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

Sugammadex Safely Reduces Total Intubation Time in the Intensive Care Unit Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) at a Real-World Community Hospital

Background/Objectives: Early extubation is crucial for enhancing recovery from coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Residual neuromuscular blockade (NMB) effects can hinder early extubation, potentially leading to reintubation, lung infection, and prolonged post-anesthesia stay. Sugammadex, a modified gamma-cyclodextrin, reverses the non-depolarizing NMB effects of the steroidal muscle relaxants rocuronium and vecuronium. The American Society of Anesthesiologists recommends sugammadex administration when patients display a train-of-four (TOF) ratio of less than 0.9. Previous studies show that sugammadex decreases extubation times, reduces postoperative complications, and enhances patient comfort. Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated the efficacy of sugammadex in achieving extubation within six hours of intensive care unit (ICU) arrival post-CABG, defined as fast-track extubation (FTE). Results: Here, we report that although the total time of intubation in the ICU following CABG did not drop to the six-hour benchmark, it was substantially reduced by the administration of sugammadex in accordance with an FTE protocol. Furthermore, the risks of adverse events (e.g., anaphylaxis, heart failure) and postoperative complications (e.g., acidemia, hypoxemia, tachypnea) were unaltered. Conclusions: The use of sugammadex could, thus, reduce costs associated with prolonged intubation time and related complications without increasing morbidity or mortality.

Current evidence on the use of sugammadex for neuromuscular blockade antagonism during electroconvulsive therapy: a narrative review

Depression is a common mental health problem that is associated with significant disability and mortality. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been demonstrated to be effective at resolving expression of suicidal intent in patients with depression. In less acute situations, patients are usually referred for ECT after several medication trials. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are used to block tonic-clonic motor activity and associated physical harm during the delivery of ECT. Succinylcholine (Sch), with its rapid onset of muscle relaxation, short self-terminating duration of action, and rapid subsequent return of spontaneous ventilation, is the NMBA of choice for ECT. However, the use of Sch is problematic or contraindicated is some situations. Although non-depolarizing NMBAs can be used, the variable time to onset of adequate muscle relaxation and prolonged duration of action have limited their widespread acceptance as alternatives to Sch. Recently, however, with the widespread availability of sugammadex, a chemically modified γ-cyclodextrin that rapidly and predictably reverses the effect of non-depolarizing NMBAs, the muscle relaxation achieved by rocuronium can predictably and effectively be reversed. In situations where Sch is contraindicated or otherwise problematic, rocuronium, followed by pharmacological antagonism with sugammadex, can provide a safe and effective muscle relaxation approach comparable to that of Sch in terms of duration of action. This review provides a summary of the current state of evidence for the use of sugammadex during ECT, which should lend support to further acceptance and future studies of sugammadex in the context of ECT.

Perioperative efficiency of sugammadex following minimally invasive gastric sleeve surgery: A superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Studies have proposed that the routine use of sugammadex could provide perioperative time savings and a reduction in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of sugammadex on perioperative times and on the incidences of adverse events when compared with the active control, neostigmine, for minimally invasive gastric sleeve surgery.

METHODS

Following institutional review board approval, patient characteristics, type of primary neuromuscular blocking reversal agents, operating room discharge times, post-anaesthesia care unit recovery times, and incidences of and treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting and orotracheal reintubation were the measures of interest. Superiority testing determined the between-group means differences of the reversal agents on the two perioperative time periods of interest.

RESULTS

Superiority testing demonstrated no improvement of the two perioperative times with sugammadex. There was no clinical difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting or in the number of antiemetic doses received in the post-anaesthesia care unit between the two groups. Finally, the two orotracheal reintubations in the post-anaesthesia care unit were in the sugammadex administered group.

CONCLUSION

These results with sugammadex provide no perioperative time savings or reduce the incidence and treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting in the post-anaesthesia care unit when compared with neostigmine.

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.