H. Menke

Bio: H. Menke is an academic researcher from University of Mainz. The author has contributed to research in topics: Perioperative & Elective surgery. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 22 publications receiving 264 citations.

[Preoperative risk assessment with the ASA classification. A prospective study of morbidity and mortality in various ASA classes in 2,937 patients in general surgery]

Abstract: The value of ASA classification in assessment of perioperative risk, ie especially postoperative morbidity, was analyzed prospectively using the data of 2937 patients The analysis took into account the criteria validity, reliability, and sensitivity The incidence of post-operative morbidity after elective surgery rose from 39% in ASA class I to 36% in ASA class IV Mortality was 06% in ASA class II, whereas 93% died in ASA class IV Morbidity, mortality respectively, after emergency surgery was 102% in ASA class II compared to 69% in class IV, mortality 14% compared to 215% Differences between the ASA classes were confirmed (p-value < 005) considering separate kinds of complications and different periods Furthermore, ASA classification was a valuable reference to length of stay and severity of necessary therapy at the ICU

Histamine release during induction of anaesthesia and preparation for operation in patients undergoing general surgery: Incidence and clinically severe cases

Abstract: Histamine release events were shown in a prospective randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing elective general surgery with an extraordinarily high incidence: 73 per cent. This high incidence was explained by several factors: — the sample size which was much greater than in previous studies — the improved plasma histamine assay — the precise definition of histamine release in clinical conditions and its measurement at the top of Bateman functions — the standardized induction of anaesthesia and preparation of the surgical patient — and finally the considerable number of cancer patients since more than 60% of the reactions >5 ng/ml occurred in this group which comprised only 20% of the study population. Two cases of life-threatening anaphylactoid reactions occurred in this trial corresponding to an incidence of 1 per cent. This was — again — very high compared to previous epidemiological studies. Both cases were again cancer patients and occurred in the placebo group — information given by the external study advisory group for further treatment of the individual patient. The data on the high incidence of histamine release including the high incidence of life-threatening reactions favourrationally a preoperative H1 −+H2-prophylaxis with the drugs used in this study: dimetindene and cimetidine. The question of the incidence was one of the unsettled problems which led to this trial. Analysis of the first 180 patients already answered this question more than we had ever expected.

Perioperative nonspecific histamine release: a new classification by aetiological mechanisms and evaluation of their clinical relevance Liberation periop6ratoire non specifique d'histamine causes anesthesiques et non anesthesiques

Abstract: As a consequence of the performance of a randomized controlled clinical trial on perioperative histamine release and cardiovascular and respiratory disturbances, several types of increases in plasma histamine had to be distinguished instead of only two which existed at the beginning of the study: drug-induced allergic and pseudoallergic reactions. First of all, the new classification by aetiology (clinical epidemiology) was derived from a meta-analysis (secondary analysis) of the most recent literature. According to that histamine release in the perioperative period has several, different causes and is involved in several, different disease manifestations. A clear distinction (classification), however, is necessary if histamine release as an unwanted (adverse) effect has to be recognized, value judged according to its clinical relevance and therefore also prevented by histamine antagonists. Histamine release by neuro-endocrine and neuro-inflammatory mechanisms, cytotoxic histamine release and local, cytokine induced histamine release have been distinguished from pseudoallergic histamine release, but its functions are not yet clear. It has been analysed in prospective trials which used special clinical situations as models: patients on a normal ward or before and during upper GI endoscopy without premedication, but also in specific phases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (trocar phase and dissection phase). Their existence in the clinical reality is now very likely, but new trials must investigate the pathophysiological effects such as in metabolism, coagulation, pulmonary haemodynamics (shunt volume) and gastric acid secretion. Histamine release by pseudoallergic mechanisms, however, was identified in the very vulnerable post-induction phase of anaesthesia up to skin incision. Its incidence was much higher than ever expected and its clinical relevance was demonstrated by the severity of reactions and the intervention strategies of the anaesthetists who were blinded concerning the type of the plasma substitute given and the prophylaxis with antihistamines. Pseudoallergic histamine release was clearly unwanted (adverse). Its occurrence in the other phases of anaesthesia has to be further evaluated in the tedious procedure of data analysis of the Mainz-Marburg-trial. The overall incidence of histamine release in the trial was so incredible high (72% of all patients, some of them with up to 4 episodes of histamine release) that a distinction between pseudoallergic (unwanted) and other types of histamine release (possibly less unwanted or even beneficial) is urgently needed. In the phase of steady state (maintenance) of anaesthesia the H1-(+)H2-prophylaxis was highly effective. Further analysis must show whether this is also the case during the phases of induction of anesthesia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Perioperative nonspecific histamine release: a new classification by aetiological mechanisms and evaluation of their clinical relevance.

