↓ Skip to main content

Required cefazolin concentration to maximize diagnostic accuracy of the basophil activation test for cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anesthesia, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Required cefazolin concentration to maximize diagnostic accuracy of the basophil activation test for cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00540-018-2555-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatsuo Horiuchi, Tomonori Takazawa, Masaki Orihara, Shinya Sakamoto, Akihiko Yokohama, Junko Takahashi, Akihiro Tomioka, Nagahide Yoshida, Kazuaki Hagiwara, Shigeru Saito

Abstract

Identifying the causative agent of perioperative anaphylaxis is key to preventing its recurrence. Besides skin testing, the basophil activation test (BAT) is increasingly being accepted as an additional and reliable method. Cefazolin seems to be a major cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. However, few studies have described use of the BAT for cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis. In this study, we aimed to determine the optimum cefazolin concentration required in the BAT for an accurate diagnosis. Seven patients who presented with immediate hypersensitivity to cefazolin and 21 control subjects were studied. We conducted skin tests and performed BATs using both CD203c and CD63 as markers of activated basophils. We measured the ratio of activated basophils after stimulation with serial dilutions of cefazolin and investigated the cefazolin concentration that resulted in better sensitivity and specificity. All patients demonstrated positive reactions to cefazolin, while all control subjects showed negative reactions on skin tests. The net percentage of both CD203c- and CD63-labeled activated basophils was greater when higher concentrations of cefazolin than previously reported were used. In control subjects, however, the number of activated basophils by cefazolin stimulation was negligible regardless of its concentration. In the case of CD203c, the sensitivity was 86% with a cefazolin concentration of 3 mg/ml, while in the case of CD63, the sensitivity was 100% with a cefazolin concentration of 10 mg/ml. Using a higher concentration of cefazolin than previously reported for the BAT might increase the accuracy of diagnosis of cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Other 2 22%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 11%
Engineering 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,533,782
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#702
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,102
of 341,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.