Neostigmine: Timing and dosing in 2016

Routine administration of neostigmine after recovery of spontaneous breathing versus neuromuscular monitor-guided administration of neostigmine in pediatric patients: a parallel, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Neostigmine used to reverse the muscle relaxants should be guided by neuromuscular monitoring, as the degree of spontaneous pre-reversal recovery is the key to success to reverse the neuromuscular block. But neuromuscular monitoring is not always available for some patients during anesthesia and, in consequence, we need to use other clinical judgment to guide the use of neostigmine to reverse the neuromuscular block. In this trial, we aimed to evaluate the incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade (rNMB) in pediatric patients with routine use of neostigmine after recovery of spontaneous breathing compared with the patients with the use of neostigmine guided by neuromuscular monitoring.

METHODS

A parallel, randomized, controlled noninferiority study was conducted. We enrolled aged 3 months to 12 years old patients who underwent inguinal hernia repair under general anesthesia. The enrolled patients were randomly divided into experimental and control groups. After surgery, children in the experimental group were given 0.02 mg/kg neostigmine after recovery of spontaneous breathing. Children in the control group were given 0.02 mg/kg neostigmine when the train-of-four (TOF) ratio was between 0.4 and 0.9. However, no neostigmine was administered if the TOF ratio was higher than 0.9. The primary outcome was the incidence of rNMB after extubation (TOF ratio < 0.9). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of neostigmine-induced muscle paralysis, end of surgery - extubation interval, end of surgery - exit OR interval, the length of stay in the PACU, the incidence of hypoxia in the PACU, the number of children who required assisted ventilation during the PACU stay, and neostigmine-related adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 120 children were included in this study, with 60 in the experimental group and 60 in the control group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of rNMB after extubation between the groups (45/60 vs 44/60, RR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.26], p = 0.84). There was no neostigmine-induced muscle paralysis in either group. Adverse events were similar occurred in both groups. However, time from end of the surgery to leaving the operating room was earlier in the experimental group than in the control group (13.6 ± 5.2 vs 15.7 ± 5.6 min, MD -2.10 min [95% CI, -3.70 to -0.50], p = 0.04). The risk ratio of the incidence of TOF ratio < 0.3 for the experimental group was 31.12 (95%CI, 1.89 to 512.61) compared with the control group (12/60 vs 0/60, p = 0.00) in exploratory analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Recovery of spontaneous breathing could be used as a substitute of neuromuscular monitoring to guide neostigmine use in pediatric patients following minor surgeries. However, care should be taken for the residual neuromuscular block.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-IOR-17012890. Registered on 5 October 2017.

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

INTRODUCTION

Sugammadex rapidly reverses the effects of rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade (NMB), offering a more complete and predictable NMB recovery than cholinesterase inhibitors. Despite clinical benefits, cost pressures on hospital budgets influence the choice of the NMB reversal method. This study evaluated clinical and healthcare system payer's budget impacts associated with sugammadex in the US for routine reversal of moderate or deep rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced NMB in adults undergoing surgery.

METHODS

A 1-year decision analytic model was constructed reflecting a set of procedures using rocuronium or vecuronium that resulted in moderate or deep NMB at the end of surgery. Two scenarios were considered for a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients: without sugammadex versus with sugammadex. Comparators included neostigmine (+glycopyrrolate) and no neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs). Total costs (in 2019 US dollars) to a healthcare system [net of costs of reversal agents and overall cost offsets via reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC)] were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 9971 surgical procedures utilized rocuronium or vecuronium, resulting in moderate (91.0% of cases) or deep (9.0%) blockade at the end of surgeries. In the with sugammadex scenario, sugammadex replaced neostigmine in 4156 of 9585 procedures versus the without sugammadex scenario that used only neostigmine for NMB reversal. Introducing sugammadex reduced PPC events by 12% (58 cases) among the modeled procedures, leading to a budget impact of -$3,079,703 (-$309 per modeled procedure, or a 10.9% reduction in total costs). The results did not vary qualitatively in one-way sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The additional costs of sugammadex for the reversal of rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced NMB could be offset by improved outcomes (i.e., reduced PPC events), and potentially lead to overall healthcare budgetary savings versus reversal with neostigmine or spontaneous recovery. This study provides insights into savings that can be obtained beyond the anesthesia budget, reducing the broader clinical and budgetary burden on the hospital.

Reevaluation and update on efficacy and safety of neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade

Postoperative residual neuromuscular block is a serious threat which endangers the patient safety. Neostigmine has been the most commonly used anticholinesterase for the pharmacological reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Although newer agents have been introduced recently, neostigmine has some irreplaceable advantages, including broad-spectrum reversal of all nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drugs, low cost, and availability of more related data for clinical practice to refer to. Neostigmine is also noticed to have some drawbacks, such as the inability to reverse profound and deep blockade, potential induction of muscle weakness, cardiovascular adverse effects, and so on. Data on the usage of neostigmine in the geriatric and the pediatric population are still insufficient. Some discrepancies are observed in the results from previous studies which need further investigation. However, recent studies offer some renewed information. Regarding both efficacy and safety, the key for successful reversal of neuromuscular blockade is to use neostigmine “appropriately,” optimizing the dosage and timing of administration under close monitoring.