Abstract: As a consequence of the performance of a randomized controlled clinical trial on perioperative histamine release and cardiovascular and respiratory disturbances, several types of increases in plasma histamine had to be distinguished instead of only two which existed at the beginning of the study: drug-induced allergic and pseudoallergic reactions. First of all, the new classification by aetiology (clinical epidemiology) was derived from a meta-analysis (secondary analysis) of the most recent literature. According to that histamine release in the perioperative period has several, different causes and is involved in several, different disease manifestations. A clear distinction (classification), however, is necessary if histamine release as an unwanted (adverse) effect has to be recognized, value judged according to its clinical relevance and therefore also prevented by histamine antagonists. Histamine release by neuro-endocrine and neuro-inflammatory mechanisms, cytotoxic histamine release and local, cytokine induced histamine release have been distinguished from pseudoallergic histamine release, but its functions are not yet clear. It has been analysed in prospective trials which used special clinical situations as models: patients on a normal ward or before and during upper GI endoscopy without premedication, but also in specific phases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (trocar phase and dissection phase). Their existence in the clinical reality is now very likely, but new trials must investigate the pathophysiological effects such as in metabolism, coagulation, pulmonary haemodynamics (shunt volume) and gastric acid secretion. Histamine release by pseudoallergic mechanisms, however, was identified in the very vulnerable post-induction phase of anaesthesia up to skin incision. Its incidence was much higher than ever expected and its clinical relevance was demonstrated by the severity of reactions and the intervention strategies of the anaesthetists who were blinded concerning the type of the plasma substitute given and the prophylaxis with antihistamines. Pseudoallergic histamine release was clearly unwanted (adverse). Its occurrence in the other phases of anaesthesia has to be further evaluated in the tedious procedure of data analysis of the Mainz-Marburg-trial. The overall incidence of histamine release in the trial was so incredible high (72% of all patients, some of them with up to 4 episodes of histamine release) that a distinction between pseudoallergic (unwanted) and other types of histamine release (possibly less unwanted or even beneficial) is urgently needed. In the phase of steady state (maintenance) of anaesthesia the H1-(+)H2-prophylaxis was highly effective. Further analysis must show whether this is also the case during the phases of induction of anesthesia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Allergic reactions occurring during anaesthesia

Abstract: Anaphylactic reactions to anaesthetic and associated agents used during the perioperative period have been reported with increasing frequency in most developed countries. Any drug administered in the perioperative period can potentially produce life-threatening immune-mediated anaphylaxis. Most published reports on the incidence of anaphylaxis come from France, Australia, the UK and New Zealand. These reflect an active policy of systematic clinical and/or laboratory investigation of suspected immune-mediated reactions. The estimated incidence of anaphylaxis ranges from 1:10,000 to 1:20,000. Muscle relaxants (69.1%) and latex (12.1%) were the most frequently involved drugs according to the most recent French epidemiological survey. Clinical symptoms do not afford an easy distinction between immune-mediated anaphylactic reactions and anaphylactoid reactions resulting from direct non-specific histamine release. Moreover, when restricted to a single clinical symptom, anaphylaxis can easily be misdiagnosed. Pre- and postoperative investigation must be performed to confirm the nature of the reaction, the responsibility of the suspected drugs and to provide precise recommendations for future anaesthetic procedures. These include plasma histamine, tryptase and specific IgE concentration determination at the time of the reaction and at skin tests 6 weeks later. In addition, since no specific treatment has been shown reliably to prevent the occurrence of anaphylaxis, allergy assessment must be performed in all high-risk patients. Treatment of anaphylaxis is aimed at interrupting contact with the responsible antigen, inhibiting mediator production and release, and modulating the effects of released mediators. It must be initiated as quickly as possible and relies on widely accepted principles. Finally, the need for proper epidemiological studies and the relative complexity of allergy investigation should be underscored. They represent an incentive for further development of allergo-anaesthesiology clinical networks to provide expert advice for anaesthetists and allergologists.