and the successful use of sugammadex.

A 41-year-old female (96 kg) patient with large fibroid presented for abdominal hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy. She had CSS diagnosed in 2004 with initial sinus involvement, haemoptysis, rash and pericarditis. She had well-controlled asthma and pansinusitis. Pre-operative chest X-ray was normal. Respiratory function test revealed mild obstructive ventilator defect (forced expiratory volume in 1 s 77%, forced expiratory ratio 76%). Transthoracic echocardiogram revealed normal left ventricular size and systolic function. There was mild eosinophilia (2.3 × 109/L), but other blood tests were normal. Since diagnosis, she had been on fluctuating doses of prednisolone, titrated to her flares and ceased when asthma symptoms resolved. On admission, she was on stable daily prednisolone 5 mg, mycophenolate 1 g, and regularly inhaled bronchodilator. After pre-medication with intravenous glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg, magnesium 8 mmol and midazolam 3 mg, anaesthesia was induced with propofol 130 mg, ketamine 20 mg, fentanyl 100 μg, rocuronium 50 mg and lignocaine 80 mg, followed by endotracheal intubation. Hydrocortisone 25 mg was administered after induction. Retrospectively, this could have been omitted as latest evidence suggests she had a low risk of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis suppression and did not require perioperative stress-dose steroid.[2] Anaesthesia was maintained with sevofluorane. During surgery, further rocuronium bolus was given to target train-of-four count of '0' using a nerve stimulator for adequate paralysis. Fentanyl 100 μg/h, ketamine 20 mg/h and lignocaine 80 mg/h were infused for analgesia throughout the case (total: fentanyl 300 mcg, ketamine 60 mg and lignocaine 240 mg). Ropivacaine 200 mg was injected into the abdominal walls at the conclusion of surgery. Sugammadex 2 mg/kg (200 mg) was given followed by confirmation of neuromuscular blockade reversal using a nerve stimulator and successful extubation. Postoperatively, regular paracetamol, fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia and ketamine infusion of 0.1–0.2 mg/kg/h were commenced for analgesia.

Given the risk of CSS on airway hyperreactivity, anaesthetists should be prepared to prevent and manage a bronchoconstrictive response. We recognise that neuraxial techniques such as spinal or combined spinal and epidural are favourable alternatives, but undertook GA given her disease stability. We gave glycopyrrolate pre-induction to minimise airway secretions. Ketamine and magnesium are both bronchodilatory and analgesic through their actions on the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors. Intravenous lignocaine attenuates reflex bronchoconstriction and decreases post-operative pain, ileus, hospital stay and nausea and vomiting.[3] We used 1 mg/kg bolus followed by 1 mg/kg/h infusion during the intraoperative period. Sevofluorane has bronchodilatory effects, minimises histamine-induced bronchospasm and decreases airway responsiveness.

We used fentanyl and rocuronium, avoiding histamine-releasing drugs such as morphine and atracurium. Few case reports described caution or complete avoidance of non-depolarising muscle relaxant to avoid using neostigmine and physostigmine as reversals which can cause bradycardia, increased secretions and bronchial hyperreactivity.[4],[5] This strategy may not always be practical as in our case, which required deep paralysis for optimal operating conditions. We used sugammadex to overcome these problems associated with the standard reversal agents. This is advantageous for adequate paralysis throughout the case and subsequent rapid reversal.

Taylor et al. reported decreased plasma cholinesterase activity in two patients with CSS following suspected abnormal sensitivity to suxamethonium.[6] Without information regarding patient's plasma cholinesterase level or activity, caution should be exercised when using suxamethonium or mivacurium as their metabolism relies on this enzyme. Therefore, if a patient requires a rapid sequence induction, but abnormal sensitivity to suxamethonium is to be avoided, rocuronium can be considered the paralytic agent of choice, and sugammadex can be successfully used for reversal of neuromuscular blockade.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient has given her consent for her clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patient understands that name and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Noth I, Strek ME, Leff AR. Churg-Strauss syndrome. Lancet 2003;361:587-94.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Liu MM, Reidy AB, Saatee S, Collard CD. Perioperative steroid management: Approaches based on current evidence. Anesthesiology 2017;127:166-72.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Marret E, Rolin M, Beaussier M, Bonnet F. Meta-analysis of intravenous lidocaine and postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 2008;95:1331-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Im HS, Cho KR, Shin CM, Kim YJ, Choe YK, Cheong SH, et al. A patient with Churg-Strauss syndrome who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery under general anesthesia – A case report. Korean J Anesthesiol 2010;59:49-52.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Gurjar M, Bhatnagar S, Mishra S, Jain V, Singhal AK. A case of Churg-Strauss syndrome undergoing radical mastectomy under general anaesthesia and thoracic epidural analgesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006;23:980-2.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Taylor BL, Whittaker M, Van Heerden V, Britten J. Cholinesterase deficiency and the Churg-Strauss syndrome. Anaesthesia 1990;45:649-52.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed300    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded102    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal