Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 13, 2026

Basophil Activation Test for Allergy Diagnosis
Published on: May 31, 2021
Usefulness of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosis of Sugammadex-Induced Anaphylaxis
Tatsuo Horiuchi1, Akihiko Yokohama2, Masaki Orihara1
1From the Department of Anesthesiology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan.
Background:
Sugammadex is used to reverse the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents in many cases of general anesthesia. However, there are several reports of anaphylaxis after its use. Skin testing is the gold standard for detecting the causative agent of anaphylaxis. However, due to the lack of validated protocols for skin testing with sugammadex, the diagnostic accuracy might be inadequate. Recently, the basophil activation test (BAT) has been established as a tool to detect the causative agent of anaphylaxis with high sensitivity and specificity. However, few studies have investigated the utility of the BAT for sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis.
Methods:
Eight patients who presented with immediate hypersensitivity to sugammadex during general anesthesia were included in this study. We conducted skin tests to confirm the diagnosis of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. Twenty-one sugammadex-naive individuals who had a negative skin test for allergy to this drug were enrolled as controls. Basophils were selected on a CD3/CRTH2 gate and labeled with CD63 and CD203c.
Results:
The ratios of activated basophils in the patients were much higher than those in controls: the median values of areas under the curves in the patients and controls for CD203c were 1,265,985 (95% confidence interval [CI], 77,580-5,040,270) and 116,325 (95% CI, -268,605 to 232,690), respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .01), and the areas under the curves in the patients and controls for CD63 were 788,647 (95% CI, 120,285-3,523,410) and 220,005 (95% CI, -50,346 to 404,680), respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .01). The patients, but not controls, demonstrated clear dose-dependent CD203c upregulation. This was also true for CD63. In the case of CD203c, the sensitivity of the BAT for sugammadex was 88% (95% CI, 47%-100%), and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%), while sensitivity and specificity for CD63 were 75% (95% CI, 35%-97%) and 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%), respectively.
Conclusions:
The BAT seems to have comparable accuracy to skin tests for the diagnosis of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. For this purpose, both CD203c and CD63 can be used to detect activated basophils.
Related Concept Videos
Allergic Reactions: Anaphylaxis
Nursing Diagnosis
The nursing diagnosis focuses on evidence-based...
Formulating and Validating Nursing Diagnosis I
There are thirteen domains...
Documentation of Nursing Diagnosis
In some settings, data-driven computerized decision support systems are in place, allowing for more accurate nursing diagnoses. The database within one of these systems includes diagnostic labels defining characteristics, activities, and indicators for nursing. A nurse enters...
Formulating and Validating Nursing Diagnosis II
Risk nursing diagnoses represent clinical judgments of an individual, family, or community more vulnerable to developing the health problem than others...
Diabetes: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Complications

