A Clinical and Budgetary Impact Analysis of Introducing Sugammadex for Routine Reversal of Neuromuscular Blockade in a Hypothetical Cohort in the US

Cost-Effectiveness of Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine to Reverse Neuromuscular Blockade in a University Hospital in Taiwan: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Sugammadex has several pharmacological advantages over neostigmine, including faster reversal of neuromuscular blockade and fewer adverse effects. However, the economic impact of sugammadex remains controversial due to the considerable heterogeneity of study designs and clinical settings in previous studies. In a post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, we evaluated patients who underwent elective surgeries and general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation in a medical center in Taiwan between March 2020 and August 2020. Patients were divided into either the sugammadex or neostigmine group based on the neuromuscular blocking drug used. Propensity score matching was used to balance the baseline patient characteristics between the two groups. The patient’s recovery from anesthesia and the putative cost-effectiveness of sugammadex versus neostigmine was assessed. Derived cost-effectiveness using personnel costs in the operating room and the post-anesthesia care unit was estimated using multiple linear regression models. A total of 2587 and 1784 patients were included before and after matching, respectively. Time to endotracheal extubation was significantly shorter in the sugammadex group (mean 6.0 ± standard deviation 5.3 min) compared with the neostigmine group (6.6 ± 6.3 min; p = 0.0032). In addition, the incidence of bradycardia was significantly lower in the sugammadex group (10.2%) compared with the neostigmine group (16.9%; p < 0.001). However, the total costs were significantly lower in the neostigmine group (50.6 ± 21.4 United States dollars) compared with the sugammadex group (212.0 ± 49.5 United States dollars). Despite improving postoperative recovery, the benefits of sugammadex did not outweigh its higher costs compared with neostigmine, possibly due to the low costs of labor in Taiwan’s healthcare system.

Pro-Con Debate: Do We Need Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring in the Era of Sugammadex?

In this Pro-Con article, we debate the merits of using quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring. Consensus guidelines recommend their use to guide the administration of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade and reversal agents. A major impediment to this guideline is that until recently, reliable quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitors have not been widely available. Without them, anesthesia providers have been trained with and are adept at using a variety of qualitative neuromuscular blockade monitors otherwise known as peripheral nerve stimulators. Although perhaps less accurate, anesthesia providers find them reliable and easy to use. They have a long track record of using them with the perception that their use leads to effective neuromuscular blockade reversal and minimizes clinically significant adverse events from residual neuromuscular blockade. In the recent past, 2 disruptive developments have called upon anesthesia care providers to reconsider their practice in neuromuscular blockade administration, reversal, and monitoring. These include: (1) commercialization of more reliable quantitative neuromuscular monitors and (2) widespread use of sugammadex, a versatile reversal agent of neuromuscular blockade. Sugammadex appears to be so effective at rapidly and effectively reversing even the deepest of neuromuscular blockades, and it has left anesthesia providers wondering whether quantitative monitoring is indeed necessary or whether conventional, familiar, and less expensive qualitative monitoring will suffice? This Pro-Con debate will contrast anesthesia provider perceptions with evidence surrounding the use of quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitors to explore whether quantitative neuromuscular monitoring (NMM) is just another technology solution looking for a problem or a significant advance in NMM that will improve patient safety and outcomes.

Perioperative Efficiency of Sugammadex Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Clinical Practice

Background: Studies have proposed that the routine use of the modified gamma-cyclodextrin, sugammadex, could provide perioperative time savings. However, these investigations have been limited to small group analyses. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of sugammadex on perioperative times when compared to neostigmine under general clinical practice conditions following rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: Following institutional review board approval, data from 1,611 consecutive surgical records for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were reviewed. Patient characteristics, type of primary neuromuscular blocking reversal agent, operating room (OR) discharge times, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) recovery times were the measures of interest. Equivalence testing was used to determine the between-group differences of the reversal agents in the two perioperative time periods of interest. Results: OR discharge times averaged 10.9 (95% CI, 10-11.8) minutes for patients administered sugammadex and 8.9 (95% CI, 8.2-9.7) minutes for patients administered neostigmine. PACU recovery times averaged 77.6 (95% CI, 74.1-81.1) minutes for sugammadex and 68.6 (95% CI, 65.9-71.3) minutes for neostigmine. Equivalence testing demonstrated no improvement in the two perioperative times with sugammadex. Conclusion: These results suggest no perioperative time savings with sugammadex when compared to neostigmine following laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general clinical practice conditions.